McCain comes out for a timetable

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/McCain_offers_support_for_conditionbased_Iraq_withdrawal.html?showall

McCain will say anything if he thinks it'll get him elected President. It turns out that Kerry isn't remotely close to the biggest flip-flopper in the Senate named John.

[Keystone Phil]

It never fails to amaze me how intellectually dishonest you are, Jfern. Here's the rest of the quote:

MCCAIN: He said it's a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it's a pretty good timetable, as we should -- or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground. This success is very fragile. It's incredibly impressive, but very fragile. So we know, those of us who have been involved in it for many years, know that if we reverse this, by setting a date for withdrawal, all of the hard-won victory can be reversed.

[Flying Dog]

Well that little beacon of hope was pretty quickly extinguished. Thanks, Phil.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070303919.html

FAIL

[Keystone Phil]

But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070303919.html

FAIL

I'm sorry but what's inconsistent there?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070303919.html

FAIL

I'm sorry but what's inconsistent there?

Well, he's got exactly Obama's position. If you want to argue that Obama doesn't support a timetable, then fine, but the point is that he has Obama's position. Obama has been attacked considerably for that position by people various Republicans, including McCain. McCain is a total joke.

[Keystone Phil]

But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070303919.html

FAIL

I'm sorry but what's inconsistent there?

Well, he's got exactly Obama's position. If you want to argue that Obama doesn't support a timetable, then fine, but the point is that he has Obama's position. Obama has been attacked considerably for that position by people various Republicans, including McCain. McCain is a total joke.

Except doesn't Obama want to work towards a specific date instead of conditions based?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070303919.html

FAIL

I'm sorry but what's inconsistent there?

Well, he's got exactly Obama's position. If you want to argue that Obama doesn't support a timetable, then fine, but the point is that he has Obama's position. Obama has been attacked considerably for that position by people various Republicans, including McCain. McCain is a total joke.

Except doesn't Obama want to work towards a specific date instead of conditions based?

Nope. I wish he would just get out ASAP, but his position is fairly wishy-washy, and McCain just stole his position after attacking him for it.

[Keystone Phil]

Nope. I wish he would just get out ASAP, but his position is fairly wishy-washy, and McCain just stole his position after attacking him for it.

Well, he sort of does have a date:

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#phased-withdrawal

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nope. I wish he would just get out ASAP, but his position is fairly wishy-washy, and McCain just stole his position after attacking him for it.

Well, he sort of does have a date:

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#phased-withdrawal

I don't think he promised to get out by May 2010 no matter what.

[Keystone Phil]

Nope. I wish he would just get out ASAP, but his position is fairly wishy-washy, and McCain just stole his position after attacking him for it.

Well, he sort of does have a date:

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#phased-withdrawal

I don't think he promised to get out by May 2010 no matter what.

But this redeployment is montly based and clearly based around summer 2010.

[Everett]

Cliff's Notes should release a study guide on McCain's positions. I'm all confused now. What the hell does he actually support, anyway?

(This is why I support Cynthia McKinney.)

[Mr. Morden]

Obama's position: We should try to "withdraw" within 16 months ("withdraw" is in scare quotes, because it's not a full withdrawal, as there would still be a residual force), but I'm open to changing that as conditions merit (though he doesn't spell out what kind of conditions would cause him to suspend withdrawal).  However, a 16 month withdrawal is the goal.

McCain's position: I'm agnostic on when we should withdraw.  Would withdrawing in 16 months be OK?  Sure, if conditions merit that.  But conditions on the ground could merit something else.  (Like Obama, he doesn't explain what kind of conditions on the ground would lead to what kind of policy.)

Those aren't exactly the same, but yeah, they're kind of similar.  The big similarity is that both of them are essentially saying "I can't actually tell you what I would do wrt Iraq when I'm president, because it depends on where we are in January 2009.  So I'll provide an incredibly vague policy position, and then attack my opponent for having a somewhat different incredibly vague policy position."

[NDN]

Obama's position: We should try to "withdraw" within 16 months ("withdraw" is in scare quotes, because it's not a full withdrawal, as there would still be a residual force), but I'm open to changing that as conditions merit (though he doesn't spell out what kind of conditions would cause him to suspend withdrawal).  However, a 16 month withdrawal is the goal.

