McCain is delusional, Nader is pathetic
Promoted by John
McCain is delusional, Nader is pathetic. Now that this is settled, let's just put a Democrat in the White House.
Seriously, McCain recently criticized (his interpretation of) Obama's proposed Iraq policy , on the basis that if we leave, Al Qaeda will take over Iraq.
if we left they wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country.
He states this as an incontestable fact, similar to the way that Bush Administration claimed that "victory" in Iraq would be simple (without ever defining "victory"). In both situations, anyone with the slightest awareness of the situation in Iraq should be able to see right through this BS. It is so blatantly false that no amount of privileged knowledge or expertise can justify this assertion. To put it simply, the vast majority if Iraqis (Kurds and Shiites) viscerally hate Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda has no base of power in Iraq. The only demographic group that ever had any sympathy to Al Qaeda was the Sunni Arabs, but if the Administration's recent reports (and many media reports) have any truth to them, Iraq's Sunnis are quite fed-up with Al Qaeda. McCain has been rightfully eviscerated by some commentators. Juan Cole describes McCain's assertion as "part lie and part insanity ", and Paul Mulshine asks "can McCain be this dumb
?"
At the other end of the spectrum, we have the spectacle of Ralph Nader. Hasn't he realized that his Presidential bids don't accomplish anything? Hasn't he realized that he's irrelevant (as illustrated by his new running-mate, who is so far to the left that he couldn't even be elected mayor of San Francisco )? Doesn't he have anything better to do? He should take a lesson from Al Gore.
- adam ricketson's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
McCain hangs out with psychopaths
Check this out: John McCain accepts an endorsement from John Hagee
.
Hagee is a nationalist-religious fanatic
(see his TV show where he warns that the Muslim and Latino hordes 
are aiming to destroy America). He believes that "God gave Israel to the Jews", implying that the borders are non-negotiable. He explicitly declares that the political division of Jerusalem is against God's will 
(apparently, this isn't up to the Israelis):
He has also said some bad things about the Catholic church, and this association between McCain and Hagee
is angering right-wing Catholics 
.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
This 30 second video explains why I gave up on the GOP
From a libertarian perspective--in terms of a libertarian-conservative axis-- there is no compromise that can be made with that . There is no peace that can be made with that. It can only be opposed...
If Hagee's views re Israel disturb
you, how about the view of the islamists that no land which was under muslim sovereignty can stay non-muslim? That it must again be made muslim dominant by force. Like Spain, Southern Italy, Lebanon, Kashmir, and Israel. I find that to be an intolerant viewpoint.
name the enemy, win the war
Hagee v. Islamists
When an Islamist comes out and actively supports a presidential candidate, and that candidate neither "renounces" nor "rejects" the support, then your comparison will make more sense.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I think you're missing the subtle point
It's the GOP's association with that element and pandering to it that is disturbing....also disturbing is that that group of conservatives as a bloc have way too much influence.
Islamists?? Not to be coy, but does it really matter what the islamists think? They can dream about their caliphates and dominions all they want. Dr. Doom or Megatron have a 1000X better chance of achieving their goals.
Hagee vs. Islamists
I guess we agree that Hagee's intentions are not as bad as those of the most aggressive Islamists...but that's quite a low standard.
Are you suggesting that we should treat Hagee in a manner similar to how we treat Islamists?
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
heh, I actually like Hagee
and have no problem with pro-Israel evangelicals. I don't care about their religious justifications for their ideas, but I think they are useful allies.
The more serious clash with Islamists is coming and no amount of isolationist foreign policy will prevent it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Right, agree Hagee has a religious
view that the Jews have a right, indeed an obligation, to return to their ancestral homeland, from which they were dispersed. But the Muslem world has a religious view that this is muslim land, because it once was. So the secular left is appalled at Hagee and the Christian Zionist's "religious" idea, but they are OK with the muslim imperialist outlook.
name the enemy, win the war
The unrealistic view
that a peace process could be derailed by one lunatic on either side is unproductive, yet that is the position of the hard right in the Jewish community. It is unproductive to an extreme.
