A year ago during an interview, McCain said he would most certainly leave Iraq if asked to by the Iraq government. Well McCain just flip flopped on that one.

Hmm... is Dave going for the "missed the point" contest, or going for the "quick, change the subject!" prize?

J.

I am pointing out that McCain has flip flopped on his core issue. If I had the time I could point out just as many flip flops by McCain.

Jay,

When you resort to personal attacks you defeat the integrity of your own argument. At least thats what DJ says. But don't worry, DJ doesn't follow his own advice either.

Dave,

When did the Iraqi GOVERNMENT ask the United States to leave Iraq?

As I recall, all we have had so far is a vague/changing request (both as to content and timetable) from the Maliki - who is up for reelection himself soon.

If you have a source that indicates that the Iraqi government has made a formal, official request to have the US troops out, by all means post it for all of us to read.

Good grief, Dave, if you consider my prior comment a "personal attack," you are one amazingly thin-skinned little bugger.

I don't recall mentioning McCain in my piece, and I specifically said Obama wasn't flip-flopping...

J.

Jay,

I did not say I was offended by it, but am merely pointing it out. You resorted to another personal attack by saying I have one amazingly thin-skinned little bugger.

Ummmm, Dave ....

When you "merely pointed it out", you engaged in a personal attack on Jay.

Now since he has demonstrated that he is anything but thin-skinned over time, I doubt he was offended by your comments either.

But should we discount your argument because you engaged in a personal attack?

Or, should we stop playing silly word games and just discuss the topic?

Can you explain how Obama can simultaneously hold conflicting opinions but be right on all of them?

Jay,

That was an enlightening piece and it explains why Obama votes present. He simply can't take a stand because he's for all sides of a question. He votes present simply to let the folks back home know he's on the job. While that strategy works for a Senator it would be a disaster to have a President who can't make tough decisions. How can Obama lead when he can't decide which way to go?

Dave is a perfect example of how the lefties MISS THE POINT OF ALMOST EVERY POST. It has to be either a comprehension problem or an overly excited defense mechanism. I go for the latter. Obama is way passed an average flip flopper. He simply has no core beliefs at all. ww

"We are the change we've been waiting for." BHO embraces all sides of every question. Like Bush, he's a uniter, not a divider. Isn't that, as he says, what "we've been waiting for." NOT! If you're having any doubts about who this guy is, go back to Jibjab.com and watch him on the flying, multicolored unicorn spouting off about change.

Bob,

If you're having any doubts about who this guy is, go back to Jibjab.com and watch him on the flying, multicolored unicorn spouting off about change.

Thats a cartoon, cartoons aren't real. That does not prove a thing.

Bob,

I could equally say McCain is a war monger. If you have any doubts watch the jibjab cartoon.

Obama - the "Chuck Norris" of Politicians.

He doesn't embrace a position, positions simply flop on their backs for him because they know resistance is futile!

Change looked at Obama and simply gave up. It knew when it was outmatched.

When you "merely pointed it out", you engaged in a personal attack on Jay.

But I do so without resorting to name calling.

And just what name did I call you, Dave?

Never mind. I don't want to aid and abet your valiant efforts to change the subject from the one at hand to "anything but."

Just TRY to address the point, Dave, and we'll have a modicum of respect for you: how the HELL does Obama manage to stand so firmly on both sides of so many issues? When push comes to shove, which side will he come down on? And how the hell can we tell BEFORE we cast our votes come November?

I'm not really expecting an answer, Dave, but I'm going to make this good faith effort to find out.

J.

So, you chose the "silly word games" over discussing the topic. I guess that you can't explain how Obama can hold opinions that conflict with one another and call them all "correct" either.

;-)

My previous comment was addressed to Dave.

Oh, Jay - the Obama=Chuck Norris jokes are SO apparent!

I expect people's opinions or stances to evolve in accordance with how any given issue may evolve. What I can't condone is when it's prefaced with, "I never said that." I've heard Obama say this too many times.

In fact, all too often - Yes he did. It's on video.

And when a question is asked, I want the question answered succinctly. I don't want some oratory on societal woes and flowery speech about changing. I don't want to have to read anything into what one might have to say. That's just one's way of being everything for everyone. How many times do you hear people explaining to you what Obama meant when he said this or that? And even then it will vary according to interpretation.

"And just what name did I call you, Dave?"

You called him "Dave". How DARE you?

Concerning your comment on the surge (and not arguing for it or against it):

There are a lot of things in this world that have worked, but shouldn't have been done in the first place. There is no great contradiction in recognizing that. If you can't think of a dozen examples in your own life where that is true, you haven't lived on this earth very long (or ever been a parent).

You know, one of the "derogatory"* terms I've heard many evil Marxists use to describe President Bush is "the Decider" so I think it's entirely appropriate that they chose as their candidate someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that he lacks the ability to make a decision or take a side on an issue.

(*I put derogatory in quotes because it's obviously not derogatory and actually a characteristic that is required in a President--one of the many such characteristics Obama lacks. But many on the left use it in a way that gives the appearance of them thinking it is in fact derogatory.)

There are a lot of things in this world that have worked, but shouldn't have been done in the first place.

But of course neither you nor anyone else can know the outcome of something not done, and without that information no one can honestly say something shouldn't have been done in the first place. Remember "Don't cry over spilt milk." - James Howell (1549-1666)

Why should the surge not have been done in the first place Rance?

