31 Comments

• 1. extramedium  |  August 28th, 2008 at 7:41 am

  If I were creating ads for Obama, I’d run the same videos in the background and point out that if we hadn’t over committed ourselves in our misguided re-invasion Iraq and squandered our good standing in the world, we might actually be able to do something when new crisises like Georgia occur. Anything is better than four more years of the policies that have put us in this position.

• 2. hermie  |  August 28th, 2008 at 8:04 am

  So, an Obamamaniac thinks that we should have met the Russians with military force…What happened to ‘diplomacy’?

• 3. Zach  |  August 28th, 2008 at 8:13 am

  Good call Hermie…

  Whoa! is all I can say about that ad.

• 4. extramedium  |  August 28th, 2008 at 8:41 am

  Hermie,

  Diplomacy is exactly what it’s all about. When your opponent knows you are stretched too thin to back up your threats, your threats are pretty useless. See: Georgia.

  You may recall that Democrats authorized the use of force in Iraq, in order to give Bush a stronger hand for diplomacy. Too bad there wasn’t any diplomacy. Let’s avoid more of that ham-fisted foreign policy, by not electing the Republican guy.

• 5. SEW  |  August 28th, 2008 at 8:51 am

  Yea, extra, hit Putin with moonbattery. Cool, farout. Peace.

• 6. hermie  |  August 28th, 2008 at 9:00 am

  Since the Russians know that Obama will not back any military force (and leave our allies, including NATO members, to fend for themselves) without going to the UN for debates about an endless series of resolutions, strongly-worded letters, etc and then having anything vetoed by the Russians anyway, what would the Obamamessiah do? Talk them to death with his Silver tongue?

• 7. neocon  |  August 28th, 2008 at 9:04 am

  extra,

  Please clue us in on the diplomacy that would have worked with Saddam, that Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton must’ve overlooked.

  Is it just the right combination of words that we’re missing?

• 8. extramedium  |  August 28th, 2008 at 9:40 am

  neocon,

  You say that as though the diplomacy of Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton didn’t work. I thought it was working just fine. Had we kept up with it, we’d now have hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on more useful things and tens of thousands of good people still living and breathing.

• 9. Sunny  |  August 28th, 2008 at 9:48 am

  neocon, please explain why it was so necessary to attack Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, 2001. It was contained and inspectors were in Iraq stating that no MDRs existed. Bush ordered them out a few days before attacking Iraq. It it really worth 10-12 billion a month to say nothing of over 4,000 American military men and women? It is my understanding that after the US leaves Iraq we will not have possession of any of the many bases we built. Diplomacy may not have worked on Saddam but containment did.

• 10. navydad  |  August 28th, 2008 at 9:57 am

  Oh crap Sunnygirl, are we gonna regurgitate the same ol liberal talking points? I thought the donk party was over Iraq and onto the new mantra of ” it’s the economy stupid”…..oops 3% GDP growth last quarter. Guess that claim is bogus too…LOL!

  BTW, EVERYONE of your favs also thought WMD’s existed…so STFU about it.

• 11. Retired Spook  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am

  what would the Obamamessiah do? Talk them to death with his Silver tongue?

  Hermie, I suspect that task will be left to Biden, assuming, of course, that the Dems prevail in November.

  BTW, the ad is great. This is the strategy I had hoped McCain and the GOP would take — exploit Obama and companies own words.

• 12. Kahn  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:24 am

  Sunny - it is difficult to respond to such a ludicrous post as yours without becoming derisive. Your chronology and understanding of the facts are seriously flawed. All I can really say is, please read some unbiased history. Not on KOS, someplace with the ACTUAL chronology. You may want to look up the applicable UN resolutions.

  But your ignorance would certainly earn you a seat in an Obama cabinet. Were that awful fate ever to befall the country.

• 13. jayhay  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:29 am

  Fear! Fear! Scary! Fear! Foreigners! Hate! Death! Hide under your beds! Vote McCain!

  Run with it guys. I’m going with optimism and belief in what America stands for.

  Here’s my Republican Convention preview:

  POW! POW! TOUGH GUY! TOUGH GUY! THE LAST EIGHT YEARS DIDN’T HAPPEN! POW! POW! WE LOVE BUSH BUT WE’RE TOTALLY DIFFERENT! POW!

• 14. SEW  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:34 am

  If it weren’t for liberal talking points Sunny would be a mute.

• 15. Rana Quijotesca  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:42 am

  Wow…

  Way to exploit the national pain of one of our allies for political purposes… pricks…

• 16. jayhay  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:46 am

  McCain actually was admirable and honorable to most Americans at one point, but he has totally sold out to the dark side, and has completely blown his brand. He can’t keep talking about his sense of honor in slimy, false attack ads. You can’t have it both ways, not all the way to November.

