^ But that assumes that the assertion is actually wrong and no one has shown that it is.

The evidence you are presenting for your claim being true (that there have been no retractions) is exactly the same evidence I am presenting for it being false. The evidence can't support both arguments and I believe it serves mine much better.

Now, there is obviously still people acting as if the Militarty's accusation is true--the McCain campaign for one. And they actually have access to military intelligence none of us do. So we have to assume that the McCain campaign is full of liars and idiots and that the US military is full of liars and idiots and that the only person that knows what's going on it is a big-eared first-term Senator from the mid-west. Again, Fuck Me.

3/25/2008 3:05:21 PM

3/25/2008 3:10:27 PM

^ I remember an old saying about glass houses.

3/25/2008 3:20:05 PM

Quote :

"Correction to This Article An April 12 A-section article and its headline incorrectly stated that the chief U.S. military official in Iraq said Sunni insurgents are receiving Iranian-made weapons. At a press briefing April 11 at which U.S. officials displayed weapons they said had been made in Iran and were found in a Baghdad neighborhood, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said Iranian intelligence services are providing "some support" to Sunni groups. He immediately added: "We do continue to see the Iranian intelligence services being active here in Iraq in terms of both providing funding and providing weapons and munitions," but he did not specifically assert that Sunni groups had received arms."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102121.html

3/25/2008 3:26:11 PM

Quote :

"Socks`` : McCain's error was not a great as Obama likes to make it sound. According to the Obama campaign and the DNC, the big deal is that McCain doesn't understand that a mostly Shiite country like Iran would never fund Sunnis in Iraq. Of course, that is absolutley not true."

good lord, Socks``, i think you've just been pwnt 6 ways to sunday.

perhaps you should "google a bit past the headlines" before you go running off half-cocked.

we already know what position McCain has about bombing Iran. he'll do it humorously and with songs.

the fact that he cant get basic intelligence correct regarding the two major sects of Islam should disturb anyone.

3/25/2008 3:36:22 PM

Well Iraq didn't have WMDs either, but I don't recall the administration going out of their way to clarify that they were wrong on that one either. Following your argument, that would mean that Iraq likely has WMDs... something I hope you're not trying to argue.

3/25/2008 3:38:07 PM

^^i would almost be more satisfied if he just came out and said "they're all muslims" when they got him on the sunni/shiite thing...

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/25/2008 3:39:24 PM

``

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 3:46 PM. Reason : ``]

3/25/2008 3:45:07 PM

^can you post a link to some stories proving that shiite iran is arming the sunnis in iraq?

^and aren't we mostly just fighting al qaeda in iraq? they are sunni and i had heard that shiite iran didnt like them

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 3:46 PM. Reason : .]

3/25/2008 3:46:33 PM

nutsmacker,

That only draws the line at how far you want to take the "link" (where you want to infer that the Iranians supplied them weapons or not). But it is 100% certian that Iranian intelligence DID support Sunni militants and that weapons of likely Iranian manufacture were found in Sunni neighborhoods. The NYT words things a bit more carefully...

Quote :

"“We have in fact found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence sources have provided to Sunni insurgent groups some support,” said General Caldwell, who sat near a table crowded with weapons that he said the military contended were largely of Iranian manufacture. The accusation of a link between the Iranian intelligence service and Sunni Arab insurgents is new. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-iraq.html

Let me say it even more clearly We have evidence that Iran, a primarily Shiite country, has aided Sunni militants fighting American troops in Iraq. PERIOD.

So Obama still comes off having no idea what he's talking about (judging from his recent remarks he had no idea this was going on), while McCain merely misspoke and quickly corrected the error after it was pointed out.

Like I said, McCain has been building up a reputation for decades. This isn't doesn't change anything.

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 4:13 PM. Reason : ``]

3/25/2008 3:59:03 PM

Quote :

"who sat near a table crowded with weapons that he said the military contended were largely of Iranian manufacture."

That's hardly a conclusive analysis. People throw words like that in there to allow for deniability later on. Plus, that article is from over a year ago. We have even discussed in this thread that there are no media reports from the past 10 months. Find a more recent article.

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 4:21 PM. Reason : ]

3/25/2008 4:20:31 PM

^ But he did say with total certainty that Iranian intelligence supported Sunni militants. So, even if you don't want to infer that the presense of likely Iranian arms is an indication that Iran is arming these guys, you can't escape the fact that they are supporting them in other ways.

And just because this is a year old (OMG!) doesn't mean it is untrue. I can't find a single recent article on the death of Ray Charles, but I'm pretty sure he's still dead.