I'm only half stupid
no
Hagee has a religious view that the Jews have an obligation to return to their ancestral homeland, in order to precipitate the apocalypse.
Step 1: all the Jews move to Israel
Step 2: Global Thermonuclear War
Step 3: a miracle occurs saving only John Hagee and his friends
Step 4: Paradise!
See, the problem is not Jews moving to Israel. It's not even necessarily that he wants to complete an ancient magical spell to end the world. It's the combination of his Lovecraftian plot to kill billions and his demonstrated willingness to use his material political power to intervene when the eldrich forces fail to follow through on his prophecy.
so basically you are saying that
he is willing to do whatever it takes to try to move things towards the end that he wants, even when they clearly are not moving in the direction that God intended according to the apocalyptic prophesies... I don't think he is that evil.
Helping Jews might be a bit self-serving but I think it is a part of a sincere belief in the end time prophesies, and ultimately not such a sinister move since his prophesies are bogus. So, I'd take the help he gives to Israel and thank him. I do not see a good reason to vilify him.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Sandbox-- WTF?
This is complete BS. If you can't justify this statement, then it's effectively slander, and totally destroys your credibility.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I may have over-generalized, but here is the way I see it.
Islam military imperialism is how islam was spread: in North Africa, thougout what we now call the middle east, and Turkey and then present day Iran and Pakistan, etc. Many of these areas were Christian, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and so on. After conquering an area the people had to convert to islam or assume second class status under islam. So, to bring this back to the present, when Israel's enemies say that Israel is occupying muslim land, what does that mean? It means land that the Muslims themselves took by force (imperialism) in the 7th century, and think that they can keep that land in perpetuity. I don't buy into that argument. I get the sense that many on the secular left, who normally think that all religion is suspect, go along with this so-called "muslem land" concept.
name the enemy, win the war
Do you want to correct all historical sins?
Do you want to correct all historical sins? I ask because there are a whole lot of them, and the USA and Israel have participated in them as much as anyone (native Americans and Cannanites).
I apparently over-interpreted what you meant by "muslim imperialist outlook" (I interpreted it as Hagee's view that muslims are trying to take over the entire world). Sorry.
The secular left probably accounts for 10-15% of Americans -- I don't think a single leader within this community rejects Israel's right to exist. Among the secular left, the general attitude towards soverignty is that people live where they live, and each national community should have soverignty over its home. This means that Israelis should have soverignty over the regions where they live, and Arabs/Palestinians should have soverignty over the areas where they live. Criticisms of Israel are typically based on Israel's continuing occupation of and expansion into Arab territory.
Update: Actually, you did say that secular leftists are okay with Muslims trying to take over large parts of the world where they have not had control in centuries. That's complete BS.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
pro-Israeli or anti-Palestinian?
I think you meant to say that you like "anti-Palestinianism/Islamism", whatever it ultimate motive.
Hagee embodies the most belligeriant form of "Pro-Israeli" opinion, such that it includes an aggressive anti-Palestinian agenda. This is just going to drag us into a bunch of unnecessary wars that won't accomplish anything. This "military clash of civilizations" is yesterday's battle--it's a complete misdirection of our attention and energy.
The world is changing -- not like the hippy changes of the 1960's, but changes like robotics, cybernetics, genetic engineering, instant communication, and fusion power. These technological advances will radically transform our own society and completely undermine reactionary societies around the world. The Islamists are irrelevant. Their ideological godfather (Sayyid Qutb) knew this; He saw a prosperous, technologically advanced America, and knew that his reactionary Islam didn't stand a chance against it -- almost anyone given the chance would choose modern society over his reactionary ideal.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Adam, your denial of the threat from
radical islam is extremely naive:
Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror
by Mary Habeck
name the enemy, win the war
yes, I know that they are religious fanatics.
Call it naive if you wish -- I call it perspective. It's not as if I've never seriously considered the threat posed by Islamists. In fact, I admit that they pose a threat. I just deny that it is an existential threat, or that it is something that we need to actively extinguish.