• 17. SEW  |  August 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am

  Pretty obvious why Bambi is avoiding any debates with McCain and does not allow the press to ask any unrehearsed questions and answers. Remember the anytime anywhere Obama response to McCain’s debate challenge? Uh, un, no I can’t.
  Now Obama is trying to shut down any truth that surfaces in the press with lawsuits. Who said socialism and fascism are mutually exclusive?

  Anytime anywhere. Obama08.

• 18. Sunny  |  August 28th, 2008 at 11:16 am

  Kahn | August 28th, 2008 at 10:24 am it is difficult to respond to such a ludicrous post as yours without becoming derisive.

  You didn’t disappoint me Kahn. This is exactly the kind of response I expected from you. When you cannot intelligently reply, attack!

• 19. Timothy Horrigan  |  August 28th, 2008 at 11:37 am

  If I recall correctly, wasn’t Iraq a superpower? Didn’t they have the world’s 4th largest standing army including the elite Republican Guard and the awesome Hammurabai armored divisions. Didn’t they also have Weapons of Mass Destruction and the extraordinarily accurate Scud missile systems? Weren’t they buying yellowcake uranium from Niger? Weren’t they the only military power bold and reckless enough to shoot at American planes. Wasn’t Iraq poised to sweep across Asia and Europe to impose a caliphate based in Baghdad which would stretch from Bosnia to the Philipnes? And let’s not forget that they were led by Saddam, one of the most ruthless and most dangerous tyrants who ever lived, a dictator who was Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Gengis Khan all rolled up into one.

  We defeated Saddam’s Iraq in just a month and a half. The war began on St Patricks Day and ended in total victory on May Day 2003, when Bush announced “Mission Accomplished.” And we did it all with only 40 fatalities. (The 4000-plus figure is inflated by deaths which took place after May 1, 2003— many of which didn’t even happen in Iraq.)

  I am pretty sure that was what happened back in 2003. I am pretty sure that was what Bush & Cheney told us at the time.

  Clearly, if we can totally defeat a colossus like Saddam’s Iraq in seven weeks, surely we would make short work of Putin’s Russia! So why isn’t Bush II going in and doing what needs to be done?

• 20. navydad  |  August 28th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

  Do the libs here actually read other posts before they respond? Or are they so “on the defensive” that they just come across as morons?

• 21. Dennis  |  August 28th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

  Sunny, after the Bush administration has taken so much that is noble and admirable about the United States, plus four thousand military lives and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and struck a match to them, there is nothing these guys can say to your rational questions. They become “liberal talking points”.

  There is a reason they are liberal talking points. It was not necessary to attack Iraq, and as you said, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. Containment would have continued to work as long in Iraq as the United States had a moral commitment to avoid the unnecessary loss of human life, and used every means at its disposal to this end.

  Unfortunately human life had no intrinsic value to Mr. Bush and his neoconservative claque. Containment wasn’t nearly as aggrandizing to them as having their very own war, and have it they did. At the expense of too many innocent human lives to reckon by now. They have blithely saddled our children and grandchildren with debt to the Communist Chinese and other nations for the foreseeable future.

  And most tragic of all they have trampled the Constitution and the good name of the United States into the bloody sand, squandering the respect and extraordinary good will the entire world extended to us in the wake of 9/ll.

  The fact that they can come up with nothing more than derision in the face of these facts yet still absurdly cling to their self-image as good Christian Americans shows just how morally hollow and depraved the extreme right has become.

• 22. Sunny  |  August 28th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

  navydad | August 28th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
  Do the libs here actually read other posts before they respond? Or are they so “on the defensive” that they just come across as morons?

  Yes, we actually do read the posts before replying. Do you? If we post a response that disagrees with your position we are just “on the defensive (sic)” as you so eloquently put it, which naturally makes us morons. Of course, for you to actually post a well thought our response to address the question appears to be an unrealistic expectation on the part of the “libs.” And we are the morons? Aren’t you one of the guys who responded to Spooks spoof postings a couple of days ago? Now who is really the moron?

• 23. WhatChange  |  August 28th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

  “Now who is really the moron?”

  That would be you.

• 24. navydad  |  August 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

  Sunnygirl,

  Nice defensive reponse…

  Yes Spook spoofed many of us, and I’m sure you were defending Spook’s posts, now weren’t you? Be honest here. Didn’t you agree with much of what he had said?

  It also proves my point that we conservatives have the brain-power to think outside the norm…unlike the left and their hate America, hate Bush, hate our military and hate capitalism mantra. It gets tiresome listening to the same crap from you guys, day in and day out…it never changes.

