I'm telling ya, if McCain puts Romney on the ticket, he wins come November.

 

If McCain puts Bugs Bunny on the ticket now he wins.

 

Biden???:scared::eek:What a horrible choice. This further points out Obama's inexperience. If he had named Clinton, the race was over! Pick Richardson or any of about ten others and Obama is still the frontrunner. I could never vote for someone that would pick Biden!:scared:

 

When asked what he thought of the choice, Dennis Miller was laughing so hard, he couldn't even comment.

If McCain puts Bugs Bunny on the ticket now he wins.

 

Biden???:scared::eek:What a horrible choice. This further points out Obama's inexperience. If he had named Clinton, the race was over! Pick Richardson or any of about ten others and Obama is still the frontrunner. I could never vote for someone that would pick Biden!:scared:

 

When asked what he thought of the choice, Dennis Miller was laughing so hard, he couldn't even comment.

 

There is a pretty reasonable logic behind picking Biden.

 

I disagree, Clinton would not sealed the race for him. IMHO, we are blowing the VP choices on both sides out of proportion.

There is a pretty reasonable logic behind picking Biden.

 

I disagree, Clinton would not sealed the race for him. IMHO, we are blowing the VP choices on both sides out of proportion.

 

I agree.

 

For those under the impression that Clinton would have been chosen or would seal the race for Obama are flirting with delusion.

I agree.

 

For those under the impression that Clinton would have been chosen or would seal the race for Obama are flirting with delusion.

 

Clinton was a dangerous choice, one that Obama was smart to avoid.

If McCain puts Bugs Bunny on the ticket now he wins.

 

Biden???:scared::eek:What a horrible choice. This further points out Obama's inexperience. .

 

So do you think the millions of voters who voted for Obama didn't know he had an experience problem? That's like saying people are going to realize Barack is not completely white because he brought in an old white guy.

Edited August 25, 200818 yr by Clyde

The last time I checked, the "sovereign nation" of Iraq was still being propped up by the United States militarily, economically, and politically. I think we continue to have a say in the country we involved ourselves in five and a half years ago. Colin Powell said it best: you break Iraq, you own it. Given the fact that U.S. actions broke it, I have no problem with U.S.-imposed creative solutions (such as partition) to pragmatically resolve the problem, especially if the Iraqis continue to be ineffective in settling their differences. In all honesty, the window of opportunity for partition has probably closed, but that does not mean that it was an idea without merit. You try selling the idea to the American people who are footing the bill that we should let the Iraqis bumble forth indefinitely in the name of "national sovereignty". That will sell well.

The Iraqis opposed partitioning their country. Should we have risked conflict with Turkey by creating a nation for the Kurds and then forcibly split the rest of the country - forcing Sunnis and Shiites to move to their new respective countries.

 

The time was never right for partitioning Iraq because the idea never appealed to most Iraqis. Advocating the destruction of a nation by imposing American drawn borders across Iraq makes no sense now and it made no sense when Biden proposed the idea. Biden is no foreign policy genius and the partitioning of Iraq is just one of the many misguided positions that he has taken in the past.

 

Joe Lieberman would have been the best running mate Obama could have had if George Soros and the Move-On gang not attempted to drum him out of the party for supporting Israel and the war on terror. Still, Obama could have done far worse than Biden. He could have put Pelosi or Reid on the ticket.

The Iraqis opposed partitioning their country. Should we have risked conflict with Turkey by creating a nation for the Kurds and then forcibly split the rest of the country - forcing Sunnis and Shiites to move to their new respective countries.

 

The time was never right for partitioning Iraq because the idea never appealed to most Iraqis. Advocating the destruction of a nation by imposing American drawn borders across Iraq makes no sense now and it made no sense when Biden proposed the idea. Biden is no foreign policy genius and the partitioning of Iraq is just one of the many misguided positions that he has taken in the past.

 

Joe Lieberman would have been the best running mate Obama could have had if George Soros and the Move-On gang not attempted to drum him out of the party for supporting Israel and the war on terror. Still, Obama could have done far worse than Biden. He could have put Pelosi or Reid on the ticket.

 

Well, I do have to agree with you on those two!:scared: Throw in Kennedy, Boxer and Frank and that should cover it.

I agree.