3/25/2008 4:43:01 PM

I'm willing to bet that if US Intelligence has any record of these two groups even communicating they would call that sharing intelligence.

We've already discussed in this thread that the Bush administration is notorious for beating a dead horse on intel they think they have, then when they realize it's wrong they just stop talking about it. That's what happened here. This is, in all likelihood, not going on still. Find a recent, credible source that backs you up and we can continue discussing this without you being automatically wrong.

Also, the Ray Charles thing was a terrible analogy. Someone being dead is a completely verifiable assertion (in 99.9% of cases). Reports on intel about foreign insurgents sharing weapons is a totally different thing altogether.

3/25/2008 4:48:02 PM

You're right. There really is no point in moving forward. I have presented an objective source (NYT) that indicates Iran is supporting Sunni militants. This supports my argument that McCain's gaffe was not as big as his critics charge and that Obama has made his own error that the McCain campaign has called him out on.

Your only arguments that this evidence is "automatically wrong" is that 1) it's from the executive branch and everyone knows Bush is a damn dirty liar (though where else you would get military intelligence informaiton, I'm not sure) and 2) it's old.

Neither of those are very good arguments. And you don't even realize that.
We really should both move on.

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 5:09 PM. Reason : ``]

3/25/2008 5:08:49 PM

Quote :

"But that assumes that the assertion is actually wrong and no one has shown that it is. The evidence you are presenting for your claim being true (that there have been no retractions) is exactly the same evidence I am presenting for it being false. The evidence can't support both arguments and I believe it serves mine much better."

So the basis of your argument is that there are no retractions saying that Iran is not arming Iraqi insurgents? That's a fallible argument at best. There are numerous things that the Bush administration has been wrong about and they have made almost no retractions. If they don't say Iran isn't arming Iraqi insurgents, then how do you think the media will be able to come up with the same conclusion. The media simply parrots whatever they hear from the White House.

3/25/2008 5:18:45 PM

I don't think NY times, huffington post, LA times Washington Post or MSNBC which are all liberal media outlets are puppets

3/25/2008 5:35:06 PM

Quote :

"So Obama didn't make a mistake because he hasn't read a newspaper in a year. Instead, the military lied and Obama's eyes can only see the truth? Excellent."

3/25/2008 8:12:51 PM

^^you dumb nig...washington post is conservative

3/25/2008 8:20:48 PM

You're thinking of the Washington Times.

Put down the beer bong and step away from the computer, sir.

3/25/2008 8:41:11 PM

bttt

3/26/2008 5:36:42 PM

I love Socks``'s hypocrisy. He talks about policy this, policy that, but when his candidate has flawed policy he defends him to the death. If Obama made this mistake, Socks`` would be in this thread talking non-stop about how Obama lacks foreign policy experience and that he can't be a good President.

3/27/2008 9:06:00 AM

This isn't a policy question. It's an argument over whether McCain's gaffe makes him unsuitable to president. I don't think it does. He misspoke. He did not betray a basic misunderstanding of Sunni v. Shiites. If anything, Obama made that error when he wasn't reading the paper's last year.

But this is really all history. I think I have made my case well and if you don't *shrug*. I can't wait for the debates. Obama accused McCain of misunderstanding the conflict in Iraq based on this gaffe. It was covered by all the outlets. McCain's campaign shot back that it was Obama who made the more serious gaffe and no one is payiong attn. Not because there is a political bias in the news, but because the Democratic race is selling right now. So that's where they keep their cameras.

That won't happen in the debates. Obama is so open on so many issues, McCain will nash tear him to shreds. If he gets the balls to go negative.

3/27/2008 3:27:25 PM

Quote :

"If Obama made this mistake, Socks`` would be in this thread talking non-stop about how Obama lacks foreign policy experience and that he can't be a good President. "

Obama doesn't have to make a mistake. He has NO foreign policy experience.

3/27/2008 3:34:51 PM

you know what we need? Another President who is completely ignorant of science. That will do us a lot of good in our increasingly technological and science-based world.

http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=1194

3/31/2008 9:57:05 AM

Quote :

"He has NO foreign policy experience."

Thank God, all these experienced guys all around the world can't seem to do anything but fuck the world up. Even the young Isrealis and young Palestinians are just waiting for the old crazy bastatds to die so they can stop fighting.

[Edited on March 31, 2008 at 10:37 AM. Reason : ]

3/31/2008 10:37:14 AM

there's definite truth to that ^

3/31/2008 10:52:45 AM

Quote :

"no matter how many times Iran refuses to obey international law"

Quote :

"And there's nothing wrong with letting Iran know that we don't mind invading them, in fact I encourage it."