There are plenty of serious threats to American security -- including pandemic diseases, rising superpowers, climate change, energy scarcity, domestic tyranny, and political and economic turmoil around the world. Focusing on one threat (Islamism), to the point where we give no heed to these other threats is quite rash (if not naive).
By saying that "Islamism is irrelevant", I meant to convey the opinion that it does not have much power today, and there is really no way for it to expand its own power. Religious fanaticism is incompatible with technological and economic advancement. Fanatics also have a tendency to turn on each other over issues of religious doctrine.
As for Habeck's quote, I don't see a clear point in there. Do you interpret this to mean that Islamism arises purely from indoctrination, and it exists in the heart of every Muslim? If so, that ignores the diversity of Islam (and all religious communities) and also the fact that even religious doctrine develops in a historical (economic, political, social) context. This last point is illustrated by the fact that Islamism has only become a political force in the past few decades, and was previously overshadowed by Arab Nationalism.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
What's your problem?
Are you saying you are OK with a nuclear holocaust in Isreal or nuclear attacks on the US? What a strange position to take.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Following this line of logic
...I guess it's fair to say that you are OK with Miami falling into the ocean, because you aren't as concnerned with global warming as the global warming alarmists and do not subscribe to their proposed remedies...?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Actually, this is correct (for once) ...
I'll let the people in Miami worry about Miami. The same with New York which could use a good scrubbing anyway. :)
And if you're going to talk science, get it right. Miami won't "fall into the ocean" because of global warming. The ocean will rise up and swallow it whole!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You, too, are correct (for once), in recognizing my correctness!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Come on, GR and Ender,
Is Kal's real position on the matter so difficult for you to engage that you have to twist it into something easier for you to slap down?
Simply put, when you use words like "isolationism", it's a cop out and name calling...not an accurate critique.
Perhaps you could explain how in the world Islamists could ever succeed.
Why conservatives like to edify these dangerous little bandits and speak of them like some invading force ala "War of the Worlds" is something I'd LOVE to hear accurately explained with no straw men, no exaggerations and no misdirection.
OK, in case it wasn't painfully obvious ...
I was being hyperbolic for effect.
Logically speaking (formal logic now), the opposite of
is NOT, I repeat NOT,
Maybe I give people too much credit sometimes on understanding formal logic. The argument is obviously logically flawed and hence should have been interpreted as a mild ribbing or a joke and not taken seriously.
At any rate it was nothing personal, kal.
As to your actual question, John, I think the issue is something like this:
Expected Damage = "Probability they can attack us" X "Potential damage they can do"
So even though the probability they can attack us remains low, the potential amount of damage becomes enormous with nukes. So the prudent course of action still becomes preventing them from acquiring that much firepower.
Is that non-evasive enough?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, GR
I was just assuming some grain of seriousness. Sorry :)
As for the addressing my question at the end,
Well, that's all fine and dandy. But let's just remember that any prevention of further attacks and any marginalization of terrorists elements, if any, has occurred totally independently of invasions of Iraq or toughness with other nations.
The real work that bears any fruit is the realm of intelligence gathering, police action, freezing of bank accounts and cooperation with other such agencies overseas. It's a stealth war...not a conventional one.
Against this backdrop, we've made our job a lot harder with tanks, infantry, warplanes, bombs and occupations and any success that we've had has come in spite of aggressive foreign policy and wars and threats against nation states and not because of it. If anything, such belligerent bungling is making the job of the real counter-terrorist operations all the more difficult and complicated.
Fair enough.
As with anything intended to be humorous there is always a grain of truth in it, so to that level I was serious. That doesn't mean that I seriously thought ka1 was advocating a holocaust.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think that I could legitimately claim that the war is being fought on two fronts: one is the covert intelligence and policing angle you describe and the other is simply a show of force as in Afghanistan and Iraq. People like to joke about how we have lost the war in Iraq but I have no doubt that the more important message has been made: mess with us and you could be next. Remember, the actual taking control of the country only took a couple of weeks much to EVERYONE's surprise. Remember those lefties predicting 500,000 dead (US) just to take the country? I do.
