You Can Put Lipstick on a Community Organizer

[sirs]

<<No it didn't.  It was a choice, and it was the right choice.  Iraq was also a choice, and given the intel at the time, was also the right choice.  Simple as that>>

Yeah, you go with that, sirs. 

Thanks, I will

And if you have any influence on the McCain-Palin campaign, tell them to go with it too. 

If you haven't been paying attention, they have as well

[Plane]

<<It still might.

<<When Chamberlain took this stand , didn't it cost him later?>>

Your argument seems to be that if Chamberlain was accused of lacking patriotism for trying to avoid war with Hitler and the charge stuck later, the same thing could happen to Obama, that by not supporting the war the charges of lack of patriotism could stick later.

First of all, Chamberlain's patriotism was never put in question, as far as I know.  He was charged with accepting the word of a liar in exchange for a very brief period of peace, and then having to face a much strengthened liar after he'd used the peace bought with his lies to strengthen himself.  Patriotism was not the issue, being a sucker was.

Your analogy is kind of intriguing, because both situations depend on the lies of war-mongers and the credulity of those who are taken in by them, although in Chamberlain's case, the liar and the sucker are each heads of independent nations negotiating with one another; in Obama's case, the liar is the leader of the nation, the suckers are the elected representatives of the people of the nation, and Obama is the anti-Chamberlain, the guy who not only was not taken in by the war-monger's lies but actively stood out all too alone in the crowd as the one who refused to go along with them.

Chamberlain was not questioned for his patriotism , but his wisdom .
That is what it cost Chamberlain why should Obama in a very simular situation not have his wisdom questioned?

[Plane]

There is absolutely NO connection between Juniorbush's pre-emptive strike against unarmed Iraq and Chamberlain's agreements on the Sudentenland.

Hitler had an army, Saddam had a pitiful assortment of soldiers that were easily defeated in a few days. Hitler had modern weapons, Saddam had nothing, compared to the US. Great Britain was allied with France as well as neighboring Poland. The US is half a world away from Iraq. Hitler had aircraft that threatened both France and the UK. Saddam had absolutely no way to attack Americas in the US.

There was no reason to start the Iraq War and even less to start it with no plans as to how to end it. Seldom have deliberate ignorance, deception and stubbornness of a leader been in such a deadly combination as in Juniorbush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and his Neocon advisors.

When Iraq was invaded it had the fourth largest army on earth , more troops than Hitler had.

[Michael Tee]

<<Chamberlain was not questioned for his patriotism , but his wisdom .>>

Yes.

<<That is what it cost Chamberlain why should Obama in a very simular situation not have his wisdom questioned?>>

Because usually, as in Chamberlain's case, for example, you question the wisdom of the guy who got it wrong, not the wisdom of the guy who got it right.

[Plane]

<<Chamberlain was not questioned for his patriotism , but his wisdom .>>

Yes.

<<That is what it cost Chamberlain why should Obama in a very simular situation not have his wisdom questioned?>>

Because usually, as in Chamberlain's case, for example, you question the wisdom of the guy who got it wrong, not the wisdom of the guy who got it right.

Good ,so Obama getting this wrong in exactly the same way as Chamberlain ,should have him cost the same loss of respect for his wisdom that Chamberlain lost.

[sirs]

<<That is what it cost Chamberlain why should Obama in a very simular situation not have his wisdom questioned?>>

Because usually, as in Chamberlain's case, for example, you question the wisdom of the guy who got it wrong, not the wisdom of the guy who got it right.

And here, McCain was right about the surge, and Obama got it wrong.  Yet, Obama's getting the pass.

[Michael Tee]

<<Good ,so Obama getting this wrong in exactly the same way as Chamberlain ,should have him cost the same loss of respect for his wisdom that Chamberlain lost.>>

Chamberlain took the word of the liar and made peace when he should have made war.  [I'm using the popular version of the myth, which most people have in mind when they speak of Chamberlain, not necessarily the historically accurate version.]  Obama rejected the word of the liar and refused to sanction war and advocated peace.    One man (Chamberlain) was fooled by a war-mongering liar, the other (Obama)  was not.

Obama got it right where Chamberlain got it wrong.  That's why he's a candidate today - - had he swallowed Bush's lies like the rest of the Democrats did, he'd be nobody today.

