Laexile wrote:Why isn't it illegal to report on a covert operation that might result in Americans getting killed?

A. Because he is wrong.

B. Second Amendment

C. It is the military's responsiblity to make sure this information (if true) doesn't get out.

Woody wrote:So...yeah...about Iran:

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html]Report: U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran
[/url]

eh, Seymour Hersh

I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, it would be irresponsible not to make some preparation for the possibility of fighting there; we all certainly wish they'd given more thought to Iraq before diving in (though admittedly the conquest part of the mission wasn't where the planning failure took place). On the other, what would seem like due diligence for normal administrations doesn't necessarily fly with this bunch of deranged incompetents; I'm glad Hersh is getting this out there, and it makes me a little nervous that they don't deny his allegations... as I believe they have done in the past.

Hersh is pretty well sourced within the military community. Per smitty's point (in this thread or the now-locked one, I can't remember), those guys aren't dumb by any means, and they REALLY don't like what the chickenhawks have done to their beloved services.

I truly can't wait until this wretched administration is gone. Was thinking again today that I can't get much worked up about this election just because I'm so sure that McCain, much as I dislike most of his agenda, would be incalculably less destructive and incompetent.

An oldie but goodie...

Bush signs Webb's GI Bill into law,thanks bill opponent McCain

:?

As I've said before, we better have a plan developed to attack Togo or St. Kitts and Nevis. So planning for Iran, who actually is an enemy, is not only ok, it's necessary.

But again, dajafi, let's not attack the argument, let's attack the person. Seymour Hersh does this every 6 months it seems. We should have been at war for at least the last 12 months according to that guy. I just feel like he hit a home run once, and now he can do whatever he wants and write about his "sources" without actually having to have any sources.

This is the perfect beachhead to storm in St. Kitts. Friggin tourists will never see it coming

dajafi wrote:Bush signs Webb's GI Bill into law,thanks bill opponent McCain

:?

This seems to me to be a situation of genuine disagreement on what is the best plan for veterans, retention, and recruitment. People on both sides want what's best for the military and veterans. There's no way to know who's going to be right on this. We'll only know if the program works. I could say that it's sad that Democrats have decided to politicize this and try to sell America that John McCain doesn't want to provide veterans an education. But McCain should know that Democrats will do just that.

Opposing a bill that wasn't that different than his own bill just gave them ammunition. McCain has a reputation of compromise in order to get things done. Yet this time he stubbornly kept trying to push his version after he'd already lost. If the Democrats wanted to touch on the truth in their attacks they'd ask John McCain why he's flip flopped on compromise.

Laexile wrote:

dajafi wrote:Bush signs Webb's GI Bill into law,thanks bill opponent McCain

:?

This seems to me to be a situation of genuine disagreement on what is the best plan for veterans, retention, and recruitment. People on both sides want what's best for the military and veterans. There's no way to know who's going to be right on this. We'll only know if the program works. I could say that it's sad that Democrats have decided to politicize this and try to sell America that John McCain doesn't want to provide veterans an education. But McCain should know that Democrats will do just that.

Opposing a bill that wasn't that different than his own bill just gave them ammunition. McCain has a reputation of compromise in order to get things done. Yet this time he stubbornly kept trying to push his version after he'd already lost. If the Democrats wanted to touch on the truth in their attacks they'd ask John McCain why he's flip flopped on compromise.

McCain basically cited the RBI of political statistics when he tried to talk about 16% less recruitment while ignoring other statistics that came out. He didn't really give any valid reasoning.

McCain genuinely wants what's best for the military not for the individual soldiers.

And he was wrong about what's best for the military too. The people leaving early would be offset by new recruits.

Just utter incompetence on his and Bush's part. The fact that he couldn't even get support from his own party with elections coming up speaks immensely.

pacino wrote:McCain basically cited the RBI of political statistics when he tried to talk about 16% less recruitment while ignoring other statistics that came out. He didn't really give any valid reasoning.

RBI statistics tell you what happened. These studies are about what will happen.

McCain genuinely wants what's best for the military not for the individual soldiers.

What would be best for individual soldiers would be to serve a week in the army and then get a check for $100,000. McCain's program may be better for the military than Webb's, but it was very generous to soldiers. In fact, it included a provision which Webb's didn't have to give benefits to soldiers' families.

And he was wrong about what's best for the military too. The people leaving early would be offset by new recruits.

How can you know that? They did a survey that drew the conclusion that those leaving early would be offset. That's an opinion. It may be one that is proven true by this bill. It's not invalid to have the opinion that this bill won't produce those results.

dajafi wrote:Bush signs Webb's GI Bill into law,thanks bill opponent McCain

:?

Maybe one of the top ten absurd political spins put on McCain's position on the GI Bill in the past month.

Edit: Bush, not dajafi's smiley face. In case that wasn't clear.

This may be the single biggest reason Obama will win the elections.

The Republican Party consists mostly of fiscal, foreign policy, and social conservatives. McCain appeals strongly to the first two groups, but is unpopular with the third. They don't see him as a real conservative. It doesn't help that despite all of McCain's "flip-flops" he hasn't flip-flopped on the issues that are important to them.

