John McCain: What Went Wrong?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Everyone knows the Dems are a bunch of pussies.

I am not a Dem in any which way you look at it but I tend to think they are less weak and more just misguided for the most part. Maybe I am naive on this but I can't see someone like Jim Webb(Dem Va Senator whom I did not vote for) being weak. Maybe I don't think he is right but I think he'd kick just about any ass he wanted to if he thought he needed to.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I know several people who have been there for several tours. They all say that morale overall isn't low. In fact it has been strangely positive for the most part. Those with low morale supposedly are the malcontents.

As for the Iraqis I was told that the everyday Iragi folk WANT us there. They love that we have tried to help them. They realize we aren't the one CAUSING the problems we have just done a crappy job of solving the problems.

We have to remember that these people have everything going against them.

-They come from a area with a culture that lends itself to totalitarianism.
-They have been ruled with an iron fist for centuries.
-There are insane idiots trying to maintain this type of environment.
-They have spent their entire lives just trying to stay out of trouble and survive.

No where in there is there even a hint of ability to stand up and defend themselves. We shouldn't have expected that we could go in and simply remove a dictator and they would then firgure out what to do. They have no clue. That's what we screwed up. To intimate that it can't be won is silly though. It will just take a long long long long long time. We almost will have to wait until the next generation of Iraqis are grown and ready to take over. I can quibble with our expectations for the war and how we went about it but at this point leaving is the most coward thing we could do.

Whatever happened to Americans nutting up and getting the job done? Being hard workers who did what it took to finish a job, even if everyone in charge is screwing the pooch. I am not saying the bashing of Bush is unwarranted because it isn't I am saying that we need to decide as a country that we are not going to pussyfoot around this type of stuff. We're in it and we need to finish the job whether it takes 18 months or 18 years or 500 years. We're the f*cking USA and we're acting like a bunch of little scared twerps.

I know it isn't a popular war and many think we shouldn't be there but that is irrelevant because we ARE there. That horse has left the barn. Now we have to figure out what to do about it. We have only two options. Stay and finish the job or leave. To me leaving is just plain wrong. We started this mess and should finish it. Leaving now or any time before Iraq is ready emboldens enemy and leaves Iraqis hung out to dry. To me that is a bigger crime than anything. Leaving them to fend for themselves is tantamount to leaving a 4 year old in the middle of the woods in winter. It's our job now and we should finish it.

But here's where the Dems and Repubs split. In fact, here's where some Repubs and other Repubs disagree. What does finish acutally look like? Is is it a matter of duration? Are we looking for the number of casualties to subside? Are we looking for certain 'heads' to be removed and or captured? What will order look like for Iraq? And the bigger question is how long will it take? If someone said, it may take another 5-7 years to get things on track, do we have the wherewithal to undertake such a task?

Are we actually waiting for a complete and absolute presence of peace and cease fire before we say we've won the war on terror? I don't know the answers to those questions and many of our politicians are grappling with the same thing.

Look, many of the Dems are saying if we 'stay the course', as it were, are we just saying we waited as long as we could to satisfy both sides of the aisle. I think the argument for pulling out is, whether it's now or later, much isn't going to improve. So let's salvage what we have and begin to draw down the troop levels.

[RobH4413]

John McCain is simply playing politics.

He wants to become president, and to do so, he needs to win the primary nomination. If you notice, ever since he's been speculated to run, his policies have begun to shift towards the right. Duh, you can't win a Republican primary if your not very Republican.

5-10 years ago John McCain was a rebel. It would seem that he would cross party lines over and over on certain issues. You really couldn't predict how he would feel about things. On one hand, he takes a strong pro-life stand, a spitting image of a right winger. However, he has been known to eliminate pork from bills going through the house. Here's a good article if you don't know what I'm talking about.

McCain Calls to Reform Pork Barrel Politics - washingtonpost.com

He's trying to convince the Republicans that he's not going to abandon the party platform, or isolate the Republicans... especially with the new liberal swing in congress.

To do this, He's done several uncharacteristically John McCain moves. First off, he's taken a strong opposition to gay marriage (his biggest flaw IMO). Secondly, He's supporting a surge in troops adamantly, even going as far as saying that the new plan is working ( and some initial signs suggest that he may be right). He's trying to get into the public eye and win the approval of the Republicans (and not necessarily the American people... yet).