[Plane]

<<Good ,so Obama getting this wrong in exactly the same way as Chamberlain ,should have him cost the same loss of respect for his wisdom that Chamberlain lost.>>

Chamberlain took the word of the liar and made peace when he should have made war.  [I'm using the popular version of the myth, which most people have in mind when they speak of Chamberlain, not necessarily the historically accurate version.]  Obama rejected the word of the liar and refused to sanction war and advocated peace.    One man (Chamberlain) was fooled by a war-mongering liar, the other (Obama)  was not.

Obama got it right where Chamberlain got it wrong.  That's why he's a candidate today - - had he swallowed Bush's lies like the rest of the Democrats did, he'd be nobody today.

Makeing peace with Saddam Hussein was a huge risk , we really didn't know that he had lost the WMD he knew he had had earlyer, Saddam was just as much a known liar as Hitler ever was and he was energeticly preventing us from looking into his closets .

  We really should have beleived him when he declaired "nothing in there"?

[Michael Tee]

<<And here, McCain was right about the surge, and Obama got it wrong.  Yet, Obama's getting the pass.>>

Well, first of all it's much too early to say the surge has worked.  The results are modest and tenuous.  It will all come crashing down on the Americans' heads.  Or at least, I certainly hope it will, but we'll have to wait and see.

However, even if McCain is right on the surge, it's virtually meaningless for a guy to be right on the small stuff and wrong on the big one.  The big question was the wisdom of the war itself - - here Obama clearly showed the superior judgment, as most Americans now realize.  Most Americans overwhelmingly recognize the war was a mistake.  Even if America "wins," the cost was astronomical, way beyond any benefit of any kind the country could hope to receive.

Let me put it another way -- if you as a boss hired a manager who made a mistake that cost you three trillion dollars when another employee called him wrong from the beginning and opposed the entire project, correctly predicting the disaster that followed, and five years into dealing with the mistake, the manager proposes a way to save a million bucks out of the disaster, although teh other employee says it won't work, but it does - - what are you gonna do, keep the guy who cost you the three trillion dollars and fire the guy whose judgment would have spared you that loss, or hire the guy who could have saved you three trillion, and fire the guy who figured out how to save a million bucks after five years?

[Michael Tee]

<<We really should have beleived him [Saddam] when he declaired "nothing in there"?>>

plane, we've been round and round and round the block on this too many times.  I know your position on it and you and sirs know mine.  Neither one of us can add anything to the argument now.

An election is coming up and Obama has staked his claim in large part on the fact that his judgment was correct when he said "No" to Bush's lies and the war the lies were aimed at provoking.  McCain's position is (a) they weren't lies and (b) the superior judgment was to follow Bush into war and support it.

Now it's time for the American people to decide who has better judgment.

[Plane]

<<And here, McCain was right about the surge, and Obama got it wrong.  Yet, Obama's getting the pass.>>

Well, first of all it's much too early to say the surge has worked.  The results are modest and tenuous.  It will all come crashing down on the Americans' heads.  Or at least, I certainly hope it will, but we'll have to wait and see.

However, even if McCain is right on the surge, it's virtually meaningless for a guy to be right on the small stuff and wrong on the big one.  The big question was the wisdom of the war itself - - here Obama clearly showed the superior judgment, as most Americans now realize.  Most Americans overwhelmingly recognize the war was a mistake.  Even if America "wins," the cost was astronomical, way beyond any benefit of any kind the country could hope to receive.

Let me put it another way -- if you as a boss hired a manager who made a mistake that cost you three trillion dollars when another employee called him wrong from the beginning and opposed the entire project, correctly predicting the disaster that followed, and five years into dealing with the mistake, the manager proposes a way to save a million bucks out of the disaster, although teh other employee says it won't work, but it does - - what are you gonna do, keep the guy who cost you the three trillion dollars and fire the guy whose judgment would have spared you that loss, or hire the guy who could have saved you three trillion, and fire the guy who figured out how to save a million bucks after five years?

You are really wanting to hire the dealer who wanted to fold every hand. Folding is the right choice now and then , but folding every hand never wins.

[sirs]

<<And here, McCain was right about the surge, and Obama got it wrong.  Yet, Obama's getting the pass.>>

Well, first of all it's much too early to say the surge has worked. 