I may be wrong in this regard, but isn't threatening to invade another country a breach in international law?

4/1/2008 8:18:02 AM

lol i didnt know mccain finished 894/899 in his naval academy class

4/1/2008 4:50:18 PM

Quote :

"McCain camp working out healthcare details Aides struggle to sort out his promises When Senator John McCain unveiled his healthcare proposal last fall, a journalist asked whether the Arizona senator's battle against skin cancer would make him sympathetic to the idea of requiring that insurance companies provide coverage to people with preexisting conditions. McCain flatly rejected the idea. "That would be mandating what the free enterprise system does," McCain said. McCain's response highlights the challenge he faces as he prepares to try to sell his healthcare plan in the fall campaign. He says the country must provide access to healthcare for all our citizens, and that "we need to help people who need it." But McCain also wants to shrink government's role in healthcare and doesn't want to impose regulations on insurance companies. As a result, McCain's aides have been scrambling to come up with ways to satisfy those who want more coverage without violating what they call McCain's conservative principles on the issue. ... McCain, for example, has spoken in general terms about how he might help people with preexisting conditions. He has said he favors what he calls a "special provision including additional trust funds for Medicaid payments." The comment left even some of his aides unsure of his meaning. Medicaid funds are generally used to help lower-income Americans. Lately, some of McCain's aides have said he might try to divert some Medicaid funds into a program that would help people with preexisting conditions, but his advisers can't yet say how such a program would work or how many people would be covered. "These are real questions, and I think there will be answers, and there better be, but they are not there yet," said McCain adviser Thomas P. Miller, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot more remains to be hammered out."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/03/mccain_camp_working_out_healthcare_details/

4/6/2008 2:49:00 PM

Everyone has health care. Not everyone has insurance. I hope McCain makes this distinction, its hard to tell from an attack piece like ^. Whatever the case may be at least McCain is giving some lip service to deregulating insurance companies etc... I think it would be helpful if there was more pressure brought to the medical industry to have transparent pricing like any other business. If people could actually know the cost of things then they might be able to shop and the market could help drive prices down. As it stands there are different prices for different folks and the third part payment insulates the consumer from actual cost. Not to mention that the government systems grossly underpay so that all the providers who take government programs (medicaid...) must pass those added costs to the other paying customers.

[Edited on April 6, 2008 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2008 4:07:34 PM

As described in previous posts, I like McCain's health care plan as it stands. I think it does more to fix the problems many economists have identified with our current system. Paul Krugman provided a good summary in 1997 in the 3rd edition of his book "The Age of Diminished Expectations".

Quote :

"Insurance doesn't cover everything, but it does cover most big expenses. So when a patient and a doctor discuss a possible test or treatment, they know that a third party will pay the bill. Now suppose that in this situation there is a test or treatment that is very expensive but that might help a patient. A patient who was paying for his own health care might decide not to proceed, figuring that the money involved would add more to his future quality of life--of, if one wants to be grim about it, to that of his heirs--than the likely benefits of the procedure. But since he doesn't pay for it, he tells his doctor to go ahead. That is, the system does not make trade-offs between medical gain and economic loss... This tendency to push treatment to its medical limits, irrespective of cost has become increasingly expensive over time, thanks to the development of ever more sophisticated technologies.... Does this mean that all Americans receive too much health care? No, because there is a paradox of the system. We will spend virtually unlimited amounts on insured patients, but not everyone is insured. And since insurance becomes increasingly expensive as it is called upon to pay for ever more sophisticated medicine, a growing number of people are unable to afford that insurance-- terrifying position, given the potential costs of medical care. "

http://books.google.com/books?id=awA0yp1V8c8C&dq=age+of+diminished+expectations&pg=PP1&ots=3eUzT7yZxj&sig=DTkSkgzvg1s9luaHH0VpJJxcBUU&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GZHZ_enUS245US245&q=Age+of+Diminished+Expectations&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA71,M1

McCain's plan would actually directly address this problem. By encouraging rich people that are currently insured to be responcible for more of their medical expenses (and therefore also encourage them to consume less medical services in general), it will lower insurance premiums and health care costs for everyone else.

Think of it this way. At given point in time, there are only so many health care resources to go around--kinda like one pie can only feed so many people. By getting people to eat a smaller slice of that pie, there will be more for everyone else. By contrast, the Clinton-Edwards plan wants everyone to eat more of the pie at the same time. But reality dictates you just can't have your pie and eat it too.