So, maybe you don't see value in the latter point, but I do. Is this then not a point where we can agree to disagree? We are, afterall, agreed on the former point, right?
I'm not sure I buy this either. When it comes to sharing information andfreezing accounts and such I don't believe that things have changed much, have they? Sure, we may get some grumpy looks now and then but these channels are still working are they not?
And any states that were reluctant to cooperate at this level before have now been given the message described above which is exactly what I think they should have been told, IMHO. Your mileage may vary.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4you line up the strawmen, I knock em down!
Anyone who was predicting 500,000 dead U.S. was an idiot-- you'd have to show me who "those lefties" were. I don't know that we even ever had that many sets of boots on the ground, all-in, counting contractors and everybody, even if you count people on ships in the gulf and on other Persian Gulf bases. As far as "everyone" being surprised, the initial invasion went about exactly as I thought it would, given the fact that I knew that Saddam's military capabilities were minimal-- you know how it is, it's hard to get much done in a war these days when you don't have any WMD ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I stand somewhat corrected.
While lots of lefties were making lots of irrational predictions at the time, the most prominent was Janeane Garofalo. I dug up her actual quote which was made, amongst other places, in an ad that aired before the invasion of Iraq
:
So, if we invade Iraq (i.e. we take the country) half a million people would be killed, presumably in the invasion not in some post invasion drawn out action where most of the deaths are the results of terrorist activities and have nothing to do with US operations.
So, I stand corrected on the US part of my comment. On the inaccuracy of the prediction of the direct results of the invasion I stand pat.
[Yes, yes, I know you intend to try and claim that prediction was right in the long run even though it wasn't
... and forget about trying to reference that 650,000 estimate which is totally made up.]
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't know that she was that far off-- but you sure are!
Garofalo said:
Which you paraphrase as follows:
You're distorting her statement, then reading a lot more into her statement than is there. First of all, she said "killed or wounded"... which you incorrectly translate to simply "killed" in your paraphrase. In any war, the number of people killed and wounded will be several times the number of people killed. Right there, you've already drastically misrepresented her statement.
Secondly, she says absolutely nothing that indicates that she was considering only casualties that would occur during the initial invasion, despite a lot of hand-waving on your part. Consider the following similarly constructed statement...
...Is there any implication in this prediction that Joe will go broke at the closing table? No, and nor is there any implied cutoff date in this prediction. The prediction only implies a cause-effect relationship between the transaction and the eventual bankruptcy. Similarly, there is no implied cutoff date in Garofalo's prediction, and therefore we have no reason to believe that the estimate is not referring to all excess casualties that would occur if we invaded without respect to when those casualties might occur.
Finally, I have been one of the biggest critics of the Lancet studies, but the Iraq body count total is less than the total of deaths caused by this war. From IBC:
Combatant killings and undocumented killings almost certaily take the total over 100,000-- for deaths. Woundings are usually a multiple of deaths in a war, so I wouldn't be surprised if we aren't already somewhere in the neighborhood of Garofalo's worry about 500,000 killed and wounded in this war. I'll take Garofalo's prewar prediction over Bush admin's predictions of cakewalks every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Bah.
At the time she siad it she clearly meant during the invasion, i.e. to topple Saddam. She was trying to create a doomsday catastrophe scenario that people would assume was going to immediately as part of the initial fighting in an effort to derail the effort.
And of course she says absolutely nothing to indicate that she was thinking post invasion either.
Regardless, I have substantiated my claim to the predictions of 500,000 from the left, with the exception of them being US only. We could quibble about the "killed or wounded" nuance but there really isn't much point. The major point was the 500,000 number more than anything else in my original statement. It's not like I spent days researching it before I made it or whether it was some lynch pin in a grand argument. It was just a passing comment made from memory, so what's your point?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You have only succeeded....