McCain's position: I'm agnostic on when we should withdraw.  Would withdrawing in 16 months be OK?  Sure, if conditions merit that.  But conditions on the ground could merit something else.  (Like Obama, he doesn't explain what kind of conditions on the ground would lead to what kind of policy.)

Those aren't exactly the same, but yeah, they're kind of similar.  The big similarity is that both of them are essentially saying "I can't actually tell you what I would do wrt Iraq when I'm president, because it depends on where we are in January 2009.  So I'll provide an incredibly vague policy position, and then attack my opponent for having a somewhat different incredibly vague policy position."

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

[NOVA Green]

I declare the war is over....

Iraqification has worked.

[Lunar]

Those aren't exactly the same, but yeah, they're kind of similar.  The big similarity is that both of them are essentially saying "I can't actually tell you what I would do wrt Iraq when I'm president, because it depends on where we are in January 2009.  So I'll provide an incredibly vague policy position, and then attack my opponent for having a somewhat different incredibly vague policy position."

To be fair, and I usually try not to be, both men know they won't be in charge of this sort of process, but rather will set the tone and direction for the commanders who actually know what they're doing. 

[NOVA Green]

Those aren't exactly the same, but yeah, they're kind of similar.  The big similarity is that both of them are essentially saying "I can't actually tell you what I would do wrt Iraq when I'm president, because it depends on where we are in January 2009.  So I'll provide an incredibly vague policy position, and then attack my opponent for having a somewhat different incredibly vague policy position."

To be fair, and I usually try not to be, both men know they won't be in charge of this sort of process, but rather will set the tone and direction for the commanders who actually know what they're doing. 

True, however they both have their respective bases to worry about.

[Lunar]

Those aren't exactly the same, but yeah, they're kind of similar.  The big similarity is that both of them are essentially saying "I can't actually tell you what I would do wrt Iraq when I'm president, because it depends on where we are in January 2009.  So I'll provide an incredibly vague policy position, and then attack my opponent for having a somewhat different incredibly vague policy position."

To be fair, and I usually try not to be, both men know they won't be in charge of this sort of process, but rather will set the tone and direction for the commanders who actually know what they're doing. 

True, however they both have their respective bases to worry about.

Obama's the only one who has a respective base he needs to appease: McCain's side knows their guy is a hawk and it's not like conservatives require firm language to keep the troops in indefinitely.  That's why Obama's website shows him with forceful fake orders: On day one, I'm going to immediately order the generals to..um... begin talking about beginning to pull out the first of our troops.

Obama can't get too strict here because swing voters are going to be largely more pragmatic about withdrawal than the Democratic primary.  Secondly, he risks putting himself in a hole where the situation on the ground changes dramatically and he'll need to adjust his numbers by a few months but can't.

[Torie]

It never fails to amaze me how intellectually dishonest you are, Jfern. Here's the rest of the quote:

MCCAIN: He said it's a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it's a pretty good timetable, as we should -- or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground. This success is very fragile. It's incredibly impressive, but very fragile. So we know, those of us who have been involved in it for many years, know that if we reverse this, by setting a date for withdrawal, all of the hard-won victory can be reversed.

^^^^^^^

This is much ado about nothing. The idea is to withdraw as we can without undue risk to the extent the Iraqi government allows us to remain. KISS.

[War on Want]

It never fails to amaze me how intellectually dishonest you are, Jfern. Here's the rest of the quote:

MCCAIN: He said it's a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it's a pretty good timetable, as we should -- or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground. This success is very fragile. It's incredibly impressive, but very fragile. So we know, those of us who have been involved in it for many years, know that if we reverse this, by setting a date for withdrawal, all of the hard-won victory can be reversed.

^^^^^^^

This is much ado about nothing. The idea is to withdraw as we can without undue risk to the extent the Iraqi government allows us to remain. KISS.

How would we do this at this point with little chances of the insurgency reforming again? Seriously the Republican Party cannot define winning at all...

[Torie]

I just defined it. Obviously good judgment comes into play as to its application.