It is far into the game to conclude it has been succesful to this point.  it produced the necessary security buffer, in order for diplomacy to do its thing.  Judgement score, McCain 1, Obama 0

However, even if McCain is right on the surge,

ahhhh, here's the even/if tact...even if I'm wrong, I'm right, because..

it's virtually meaningless for a guy to be right on the small stuff and wrong on the big one.  The big question was the wisdom of the war itself

Which again is a matter of stark opinion.  Intel made it clear it was the right choice at the time.  David Kay, weapon's inspector, was stunned to find the levels of concealment Saddam had produced, on his WMD programs.  And we won't even go into bizarro world of Bush lying us into war for the oil.  McCain 2, Obama 0

Oh yea, VP choices    Judgement score, McCain 3, Obama 0

[Michael Tee]

<<You are really wanting to hire the dealer who wanted to fold every hand. Folding is the right choice now and then , but folding every hand never wins.>>

Real bad analogy.  We're not talking about folding EVERY hand and never were.  We're talking about ONE hand.  We're talking about not taking the ONE hand from a crooked dealer, when everyone else accepts it.  And then the hand turns out to be a pack of lies (or, buying sirs' idiotic defence, a pack of "mistakes") then watching the house and the store, 3 trillion dollars' worth, go down the drain in consequence.  And saying "I told you so" to all the idiots - - McCain, Clinton, Biden - - who bought into the hand and the dealer.

The American people should know by now what Obama's judgment was.  Unlike you, they won't confuse it with "wanting to fold every hand."  They know that was NOT Obama's judgment.  They know he did not fall for Bush's lies, and had the rare courage to say he did not. 

They also know that McCain did.  They don't give a shit about the surge.  The jury's still out on it, and even if it does succeed, it will never get back the tiniest fraction over what was already sacrificed in one enormous lapse of good judgment, the decision to launch the war.  It won't gain them anything big and it won't restore any big losses.

You are trying to spin this into a favourable take on McCain's judgment, but there is no way.  No way.  It is the proverbial task of making a silk purse from a sow's ear.

[Plane]

<<You are really wanting to hire the dealer who wanted to fold every hand. Folding is the right choice now and then , but folding every hand never wins.>>

Real bad analogy.  We're not talking about folding EVERY hand and never were.  We're talking about ONE hand.  We're talking about not taking the ONE hand from a crooked dealer, when everyone else accepts it.  And then the hand turns out to be a pack of lies (or, buying sirs' idiotic defence, a pack of "mistakes") then watching the house and the store, 3 trillion dollars' worth, go down the drain in consequence.  And saying "I told you so" to all the idiots - - McCain, Clinton, Biden - - who bought into the hand and the dealer.

The American people should know by now what Obama's judgment was.  Unlike you, they won't confuse it with "wanting to fold every hand."  They know that was NOT Obama's judgment.  They know he did not fall for Bush's lies, and had the rare courage to say he did not. 

They also know that McCain did.  They don't give a shit about the surge.  The jury's still out on it, and even if it does succeed, it will never get back the tiniest fraction over what was already sacrificed in one enormous lapse of good judgment, the decision to launch the war.  It won't gain them anything big and it won't restore any big losses.

You are trying to spin this into a favourable take on McCain's judgment, but there is no way.  No way.  It is the proverbial task of making a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Obama is sayig that he would not allow Iran to acheive Nuclear wepons , his history lead me to suppose tht he is likely to fold on this.

Can you find in his history some examples of his foreighn policy experience that should lead me to think otherwise?

[Michael Tee]

<<Obama is sayig that he would not allow Iran to acheive Nuclear wepons , his history lead me to suppose tht he is likely to fold on this.>>

I hope he does "fold" on it.  I want  him to and most of his supporters want him to.  I would never vote for anyone who said and believed such stupidity and arrogance.  It's not America's place, particularly given her history of unprovoked aggression and massive killings of civilians, to dictate to Iran or any other country how to defend itself.  Most of Obama's supporters, I believe, feel that those comments were only intended to bolster his own position - - he's just saying what he has to say to get elected.

<<Can you find in his history some examples of his foreighn policy experience that should lead me to think otherwise?>>

He majored in poli sci and specialized in international relations, meaning he knows or should know how to conduct international negotiations.  He worked as a community organizer in a fast-paced, high-pressure environment where he had to find solutions that were mutually agreeable to a variety of mutually antagonistic players spanning the socioeconomic spectrum.  He's a law professor.  And he's very, very smart.  Just like everything about the dull, thuggish, murderous liar, McCain, indicates that his first resort will be to violence, death and destruction, as the universal solution to all problems, so everything about Obama indicates that he will successfullly negotiate an end to most if not all conflicts which he may be called to resolve.