Right now it's waayyy to early to count McCain out, but his lack of fund-raising isn't promising.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

But here's where the Dems and Repubs split. In fact, here's where some Repubs and other Repubs disagree. What does finish acutally look like? Is is it a matter of duration? Are we looking for the number of casualties to subside? Are we looking for certain 'heads' to be removed and or captured? What will order look like for Iraq? And the bigger question is how long will it take? If someone said, it may take another 5-7 years to get things on track, do we have the wherewithal to undertake such a task?

Are we actually waiting for a complete and absolute presence of peace and cease fire before we say we've won the war on terror? I don't know the answers to those questions and many of our politicians are grappling with the same thing.

Look, many of the Dems are saying if we 'stay the course', as it were, are we just saying we waited as long as we could to satisfy both sides of the aisle. I think the argument for pulling out is, whether it's now or later, much isn't going to improve. So let's salvage what we have and begin to draw down the troop levels.

I disagree with a lot that you're saying.

A very good friend of mine recently came home from his year long tour in Iraq and continues to think that there is a lot of promise there. The military objective isn't this abstract concept that your portraying it to be.

We're giving contracts out to the local population to help set up the infrastructure, and providing them security while they attempt to rebuild the country, while teaching the locals how to facilitate growth, and stability.

We're helping speed along the progress of businesses by making sure they have reliable resources (electric, water, gas, etc...). The thinking goes beyond beating down insurgents, beyond taking the "heads" of certain leaders.

The theory behind it is that as the economy grows, the nation will realize who are the good guys. Quite frankly, the country is sick and tired of all the fighting. They're yearning for stability, yearning for consistency. They don't deserve a surge of troops, and then a total bail out... resulting in widespread chaos.

We attacked initially, I didn't support the war in Iraq. That doesn't mean that this is anywhere close to a parallel situation. We can't fix our mistake by bailing out, we can't let these people suffer because we ****ed up. It just isn't fair.

Ultimately, like I said earlier, It's about the economy:

If there are no places to work, no stability, no direction, then the youth will turn to what's in front of them. Instead of getting a job, raising a family, and working towards a better future, there will certainly be youths joining the insurgency. The problem will rise exponentially without economic success.

Conversely, if we do succeed, there is hope for a self sustaining democratic society. This isn't a lost cause. We aren't here dicking around. There is a clear cut plausible objective, and I think most people don't realize that. They watch the news, see the death, and lump it all into one big mess.

The biggest problem my buddy from Iraq had with the media, is that they don't report all the progress that's being made. We don't see the good, and get all fussy when someone suggests that it exists.

I'm not saying that the place isn't a war zone. I'm not saying that there isn't death and killing, because there absolutely is. What I am saying, is that there is a clear cut way to win, which is supporting the economic interests and hence produce stability and a self-sustaining government.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by saden1

Everyone knows the Dems are a bunch of pussies. I agree about their half-assness.

Are you being sarcastic, because if you're not that's pretty ignorant.

All politicians are pussies. The two party system is flawed, and exists because there main goal is the sustain themselves.

When a politician is elected, his goal, from day one, is to get re-elected. By all means, corrupt or not, your job as a politician is to please your constituents and get re-elected.

That's really the biggest flaw with a representative democracy. If your electing someone, and paying them when they're elected, they'll do what they can to get re-elected. It sucks.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think the argument for pulling out is, whether it's now or later, much isn't going to improve. So let's salvage what we have and begin to draw down the troop levels.

If it's not going to improve, why don't we just leave?

The Dems know they cannot call for an immediate withdrawal without looking like a Kuccinich-esque wuss. So, out of concern for their own political necks, they let our troops slowly die over time for a cause that they themselves have already abandoned.

I disdain a lot of Bush for being so pig-headed, but I have equal disdain for the Dems who about as principled as crack-head in need of a fix.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

Are you being sarcastic, because if you're not that's pretty ignorant.

All politicians are pussies. The two party system is flawed, and exists because there main goal is the sustain themselves.

On the whole, the Dem politicians (not voters) are bigger wusses than the Republican politicians. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans have just as many flaws as the Dems, but when it comes to the wuss factor, the Dems have that market cornered. The Dems have been fighting that "wuss" label for decades....and for good reason.

For example, Clinton was the consummate Dem - he'd do anything for a few points in the polls (e.g., he actually had his minions do a poll on where he should vacation). Bush, on the other hand, could care less what is in the polls and will do whatever he thinks is right - no matter how wrong he is. Republicans are more principled in my mind, even though I disagree with most of their principles.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

If it's not going to improve, why don't we just leave?