  And yes again, you are the morons, and let’s be serious, and forget about McCain for he sake of this dialogue and focus on Obama.
  Does Obama have a relationship with William Ayers, Rev. Wright or Rezko? How could your messiah have relationships with such hate mongers?

  Is he truly a “change” candidate, or is he just another DC politician?

• 25. Timothy Horrigan  |  August 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

  Before 9/11, getting rid of Saddam was Bush II’s number one priority. Bush II is not a flipflopper… he is consistent and resolute. He didn’t cut and run from his priorities just because of 9/11. He continued to make Saddam his number #1 priority.

  Osama was a secondary concern before 9/11. To make him our #1 priority would be a flipflop. And like I said, Bush II is not a flipflopper. And in this case, Saddam was, as Tony Blair so eloquently put it, “uniquely evil.”

  The argument that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 is in any case based in large part on the premise that his stated goals were on conflict with Osama’s. But let’s not forget: Saddam and Osama were both madmen. So they would not be able to understand that their goals were in conflict.

  They were not pursuing any political social goal. They were out to Do Evil. But they did both share this: a pathological hatred of America. And why did they hate America? And even more importantly why did they hate Bush II? Because America is Free, of course, and because Bush II epitomizes America’s Freedom. If you have any doubts as to why Osama and Saddam struck America on 9/11, just look at the targets they hit. They hit two powerful symbols of Freedom: a large office building near Wall Street and the headquarters of the Pentagon (as well an empty strip mine in Pennsylvania.)

• 26. Dennis  |  August 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

  Timothy Horrigan: “They hit two powerful symbols of Freedom”

  No, they hit two powerful symbols of wealth and military power, which are not the same as freedom. They could as easily have hit the Statue of Liberty - it is within easy sight of the WTC from an altitude of 1500 ft. They missed it not once, but twice.

• 27. Sunny  |  August 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

  Yes Spook spoofed many of us, and I’m sure you were defending Spook’s posts, now weren’t you? Be honest here. Didn’t you agree with much of what he had said?
  navydad

  I didn’t respond to anything he wrote because I knew it was a joke. And furthermore, I didn’t agree with any of the nonsense he put out there. But you sure took the bait. Sucker.

• 28. Sunny  |  August 28th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

  Because America is Free, of course, and because Bush II epitomizes America’s Freedom
  Timothy Horrigan

  Well of course they hate freedom. And of course Bush II epitomizes freedom. And you represent idoitism if you really believe that nonsense.

• 29. Dennis  |  August 28th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

  Navydad: “let’s be serious, and forget about McCain for he sake of this dialogue and focus on Obama. Does Obama have a relationship with William Ayers?”

  Let’s be serious indeed. Obama’s relationship with Ayers, whatever there is, had to do with issues incidental to their teaching positions at a university, where Ayers is a teacher of English. And because they are neighbors there once was a reception in Ayers’ home. Whatever is in Ayers’ past had nothing to do with their relationship or that event.

  Incidentally McCain’s citation of this issue in April on ABC’s “This Week” demonstrated a fundamental dishonesty, or at best a logical impairment that unfits him for the presidency, as he accused Obama of equating Tom Coburn with William Ayers.

  When confronted with Ayers’ political opinions in the primary debates, Obama said it is possible to know and work with with someone with whom you strongly disagree. To illustrate how that works at both ends of the spectrum, he cited Coburn favoring the death penalty for abortionists. Obama works with Coburn but hardly shares the same opinion. For McCain to claim Obama was making equivalency between Cobern and Ayers was patently dishonest, unless he is so befuddled he can’t follow simple logic.

• 30. Retired Spook  |  August 28th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

  I didn’t respond to anything he wrote because I knew it was a joke. And furthermore, I didn’t agree with any of the nonsense he put out there.

  I’ve got to hand it to you Sunny. You sure saw through my little charade. So then you agree that it would be foolish to double the tax on capital gains, to put a windfall profits tax on oil companies and divide it up in $1,000 increments among middle and lower income Americans, to increase taxes on the top 2% of wage earners and lower it on everyone else, and to sit down with our enemies and talk without any preconditions. And you agree that Obama’s energy policy is a bunch of hooey and would do nothing to save the planet. Just what part of Obama’s ideas do you AGREE WITH?

• 31. Dennis  |  August 28th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

  Sunny I think Timothy Horrigan is pulling everyone’s leg just a little. Post 19 is a neat little piece of satire - I think he has posted it on another thread before this, and it made me chuckle.

  Post 25 is even more cryptically satirical, if you can imagine Colbert saying it.