...in finding a prediction from the left that has turned out to be fairly accurate.
Nope. You're engaging in mind-reading. I note the absence of a blockquote citing something she said that supports this.
Heh, contradicting yourself already, three sentences into the post. So you admit that it is not clear that she was talking about just the initial invasion. Yes, it's true-- she says nothing about whether she's talking about only deaths during the march to Baghdad, or total deaths during the war.
Answer me this, though-- would Janeane Garofalo ever go for the smaller of two numbers if she was predicting a casualty count in this spot? I mean, in a scenario where there were 500k casualties in the initial invasion, there certainly would be more casualties in the aftermath, right? Being the biased antiwar lefty that she is, wouldn't she use every potential casualty or death at her disposal, and opt for the higher number, or at least explain that the 500,000 number was just the tip of the iceberg?
Move those goalposts a little more, why dontcha! 500,000 Americans dead has morphed into 500,000.... anything!
The difference betweein being alive or dead is "nuance"? A difference that changes the numbers by a factor of 5 is a "quibble"?
Strawman, because nobody ever claimed that you spent "days researching" this for a "grand argument". My point is to smack down your false claims while reinforcing the credibility of some of us who opposed this war to begin with and were far more accurate in their predictions in many cases than the bozos who were running the show. Now, you are defending yourself with more distortions, and calling fundamental factual distinctions "quibbles" and "nuance", and you expect that to be the end of the thread? On SwordsCrossed??? I would never dishonor SwordsCrossed by allowing your distortions and falsehoods to stand unchallenged :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Cash Advance Notice....
Putting the war on the US credit card.
Just a minor point, or perhaps not, but have you ever used those checks that come with your credit card bill that offer you 'free money' or a cash advance on your credit line? Then you end up paying it off for years and years and years.
Now just imagine, we are putting this whole frickin Iraq War on cash advance, to the tune of 12 Billion a month. That's insanity and it is definitely not fiscally responsible.
I'm only half stupid
:) Fine, you made your point. Can we move on?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, GR. I appreciate your answers
but we simply have disagreements on matters that are not easily settled.
Yes.
Look, GR, all those points you made outside of where you agree with me are just simply matters of opinion by you that I don't think hold up. These are fundamental differences of opinion about how things work and how we conceptualize the world.
Suffice it to say, if we had never gone into Iraq and simply pursued and Al Qaeda covertly while addressing some prickly points in our foreign policy to win battle of hearts and minds, we'd be in a much, much better place right now.
Worst Case Outcome as the sole basis for Strategic Thinking
is folly...
GoRight, using your simple model of Expected Damage, we would have to conclude to pre-emptively attack every single country on the face of the earth, because I assure you, "Expected Damage" would be nonzero for each of them.
I think you would agree that using your Expected Damage Model as the basis for our relations with, say, Great Britain, would be the height of absurdity. And if there were some religious crank out there, say the leader of "The Covenant for the Restoration of the Unity Martian Government" which viewed the Queen of England as the only impediment preventing the martians to return by UFO and reestablish their world government of peace and prosperity, I think we would all agree that such a crank had no business meeting with presidential candidates and highly placed administration officials.
Well, I view Hagee maybe one step or two below my fictitious crank in the "hierarchy of crankdom." Hagee barely qualifies to be a used car salesman, much less as an advisor/endorser of presidential candidates. Tying American Foreign Policy to his half-cocked biblical eschatological views defines the very term "folly." Legitimizing his views of Iran with a selective application of the "Expected Damage" model is dishonesty.
As i mentioned above, "Attack" is the only strategy to be played in your "Expected Damage' model or game. Of course, international relations is much more complex game than that with a complex matrix of strategies and outcomes. The refrain that Iran is an "irrational actor" and therefore we get to selectively apply the Expected Damage Model doesn't hold a bit of water. Iran hasn't externally attacked another nation since the break-up of the Persian Empire, and that includes the last 30 years as an "Islamic Republic." Being a state sponsor of a terrorist organization(Hezbollah in this case) actually indicates that Iran is a rational state actor, in that a primary characteristic of a rational state actor is an actor which seeks to preserve itself(the state). If Iran were irrational, it would have attacked Israel directly in response to Israel's 20 year occupation of Lebanon(thus resulting in Iran's destruction as a State in it's present form) rather than organize and support a shiite resistance that became Hezbollah.