Of course, now Paul Krugman thinks health care costs are going up because insurnace companies don't pay enough and that doctors have to fight for them to pay anyting at all. I guess something changed his mind in the past 10 years. I wonder what...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

4/6/2008 4:10:36 PM

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html

Quote :

"Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days."

Talk about escalating a conflict!

"Hey, you're getting a little bald."
"At least I'm not a WHORE, you CUNT!"

4/8/2008 1:51:32 PM

nothing like "anonymous" sources to prove one's position.

4/8/2008 2:08:01 PM

Here's an excerpt from a 1997 Time Magazine that was written before McCain ever became a Presidential candidate. Contrary to some recent assertions, McCain's ability to cross party lines is not something he affected for the 2000 election. It started in 1982 when Democratic congressman Mo Udall became McCain's mentor.

Quote :

"By 7:30 we were on the road, and McCain was reminiscing about his early political career. When he was elected to the House in 1982, he said, he was "a freshman right-wing Nazi." But his visceral hostility toward Democrats generally was quickly tempered by his tendency to see people as individuals and judge them that way. He was taken in hand by Morris Udall, the Arizona congressman who was the liberal conscience of the Congress and a leading voice for reform. (Most famously—and disastrously for his own career—Udall took aim at the seniority system that kept young talent in its place at the end of the dais. "The longer you're here, the more you'll like it," he used to joke to incoming freshmen.) "Mo reached out to me in 50 different ways," McCain recalled. "Right from the start, he'd say: 'I'm going to hold a press conference out in Phoenix. Why don't you join me?' All these journalists would show up to hear what Mo had to say. In the middle of it all, Mo would point to me and say, 'I'd like to hear John's views.' Well, hell, I didn't have any views. But I got up and learned and was introduced to the state." Four years later, when McCain ran for and won Barry Goldwater's Senate seat, he said he felt his greatest debt of gratitude not to Goldwater—who had shunned him—but to Udall. "There's no way Mo could have been more wonderful," he says, "and there was no reason for him to be that way." For the past few years, Udall has lain ill with Parkinson's disease in a veterans hospital in Northeast Washington, which is where we were heading. Every few weeks, McCain drives over to pay his respects. These days the trip is a ceremony, like going to church, only less pleasant. Udall is seldom conscious, and even then he shows no sign of recognition. McCain brings with him a stack of newspaper clips on Udall's favorite subjects: local politics in Arizona, environmental legislation, Native American land disputes, subjects in which McCain initially had no particular interest himself. Now, when the Republican senator from Arizona takes the floor on behalf of Native Americans, or when he writes an op-ed piece arguing that the Republican Party embrace environmentalism, or when the polls show once again that he is Arizona's most popular politician, he remains aware of his debt to Arizona's most influential Democrat. One wall of Udall's hospital room was cluttered with photos of his family back in Arizona; another bore a single photograph of Udall during his season with the Denver Nuggets, dribbling a basketball. Aside from a congressional seal glued to a door jamb, there was no indication what the man in the bed had done for his living. Beneath a torn gray blanket on a narrow hospital cot, Udall lay twisted and disfigured. No matter how many times McCain tapped him on the shoulder and called his name, his eyes remained shut. A nurse entered and seemed surprised to find anyone there, and it wasn't long before I found out why: Almost no one visits anymore. In his time, which was not very long ago, Mo Udall was one of the most-sought-after men in the Democratic Party. Yet as he dies in a veterans hospital a few miles from the Capitol, he is visited regularly only by a single old political friend, John McCain. "He's not going to wake up this time," McCain said. On the way out of the parking lot, McCain recalled what it was like to be a nobody called upon by a somebody. As he did, his voice acquired the same warmth that colored Russell Feingold's speech when he described the first call from John McCain. "When you called Feingold … " I started to ask him. But before I could, he interrupted. "Yeah," he says, "I thought of Mo." And then, for maybe the third time that morning, McCain spoke of how it affected him when Udall took him in hand. It was a simple act of affection and admiration, and for that reason it meant all the more to McCain. It was one man saying to another, We disagree in politics but not in life. It was one man saying to another, party political differences cut only so deep. Having made that step, they found much to agree upon and many useful ways to work together. This is the reason McCain keeps coming to see Udall even after Udall has lost his last shred of political influence. The politics were never all that important. "

http://www.slate.com/id/2188545/

[expected responce from DNL, "omg McCain called himself a Nazi!"]

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ``]

4/9/2008 1:03:28 PM

omg McCain called himself a Nazi!