Obama is unlikely to do well with fiscal or foreign policy conservatives, but social conservatives might not have a problem with liberal fiscal and foreign policy stances, especially given the state the country is in.

A big Evangelical criticism of the Democratic Party is their perceived hostility to religion. Obama isn't going to flip-flop on abortion, but he can tell them that they can keep their guns. He doesn't advocate gay marriage. And Christians are good people who help the poor. While many Democrats having been trying to kill faith-based initiatives and will be upset at Obama for bringing more religion into government he knows they won't vote McCain.

Laexile wrote:

pacino wrote:McCain basically cited the RBI of political statistics when he tried to talk about 16% less recruitment while ignoring other statistics that came out. He didn't really give any valid reasoning.

RBI statistics tell you what happened. These studies are about what will happen.

McCain genuinely wants what's best for the military not for the individual soldiers.

What would be best for individual soldiers would be to serve a week in the army and then get a check for $100,000. McCain's program may be better for the military than Webb's, but it was very generous to soldiers. In fact, it included a provision which Webb's didn't have to give benefits to soldiers' families.

And he was wrong about what's best for the military too. The people leaving early would be offset by new recruits.

How can you know that? They did a survey that drew the conclusion that those leaving early would be offset. That's an opinion. It may be one that is proven true by this bill. It's not invalid to have the opinion that this bill won't produce those results.

It was not very generous to soldiers and please don't even argue otherwise. It had the well being of the military and not the soldiers at heart it wanted to use education as an incentive to STAY in the military not just join which is ridiculous.

Yes it is invalid and pretty selfish too.

Woody wrote:This is the HAMELS beachhead to storm in St. Kitts. Friggin tourists will never see it coming

What's most impressive is that it only took you three minutes to reply. It's like you had a St. Kitts & Nevis picture in your back pocket, just waiting for the perfect opportunity to use it in a joke.

jeff2sf wrote:

Woody wrote:This is the HAMELS beachhead to storm in St. Kitts. Friggin tourists will never see it coming

What's most impressive is that it only took you three minutes to reply. It's like you had a St. Kitts & Nevis picture in your back pocket, just waiting for the HAMELS opportunity to use it in a joke.

the internet is like an extra appendage at this point. I TOOK THAT PIC, TOO! (the day my wife got pregnant, i think)

Sorry if this is redundant:

Hitchens submits to waterboarding and talks about it.

Laexile wrote:This may be the single biggest reason Obama will win the elections.

The Republican Party consists mostly of fiscal, foreign policy, and social conservatives. McCain appeals strongly to the first two groups, but is unpopular with the third. They don't see him as a real conservative. It doesn't help that despite all of McCain's "flip-flops" he hasn't flip-flopped on the issues that are important to them.

This to me is most curious. I can think of several explanations.

1. Social conservative leadership (Dobson et al) don't really care about issue, they care about their own power, and McCain's ascension is a sign that their power is rather limited.

2. Social conservatives are dumb, believing that saying you have faith, talking the talk, is more important than walking the walk.

3. The idea that social conservatives have problems with McCain is a fiction. After all, he did win the Republican nomination, and while it might make sense that some evangelicals were more comfortable with Huckabee, that doesn't mean they aren't going to vote for McCain.

4. (This is similar to #2) Social conservatives are sheep, doing whatever their leaders tell them.

5. They hate Mexicans even more than they hate abortion.

In order, 2-3-5-1-4

I think his problems with social conservatives are overblown a bit, but I also think way too many social conservatives are easily won over with rhetoric and don't care much about the issue stances. To be fair, that applies to pretty much all voters. Voters aren't exactly geniuses. I don't think they just do what their leaders say.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Laexile wrote:This may be the single biggest reason Obama will win the elections.

The Republican Party consists mostly of fiscal, foreign policy, and social conservatives. McCain appeals strongly to the first two groups, but is unpopular with the third. They don't see him as a real conservative. It doesn't help that despite all of McCain's "flip-flops" he hasn't flip-flopped on the issues that are important to them.

This to me is most curious. I can think of several explanations.

1. Social conservative leadership (Dobson et al) don't really care about issue, they care about their own power, and McCain's ascension is a sign that their power is rather limited.

2. Social conservatives are dumb, believing that saying you have faith, talking the talk, is more important than walking the walk.

3. The idea that social conservatives have problems with McCain is a fiction. After all, he did win the Republican nomination, and while it might make sense that some evangelicals were more comfortable with Huckabee, that doesn't mean they aren't going to vote for McCain.

4. (This is similar to #2) Social conservatives are sheep, doing whatever their leaders tell them.

5. They hate Mexicans even more than they hate abortion.

Or, the obvious in your face reason:

McCain just isn't that good a candidate and too few people are interested in seeing him become president.

Don't blink, you might miss the patently obvious.

VoxOrion wrote:Or, the obvious in your face reason:

McCain just isn't that good a candidate and too few people are interested in seeing him become president.

Don't blink, you might miss the patently obvious.

McCain "isn't that good a candidate" in absolute terms, or in comparison to alternatives?

It's kind of hard to understand what that assertion even means, let alone adjudge it to be "patently obvious".