Contrast Iran's actions with the United States during the same period of time with the US response to the Soviet's occupation of Afghanistan. The US didn't attack russia, rather it was actively engaged in supporting and organizing the Mujaheddin(a terrorist organization as the Soviets called them at the time, and which just ooozes in irony today).
Iran in pursuing a geopolitical strategy actually took the same course as the United States during the same period of time. This isn't a "moral equivalence argument" but rather a demonstration of rationality as a state actor. This to demonstratively refute this notion that Iran's support of hezbollah somehow proves it's an irrational state actor. Actually, it demonstrates the contrary.
Gary Kasparov, probably the most brilliant strategic thinker on the face of the earth, made the rounds recently in the United States convincingly pointing out out the strategic repercussions of our unilateral application of an "Expected Damage" model to Iraq in terms of the political consequences with respect to Russia. The oil shocks allowed Putin to consolidate power, take permanent power in Russia, pull Russia back down into totalitarianism and justified Putin to
reassert Russias role in the world as a counter-balance to US unilateralism. Yeah hoo, the cold war is back on and the neoconservative thinkers in the mid to late 90s decried American decadence in a time of relative peace and prosperity now have their Geo-Political theatre restored. National Security trumps everything else for the State...
The consequences of a US unilateral, pre-emptive attack on Iran would likely be far worse and far reaching.
McCain needs a punch in the head
His outlook on the world makes want to beat the $hit out of him.
He should go home and play with his war toys like Dark Helmet did in Space Balls.
We don't need his steely resolve and sense of honor in the WH.
Good points.
So, by process of elimination,
this all sounds like a vote for Obama assuming that he wins the nomination... right?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I see you haven't been around much lately...
:)
Yes. I will either vote Dem...preferably Obama....or simply abstain from the presidential slot on my ballot.
My dream would be for Obama to win the WH and the GOP to retake Congress. But that's not gonna happen. It's going to take the warmth of the Obama honeymoon to fade before most independents and swing voters remember that they don't really like the Dems either and cause a GOP resurgence in 2010.
Politics can be quite predictable in some respects. ;)
Too bad Kerry didn't win in 2004. The GOP would have maintained congress in 2006 and these last four years would have been better. Oh well. :(
With You here..
I think this would be the best option. I don't think the country needs to move too far to either extreme, and when one party has control of all the levers things get crazy. I hope that Obama can pull off the nomination and the general and more Blue Dog and Red-State Dems gain traction along with principled GOP'ers..preferably the non-Social Warfare kind. This could make a more effective government I think and can put us on the right track again.
BUT..we'll see I guess.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
BTW, it kinda irks me
that people would assume I'd be voting GOP.
I think the combo of Clinton / GOP congress...
...worked out well for the country in many respects.
I have high hopes for Obama. I think he can work with both sides. He has shown a willingness to give the finger to "the base", which I really like. Recently, he's been spouting a lot of populist BS which I don't like, but I think he's just pandering to try to seal the nomination, and I think we will see a return to his old form once he seals it. I predict you and I both will be moderately pleased by an Obama administration.
As far as assuming you'd go McCain, I plead innocent. I was just taking an opportunity to do a little canvassing for Obama :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I am less optimistic than you overall.
I look for better foreign policy and less expansion of a police state.
Beyond that, I have my fingers crossed that any domestic schemes get mired in procedure and debate until 2010.
To put it this way, adam:
McCain and Nader are both pathetic and delusional.
You don't have to go by Russert
Obama's website
says pretty much the same thing. Quote:
Al Qaeda isn't gone now and they won't leave under Obama's plan for timed surrender. The statement makes no logical sense.
eyes-a-rollin'...n/t