4/9/2008 1:06:00 PM

4/10/2008 2:51:29 PM

lol

good thing McCain isnt running on the effectiveness of his crystal ball.

4/10/2008 3:13:07 PM

Yes. Exactly. McCain wants endless war.
Just like he wants to invade Iran.
And wants people to lose their homes.

And all of this can be proven with 2 second sound bytes (don't worry about context! you can trust us!).

I'm glad it's only the Republicans that play on people's fears during elections.

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 3:49 PM. Reason : ``]

4/10/2008 3:49:33 PM

Quote :

""When Senator John McCain was asked here this afternoon how he plans to balance the budget, he said that he hoped to do so by stimulating economic growth - and approvingly cited the example of President Ronald Reagan," the New York Times reports. "There was one thing he did not mention during his response: the deficit nearly tripled during the Reagan presidency, partly due to tax cuts and increases in military spending." The exchange occurred at a town-hall-style meeting held in a tent outside Bridgewater Associates, an investment firm. A member of the audience stood up and asked Mr. McCain, who has called for balanced budgets, how he plans to do it. "Basically, which is it?" the man asked Mr. McCain. "Straight talk: Do you want to raise taxes, cut entitlement spending, cut defense spending, or have a deficit?" Mr. McCain did not explain how he plans to balance the budget, but spoke generally about hoping to stimulate the economy - and cited President Reagan."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/10/mccain-ill-cut-deficits-l_n_96011.html

4/10/2008 8:24:11 PM

WOOOOO YEAH LETS GO MCCAIN

4/11/2008 1:13:29 PM

4/12/2008 2:00:30 AM

4/14/2008 2:21:26 AM

obama and rice would be a 1-2 knockout!!

i'd vote for it. but michelle would probably re-instate slavery for black republicans b4 she allowed her hubby to fraternize with another woman of color

4/14/2008 4:36:49 PM

^^ That graphic is obviously stupid on it's face because it includes gross spelling errors and it's based on the hearsay of an anti-McCain blog.

BUT

the reference to CSI Miami at the end did make me laugh.

C+

4/14/2008 4:49:03 PM

Quote :

"it's face"

Quote :

"gross spelling errors"

4/14/2008 7:06:43 PM

Here is a concise explaination on why McCain's health care plan is better than Obama-Clintons-or-Edwards from a PROGRESSIVE perspective (links for sources provided). This is for nutsmakrs benefit.

The primary feature is McCain wants to reform the tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm

Shawn Tully in Fortune points out that without this tax incentive, there would be no need for employers to compensate their employees with more health benefits instead of higher salaries. As a result, individuals will be left to purchase their own insurance plans. But I don't think Shawn does a good enough job explaining why that is a good thing.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/NewsReleases/22fdcd36-3e8e-40ab-8d7a-ee78f71cc50f.htm

If people are left to buy their own insurance, healthy people with higher incomes will be more likely to take advantage of high-deductible, low-premium insurance plans where they can take advantage of health savings accounts (Paul Krugman seems to agree). As a result, these well-off individuals will be responsible for more of their own medical bills (insurance companies pay out less) and will therefore consume fewer health resources.
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/071604.html

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT PROGRESSIVES WANT! Why? Because this means there will be lower insurance premiums and lower health care costs for everyone else. Think of U.S. health care resources as a pie. If the "rich" eat less of the pie, there will be more pie for everyone else.

This is a vast improvement over the Edwards-Clinton plan, which tries to get everyone to eat more pie without any mention of who will eat less (they severely over estimate the cost-cutting power of preventative medicine). And if Econ 101 tells us anything it's that increasing the demand for health care services will like wise increase the price of those services.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/business/08leonhardt.html

Now, of course, I can't say how big of a re-distributional impact the McCain plan will have. I seriously doubt it will get us even close to universal health care despite his predictions. But I have more confidence in the likely direction of impact of his plan than the Democrats.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ``]

5/7/2008 2:00:29 PM

Good article about Mccain as a POW:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/08/mccains-former-hanoi-cell-mate-describes-character-in-deplorable-conditions/

Like his policies or not, the man is a hero.

5/9/2008 12:57:01 AM

John McCain is just too old.

How is he gonna make decisions about our future when he knows he isn't even gonna be a part of it?

5/9/2008 1:38:26 PM

I don't give a shit how old he is. If I think that he is going to make the best choices as president, I will support him.

5/9/2008 2:06:28 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050803494.html?hpid=topnews

McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer


Check out that maverick!

5/9/2008 2:50:57 PM