Silly JT, only Republicans lie (/sarcasm)

I know I call them lies and anyone with a memory fully expects Hillary to lie as we've watched her on countless occasions.

HOWEVER, Barack "I don't like American names" Obama is just as pathetic...just because his woeful inexperience and unqualified record provides little for us to look at his current shenanigans tell any reasonable citizen what they need to shun him;

Barack Obama Embellishes His Resume by several of his previous co-workers
http://www.analyzethis.net/blog/2005/07/09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/

Obama's Silver Tongue is Forked by Ken Blackwell
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/02/21/obamas_silver_tongue_is_forked

Obama Defends Rev. Wright, Blasts Imus
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_wright_imus/2008/03/19/81557.html?s=sp&promo_code=4795-1

When Obama, Clinton and McCain Decisively Agreed By Terence Jeffrey
http://www.townhall.com:80/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/02/13/when_obama,_clinton_and_mccain_decisively_agreed

Obama and the National Anthem
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fwog6E08CFU

Neither of these two clowns have a principled bone in their body.

Neither of these two clowns have a principled bone in their body.

But they have the MSM in their pocket.....so who needs a spine?

I'm perfectly comfortable calling them lies, or perhaps more appropriate, par for the course.

The debates about Iraq with McCain, are always interesting from the 'straight talk' express.

I'm still waiting for the balance coverage of McCain indicating on four separate occasions that Iran is training and suppling al Qaeda in Iraq.

Talk about misleading the public.

McCain on his superior insight on the course of the war:
"I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough, and those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I'm sorry they were mistaken. McCain 1/4/07

Now is this misleading?
"Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women." [CNN, 9/24/02]

"We're not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we're not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies." [CNN, 9/29/02]

"But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily." [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/04/mccain-iraq-easy/

So what is more important to the future of America a leader that lies about a war that has taken 4,000 Americans or exaggerating the amount of contribution to a law that failed to pass?

Everybody expects a Barney and Steve Straw Man.

Meanwhile, Hilary recounts her combat descent and ascent at Tuzla and translates possible reports of sniper threat to sniper fire. I really think its better to say that as a emotional female she misinterpreted the situation due to fear and is truly recounting now what she believes happened.

I had to wear flak vest in and out of Tuzla and Sarajevo even in the '98-2003 time period. Big Whoop. They were totally useless at protecting you from sniper fire from below (even if you took them off and sat on them, they were designed to stop flak, not bullets). The cockpits of most USAF aircraft had additional soft armor installed as well. However, letting someone into the cockpit during ascent and descent is more of a thrill gift than a security measure. Especially with a combat approach or ascent, its pretty cool unless you are totally scared of flying. Which might account for Hillary's exaggerated memories of what happened on the flight line.

BTW, the food at Eagle Base was great. The French mess at Sara was to die for.

Barney -

Please, in the depths of your wisdom, point out where in American history we've fought a war where no mistakes were made.

And where the casualty/fatality rate has been so low that 5 or 6 soldiers dying at once in an enemy attack is front-page news?

Where we have spent less than 1% of the GDP?

The future historian would note that for the past century America has been one of largest military powers on the planet. This naturally involved a budgetary commitment. For some of the past century, the American military was quite small. But on average American military spending was about twice the share of GDP that it now is, about 5%. Moreover, with Iraq consuming between 15% and 20% of that figure, the future historian would likely view the entire affair as relatively minor in purely budgetary terms. That is hard for us to comprehend while living through it, but it is the way the numbers break.
.
An even more challenging leap to the perspective of the future historian comes in the consideration of the human cost. Since 2003 nearly 4,000 U.S. troops have been killed in the war, and nearly 30,000 wounded. We Americans view every life as precious, and each of our service members who dies represents a huge personal tragedy for his or her loved ones. But our future historian would not necessarily regard the Iraq toll as a turn toward callousness toward our citizens in uniform. In the past century American military fatalities during wartime totaled about 620,000, or an average of 6,200 per year in a nation with an average population of about 165 million. In the century before that, American fatalities averaged about 3,800 per year in a country with a population that averaged only about 30 million. One reason is better medical care, which lowers the fatality rates of those who are wounded but leaves many who would otherwise have died with long-term disabilities.

