erice Wrote:Hambone10 Wrote:Sorry e... I assumed you wanted debate... If you think McCain = Bush, then there really isn't anything to discuss.
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I simply referenced the Bush Doctrine. Where did I say McCain = Bush? I'd take McCain over Bush in a heartbeat. (I did say Palin = Bush earlier...?)
Sorry... its so close to the mantra its hard to distinguish... but still... what does "the bush Doctrine" mean?? Especially in that the person who coined the Phrase, thus defining (at least for these purposes) what the Doctrine was... has said that Couric got it wrong... she mis-defined it herself. I don't know what "The Bush Doctrine" is, and I suspect you don't either. Until he puts out a paper saying "This is my Doctrine", it is simply someone's PERCEPTION of what he has tried to accomplish. For the purpose of the question, "The Bush Doctrine" is a media talking point.
Palin isn't Bush either. Her views on personal morality and conduct aren't mine either... but those aren't really the major issues of the day... and she isn't a former president's daughter... nor is she rich... NOR, for that matter, is she running for President... Nor did HE have a record of challenging his party as she does...
Quote:Hambone10 Wrote:My point was... You said you're not impressed and think it showed a lack of judgement on McCain's part to pick her. In honesty, you think McCain = Bush... so he could have picked anyone short of Hillary, and it probably wouldn't have swayed you...
I'll certainly admit that McCain's pick for VP couldn't possibly have swayed my vote in November. But he could have picked plenty of other candidates (Pawlenty, Romney, even Giuliani) without causing me to question his judgment. They're all highly intelligent, qualified people with whom I disagree on quite a few policy issues. As is McCain. From what I've seen so far of Palin, she isn't.
Which is exactly why I said... perhaps if you'd been to Alaska... If you'd lived under ONE set of rules, and then lived under hers... Intelligence can be measured in a number of ways... and honestly... exceptionally smart people think they have the answers... but they may not have the answers for ME. The people of Alaska found someone who understands THEIR needs... not because she is smarter than they are, but because she has the same issues. One can ALWAYS hire smart people to get answers. I want someone who understands what legislation written by all of these supposedly smart people does to my family.
Quote:Hambone10 Wrote:erice Wrote:Hambone10 Wrote:McCain only recently questioned Obama's experience... and generally only in Foriegn policy... maybe energy.
Now that's just silly. The experience question was the single most important reason McCain was closing the gap on Obama prior to the conventions. Quotes of McCain questioning Obama's experience are easy to find...
Re-read my quote. Only on national security issues has McCain really questioned his experience. Biden is the one who said he wasn't qualified to lead... generally... not just in National Security issues.
Okay... I re-read your quote. You said McCain only recently questioned Obama's experience... and generally only in foreign policy. (emphasis added)
I wasn't arguing against your point that it was "only in foreign policy"... I was pointing out that it wasn't "only recently". It's been going on for many months. Had you said "or" instead of "and" I wouldn't have countered it.
Obama made a statement that (in at least my, and JMC's view) showed his complete lack of understanding of military operations... the timetable... McCain was asked about it... He responded...
That is very far from Biden's comment a few months ago that Obama was inexperienced and unqualified to be President. The complaint about Palin isn't that she was a poor choice because she is inexperienced in foriegn policy... it is that she is inexperienced and unqualified to be President. McCain has NEVER said that Obama was inxperienced and unqualified to be President... so the fact that he doesn't see Palin as inexperienced and unqualified to be President isn't inconsistent... which is what you originally claimed... or you said the democrats you talked to said... My using and instead of or on a post in a long thread doesn't change the reality that McCain has NEVER said Obama wasn't qualified to be President... and CERTAINLY not VP.
Quote:Hambone10 Wrote:erice Wrote:If that were really the reason McCain and Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq, you'd have a strong point. But it wasn't.
Wow... McCain and Bush... and Biden and 99% of Congress.... plus the vast majority of America. Why are we discussing Bush?? Oh yeah... because Democrats think its a convincing argument about McCain.
Come on. The Bush administration convinced us to go to war with Iraq primarily over WMD's. More broadly, to protect us from an imminent threat. Remember Condi's "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"? They sent Powell to the UN to convince them Iraq was a threat to the rest of the world, not to its own people. What Hussein did to Iraqis was mentioned on many occasions to bolster the case, but it's just not reasonable to look back and say that was the primary reason we went to war with Iraq.
[/quote]
Let's not rehash this debate... He certainly said... he's done it to his own people... that is why we fear he will do it to others... or supply it to people like those who committed 9/11. Despite the 1992 treaty and the 46 or whatever re-affirming resolutions, he isn't complying with the international demand that he PROVE he has no WMD.
The ONLY reason he (or Clinton) NEEDED to take us to war was that they were in violation of the 1992 treaty. He violated those terms, and we could have started bombing the first time he kept inspectors out of a room. The inspectors were looking for WMD, and being kept out of rooms/buildings. It may have been the straw that broke the camels back... but it wasn't the "reason". If not for the 1992 treaty violation and the barring of the inspectors, his having WMD would not have by itself justified an invasion.
You are free to view it differently, or think that violating a cease-fire isn't enough grounds for the resumption of hostilities, but that doesn't make it legally correct. EVERYONE thought he had WMD. Hans Blix thought he had them... and Saddam confirmed that it was his goal that everyone think that. While this same fear existed before 9/11, I don't think anyone anticipated how vulnerable we were... or how devastating a WMD in Iraq could be to us on 9/10... not even necessarily because Iraq would use them on us... but because they support terrorism in other places financially, and we are trying to enforce sanctions on them... there is no reason to think they wouldn't support terrorism against the US financially... and perhaps with materials. Sure, that is my take on it... but we weren't going for a 51% vote in the UN... we needed 100%
FTR, 75 never said it was the only reason, or even that it was the most important reason... Only that if preventing Genocide was a reason to invade, then Obama would have supported invading Iraq much sooner.