Did you want the terrorists to win?

"But of course neither you nor anyone else can know the outcome of something not done, and without that information no one can honestly say something shouldn't have been done in the first place."

Yes, you can say something shouldn't have been done in the first place. First I, remind you of my qualifier, that I am not talking for or against the surge, just the argument that you can both against something while conceding that it worked.

It comes under the heading of "you got away with it this time" or "you are tempting fate".

Take a look at the annual winners of the Darwin Awards. Many of those winners engaged in reckless behavior for years, and got away with it one way or another. Until the last time.

As far as not knowing the outcome of something not done, there is often a way to achieve the same result using safer methods.

Rance, I'll believe you when you say that you're not arguing for or against the surge, but anyone who read the summary of what the surge was designed to achieve and the different and complex strategies employed, depending on who we were dealing with and where in Iraq, you wouldn't use it as a basis for your argument about whether or not something should have been done in the first place.

A lot of people will finally admit that the Surge worked. Even Obama. But they still don't know why. They still think it was just a matter of more troops. Obama's original talk about more troops not achieving anything tells me that even he didn't understand the plan.

The surge hasn't thus far succeeded because of luck or any twist of fate or in-spite-of anything. It was a carefully planned network of strategies which proved that we have gained a much better understanding of a very complex society of people. The timing was right too. Whether or not much before that could have been avoided is another argument altogether.

So yes, it should have been done.

Yes, you can say something shouldn't have been done in the first place.

That statement is illogical. Particularly in the context of the surge in Iraq. There's no way of knowing what the outcome would have been without the surge. All h**l could have broke lose in Iraq and you can't honestly say it would not have. Nor can you know the outcome of any other plan that was not tried. Sorry, but that's just the way reality works unless you're claiming to have some kind of supernatural insight into alternate futures. Is that what you are claiming?

Arguing that something perhaps should not have been done, in any instance or context, even if it worked, is implying it was a shot in the dark. The Surge was no shot in the dark. That's why there is no comparison in your argument.

You called him "Dave". How DARE you?

Topic?

If there's one party that can screw up an election for the Presidence .. It's the Democratic party. We wanted Bush out of there 4 years back with Kerry. What did we do .. gave it to him. We wanted the Democratic Congress to stop the money on the war. What did we do .. gave it to him. Even though we had majority in Congress. So, now all you freak'en brilliant'ites out there saying Obama is crap and you'll vote for Ralph or whom ever if he's the nominee. Well we'll just be giving up a dream again. Look, for people who do not know this due to watching to much TV, the things any individual states when running for President should be taken with a grain of salt. The thing to remember is that Congress basically decides and has an 85% final say. Look it up. Can we just stop for a moment and remember that it was a Republican in the White House for 8 years of hell. If you PUMA dorks vote for anyone else but Obama .. well you should just vote McCain because that will be the end result. Also, the term "flip flop" .. listen I'd rather have a person reverse them selves due to enlightenment than be a dummy and stick with an earlier decision just to make silly TV hounds of the media feel better at night because their "great leader" stuck with what he said he would do. Let's see whom does dis remind me of .. hummmm .. no don't tell me ... ummmmm George Bush ring a bell. Come on get to being a Democrat, take you Hillary posters down and get with the idea of real change. From reading your comments .. you are the enemy of your own party.

Gary, Obama hasn't just taken two wildly conflicting stances (or "reversed" himself) on a number of issues, he has repeatedly denied it. You might be comfortable with that. And I wish you luck with it. But if I have to read another badly penned, rambling missive from you I think I'd rather stab my eyes out with an ice pick.

Again, reminding you that I was not reacting to the surge just the logic of the statement.

Consider this: You come home from work one day to find that your kid has piled up a bunch of cardboard boxes into a makeshift ladder to go up on the roof to retrieve a wiffle ball out of the gutter. He tells you "no big deal, I got down without falling". Do you say, "Yeah, it worked, this time, but you never should have done that", or do say "Hey, whatever works", because there is no way of telling what would have happened if he hadn't gone up there in the first place.

So Rance, to you the professional opinion and experiencxe of the military is equivalent to a kid piling up cardboard boxes?

You are either a moron or a liar. That is to say, a modern democrat in practice.

Give it up Rance. Your example is in no way comprable and your point is not valid. No way. No how. Not even close.

And Gary I'm sorry that your life has been Hell for the last eight years. Mine's been pretty good. Of course when the leftists took congress and gas prices practically doubled as a direct result of their policies, things got a little tougher but I made some changes and I'm dealing with it.

Still I can give you one clue. The source of your problems or whatever it is that is making your life "hell" is not George Bush or the Republicans (unless of course, you are a terrorist, then it would likely be Bush's fault). It could be a lot of things actually, but I bet if you want to see the source of your problems and also the best solution to them, you need look no further than into the nearest mirror.

Remember everyone - this article on "consistency" is coming from the same guy who supported Mitt Freaking Romney in the primary. Don't expect any principles to be followed by Mr. Tea.

If there is an (R) involved, expect him to get weak kneed and willfully blind. A good example of hackery, Jay.

So Rance, you are saying that the surge having worked was a random occurance, like surving a skydive without injury when a 'chute fails to deploy.
That is in your opinion, the Obama position?