And you'd think, with the anti-war crowd being so willing to 'bring the soldiers home' - that they'd be getting out when the opportunity arises, wouldn't they? I believe Stop-Loss ended over a year ago, and that only applied to certain critical specialties - it wasn't a general thing. But those ungrateful soldiers are actually re-enlisting, and at rates higher than before the war.

Relatively easy? It HAS been, Barney. It's been a hell of a lot easier and cheaper than it could have been.

jl, so you approve of a presidential candidate lying about his assessment of the war? If you say that things are great with a war that has cost use a half trillion (projected at 2-trillion plus) and 4,000 dead Americans as a success good for you.

Tell that to a mom that has lost her son.

The lefties don't really suffer from AADD, they are just determined to change the subject.

I've never been a big fan of John McCain, but I must say the more he is attacked by the anti-American left, the higher "likability rating" I give him.

Can someone lie about an assessment? An assessment is an evaluation or estimation isn't it? Can one lie about an evaluation based on the information they had at the time? I don't think so.

Making a wrong assessment before the war is even engaged is far different than altering the facts of an event that's already happened.

And since we're picking nits, and I am, we actually won the war a very long time ago, not sure of the actual date, but it was early into Iraqi Freedom back in 2003, with very few casualties. Saddam was ousted, the Iraqi people were liberated from a vicious SOB and his sons who on a good day were sociopaths. Done deal. The fact that we've stuck around to help the Iraqi people put something resembling a democratic and civilized government in place may not be important for a lot of folks, but I'm a, "We broke it, we ought to fix it." sort of guy.

Don't get me wrong, the aftermath has been FUBAR in way too many areas, mostly because politicians forget that the U.S. Military is best at blowing shit up and breaking things and we were trying too hard to not look like we were invading and occupying a country when we were in fact, invading and occupying a country. Yes, my view is that we tried to be too nice for too long and didn't blow the crap out of the insurgents whenever they popped up.

However, the fact that more Iraqis have power, clean water, more schools, more girls going to school, and a higher life expectancy than ever before apparently aren't important enough for the media to report.

Would my Mom have cared about any of that had I gone over and gotten killed when I was still on active duty? Not so much. She was for nuking Baghdad back in '91 but then again, she went through WW II and lost some family in the Pacific so she's one of those barbarians that thinks, "We've got nukes, let's use them."

Let's see, Hillary lied saying she had to duck and run when she landed in Bosnia because sniper fire was trying to take her out. The video shows a relaxed Hillary talking with people on the runway. Now we, the convervatives on this blog, have known for many years that the Clinton's were liars, but the left is finally coming around, except for the above hold outs. McCain's assessment about something that hasn't happened yet is not a lie. BG, you really do not have the intelligience to contribute to the debate. You never did. You never get the point of a post. ww

And Barney tries a DE-Rail!

Blocked by Timmer with an assist by Jim!

Barney - try reading some military history. The actual stuff, not the reinterpreted pap from ThinkProgress - and you'll see that war is NEVER a straighforward thing with all information known. Anyone who thinks, going in, that everything is known is just plain stupid.

As Rumsfeld said "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." In a war, you've got maybe 20 percent of the first. Thirty of the second. And 50% of the third. Why do you think the military spends so much time training for various scenarios?

As times goes on, the second and third get smaller - but never goes away completely.

If you base your assessment on what was known at the time - you're not lying when it turns out to be incorrect. This distinction seems to be lost on a lot of people, so it's not suprising you don't understand it.

Now, my assessment is that Hil and Obama between them haven't got a third the strategic and tactical military smarts of Saddam Hussein in his current condition. (IE croaked.) They have little to no understanding of the idea that it only takes one side to start a war, but seem to think it's something that you can just drop at any time with no repercussions to our diplomatic and foriegn policy, not to mention our credibility in the world arena when it comes to whether the US will keep it's word when supporting our allies.

Do I think they're suitable for the job? No.

Do I think McCain's best for the job? No - but he's adequate, and he's running, and he's better than the other two. I believe he'll put country ahead of party, and ahead of himself, which is more than I trust Hillary or Obama to do.

True, Hillary's gaffe reminds me of this old chestnut..

Heck, just by calling them "embellishments" you are going a bold step further than the MSM. No account that I've read has had the nerve to point out how ridiculous it is to claim to be foggy or have misspoken on what was originally described as such an intense situation.

Do ya think hill lies to herself about that nite in the WH when bilbo was right in the next room dukin the pudgy lil intern and pumpin his lovin all over her blue dress?