The Dems know they cannot call for an immediate withdrawal without looking like a Kuccinich-esque wuss. So, out of concern for their own political necks, they let our troops slowly die over time for a cause that they themselves have already abandoned.

I disdain a lot of Bush for being so pig-headed, but I have equal disdain for the Dems who about as principled as crack-head in need of a fix.

The said part is that we keep putting them back in office. The American people do not care just go out and ask some people on the street whos, Chenney, Obama, Clintons I think they get more times than not, Newt etc... and you would be very surprised how many people have no clue. Then ask the ones with no clue if they are going to vote and for who?

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

On the whole, the Dems are bigger pussies than the Republicans. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans have just as many flaws as the Dems, but when it comes to the wuss factor, the Dems have that market cornered. The Dems have been fighting that "wuss" label for decades....and for good reason.

For example, Clinton was the consummate Dem - he'd do anything for a few points in the polls (e.g., he actually had his minions do a poll on where he should vacation). Bush, on the other hand, could care less what is in the polls and will do whatever he thinks is right - no matter how wrong he is. Republicans are more principled in my mind, even though I disagree with most of their principles.

What you call "wuss factor" I call understanding what kind of leadership role someone has accepted.

As a representative to lead this country, once your elected as president does that mean ignoring American opinion, and relying on the fact that you've been elected because of who you are, and that's how you'll lead.

For instance, if an issue such as making the Redskins the only team without a salary cap arouse to the president what is he to do?

Does he pay attention to what the country wants; ie using the polls to influence what his policy on the issue is going to be, or does he hold fast believing that the country elected him to make decisions, and he must make the decision that he thinks is right.

It's often a gray line politicians must balance, making policy based on there ideals vs. basing policy on what the people want. As is most cases, the best probably lies somewhere in between.

The president has been elected to represent the people, and the only real way that I know to understand what people want is by paying attention to polls.

The example you highligted points out something that isn't really a shocker. Bush relies on his "gut" to make decisions, as opposed Clinton who took into account what the country actually wanted. I guess your right, that's pretty "wussy".

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The said part is that we keep putting them back in office. The American people do not care just go out and ask some people on the street whos, Chenney, Obama, Clintons I think they get more times than not, Newt etc... and you would be very surprised how many people have no clue. Then ask the ones with no clue if they are going to vote and for who?

Well a lot of that I blame the media for. They have the opportunity to give a more unbiased opinion, and balk every time. Why? Because we don't want it. We want theater, drama, comedy, etc...

We don't really, as a country, want to hear someones policies. We want to know why Edwards is running because his wife has cancer, or why Foley likes little boys, or why Al Gore's house uses tons of energy. So much emphasis is based on slandering one another we all get confused and decide to join a team. We even go as far as waving the flag for our particular party, proud to be a Republican, proud to be a Democrat, put bumper stickers on our cars, whatever. It's ridiculous.

The media has to step up and take charge. Don't report the story that gets you the most viewers. Stop reporting what's sexy, and start reporting what's happening. The media has such a huge responsibility to encourage diligent journalism and instead has pathetically settled for the flashy animations and the aesthetically pleasing graphics and sounds. I can't even watch the news anymore, and forcing myself to read both wash times/post makes the issue so very obvious: It's not about who's right and who's wrong... it's about who spins it the best.

I guess we're all still a big nationwide popularity contest when it boils down to it, and it's disgusting. I really hope we start growing up as a country.

[dmek25]

the biggest problem, in my eyes, with politics if today is that they fail to hear what the people are saying. the vast majority want this situation( i refuse to call it a war, because when fighting a war, the object is to win) to be over, one way or another. while i disagree with our president on why we went to Iraq, there had to be a clear cut objective to succeed. does anyone know what that is? it is impossible to win at something if you cant see the finish line. its time for the Iraqi people to stand up, and be accountable for their own country. for us to think that stabilizing Iraq somehow diminishes terrorism around the world is a joke

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by dmek25

1)
the biggest problem, in my eyes, with politics if today is that they fail to hear what the people are saying. the vast majority want this situation( i refuse to call it a war, because when fighting a war, the object is to win) to be over, one way or another.

2) while i disagree with our president on why we went to Iraq, there had to be a clear cut objective to succeed. does anyone know what that is? it is impossible to win at something if you cant see the finish line. its time for the Iraqi people to stand up, and be accountable for their own country.

3)for us to think that stabilizing Iraq somehow diminishes terrorism around the world is a joke

Hey Dmek, I love reading your Redskins stuff, but I feel compelled to disagree with you here.

1) Yeah, I can kind of understand what your saying. They seem kind of like they're trying not to look bad instead of trying to voice their opinion. I think calling the war a win/lose doesn't really give truth to the situation at hand. There will be no end to terrorism, so that obviously isn't what's trying to be accomplished. There can be success, however, and as I posted earlier depends on the economic stability of the country.

2) I happened to agree with you on the section I highlighted in bold. Ultimately I was against the war from the start. There was no exit strategy, Saddam really wasn't a threat to us (why would he want to attack us, it would just get him killed), and he definitely had no links to the tali ban. In fact, a lot of the radical Muslims hated him because he was so westernized. He smoked cigars, lived eloquently, and his favorite food was "Cheeto's". It just didn't seem like a good reason to sacrifice human lives.

I don't, however, think that this debate can at all be applied to the current situation. To me it makes sense why a lot of people would want to bail out. It's frustrating to be in a war for so long, especially when a lot of us weren't for it. Right now, we need to do the smartest thing.

As far as the Iraqi people standing up for themselves, it's kind of hard when radical Islamic groups are flooding in bombing everyone, while a civil war (that we catalyzed) rages on. That's just in-humane, and inconsistent with what our country stands for, there is still progress to be made in Iraq, and it's not a lost cause.

3) I don't quite know what your reasoning behind this is. Why is it a joke to think that stabilizing a tumultuous region in the middle east will reduce terrorism?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Rob, believe it or not, but I agree with most of your observations. In particular, I agree with your observation that politicians must walk a fine line between representing the people and offering leadership. With regard to Clinton, I actually think that he was a good President, but I don't think he could ever be called a great President in light of his lack of vision. Clinton and many Dems will never be considered great so long as they base their decisions almost solely on public polls. With regard to Bush, my biggest problems with him are that (1) he has a vision, but it is unrealistic and (2) he is stubborn to a fault. I wish he would be more willing to rethink his strategies, if not his goals. I wish he was more attuned to the general public.

In my opinion, great politicians are ones who understand and represent the people, but lead (as opposed to follow) them. The great politicians is one who is what JFK called "an idealist without illusions." Bush is idealist (in that he has a great vision), but he is surrounded by illusions. The Dems might be more grounded in reality (i.e., polls), but they will never be said to have a great vision and great ideals so long as they are so wrapped up in dumb short-sighted poll results.

Iraq is a good case-study. The Dems didn't oppose Bush's war plan because the majority of the U.S. public supported it and they didn't want to get hosed like they did after opposing the first Gulf War. Now Dems talk about how they were "lied to," but that's a load of BS. I have no clue how Dems can oppose Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine and then say that they supported the invasion of Iraq because they thought we needed to preempt the threat posed by Saddam's possession of WMDs. Now that U.S. public opinion has swung against the war, they have too.

Bush, on the other hand, has been overly reluctant to engage Iran and Syria about Iraq. Bush was also overly stubborn in refusing to acknowledge the existence of an insurgency. Bush was dumb in holding onto Rumsfeld for so long. And the list goes on.

[FRPLG]

I want my politicians to understand the issues. Top to bottom, inside and out. They need to understand the problems, the potential solutions to problems and the potential problems with the solutions. Relying on the masses to direct policy is silly in many regards. The masses should direct the general direction of the country but politicians should make policy because they ARE EXPECTED TO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS. There isn't one person who is a member of this board who is even remotely qualified to make any type of national security decision. None of us have the requisite knowledge of the issues, know the problems, the solutions, the geopolitical ramifications, etc. Not to say we shouldn't have a say but politicians should never rely on the people to tell them what to do in those cases.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

Are you being sarcastic, because if you're not that's pretty ignorant.

I mean what I said about democrats. When I say a bunch of pussies I mean they put their fingers in air to test the direction of the wind and they go as the wind blows. They are gutless compared to republicans. One thing do admire about the republicans is they stick together and to the issues they want to push.

Democrats don't even know how to negotiate. When the president says I will veto everything I don't agree it's time to up the game to a new level. Take the democrat's attempt to give the Medicare program the ability to negotiate drug prices. This is a moral issue, this is a free market issue yet they will sit by and let him veto the bill and get whatever he wants.

If you're not going to compromise, you're pretty much going to get it in my book. That's how real life is. Unfortunately, the democrats are a bunch of pussies. They can't stand up and say "if you veto all of our initiatives don't even bother sending yours our way."

Simply put, democrats don't know how to play hardball. They are fragmented based on which state they are from. The only reason why the hold power now is because the republicans f'ed up.