 

For those under the impression that Clinton would have been chosen or would seal the race for Obama are flirting with delusion.

 

;) Color me flirt then! IYHO

There is a pretty reasonable logic behind picking Biden.

 

I disagree, Clinton would not sealed the race for him. IMHO, we are blowing the VP choices on both sides out of proportion.

 

Between them didn't they get like 37 million votes. I don't think that many people voted in all of the Republican primaries, did they?

So do you think the millions of voters who voted for Obama didn't know he had an experience problem? That's like saying people are going to realize Barack is not completely white because he brought in an old white guy.

 

Look at the Democrat primary and I think you see an evolution of the Democrat voters.

 

Early they got caught up in the Obama frenzy.

 

And when it became time for the media and the voters to really examine this guy, they quickly became dissillusioned with him and went back to Hillary.

 

But by that time it was too late.

 

I would bet that if the Democrat primary was held again or if they let delegates vote for whomever at the convention, Hillary would win based on what the Democrats who voted in January and February now know of Obama.

The Iraqis opposed partitioning their country. Should we have risked conflict with Turkey by creating a nation for the Kurds and then forcibly split the rest of the country - forcing Sunnis and Shiites to move to their new respective countries.

 

First of all, you mischaracterize what Biden proposed. He did not suggest the creation of three distinctly separate countries. He proposed separating Iraq into 3 regions by sect, with a central government providing common functions and an oil sharing agreement based on population size. Second, the Iraqis have opposed much of what we have done to their country since the invasion. I'm sure they didn't appreciate the destruction of their infrastructure, the collateral damage of U.S. airstrikes, the terrorizing of their children during combat operations, etc. Poll after poll taken of the Iraqi people from 2004 through the end of 2007 showed overwhelming opposition to the continued U.S. occupation, stating that U.S. forces were a destabilizing factor that hampered political reconciliation efforts. Doesn't exactly sound like honoring the wishes of the Iraqis has ever been a major driver in U.S. policy there. I suspect the only reason now for the show of deference toward "the will of the Iraqi people" is because it facilitates an attack on Biden.

 

 

The time was never right for partitioning Iraq because the idea never appealed to most Iraqis. Advocating the destruction of a nation by imposing American drawn borders across Iraq makes no sense now and it made no sense when Biden proposed the idea. Biden is no foreign policy genius and the partitioning of Iraq is just one of the many misguided positions that he has taken in the past.

 

As stated above, we have never let the desires of the Iraqi people outweigh what was unilaterally felt to be in the best interests of the United States. The modern day nation of Iraq is nothing more than a construct of convenience by the British and French at the end of World War I anyway. The Brits faced rebellion by the Kurds and Shiites in the period between the wars--these groups have always had great difficulty getting along with each other (and portraying any semblance of national unity). The idea that they will unite, in mixed provinces to form a strong and pro-western Iraqi nation is largely a Bush/neo-con fantasy. But then again, awareness of complexity, nuance, and the lessons of history have never been strong attributes of that group. And it isn't like the Iraqis have ironed out agreements to end their sectarian squabbles--the Bush administration really has next to nothing to show for the surge in the way of concrete political progress. There is no guarantee that the groundwork for sustainable stability has been laid.

 

 

Joe Lieberman would have been the best running mate Obama could have had if George Soros and the Move-On gang not attempted to drum him out of the party for supporting Israel and the war on terror. Still, Obama could have done far worse than Biden. He could have put Pelosi or Reid on the ticket.

 

Oh yeah, Lieberman would have been a perfect running mate for Obama. Put someone on the ticket who, like his Republican handlers, continues to obstruct every attempt to change course in Iraq, regardless of the will of the American people. Brilliant.

First of all, you mischaracterize what Biden proposed. He did not suggest the creation of three distinctly separate countries. He proposed separating Iraq into 3 regions by sect, with a central government providing common functions and an oil sharing agreement based on population size. Second, the Iraqis have opposed much of what we have done to their country since the invasion. I'm sure they didn't appreciate the destruction of their infrastructure, the collateral damage of U.S. airstrikes, the terrorizing of their children during combat operations, etc. Poll after poll taken of the Iraqi people from 2004 through the end of 2007 showed overwhelming opposition to the continued U.S. occupation, stating that U.S. forces were a destabilizing factor that hampered political reconciliation efforts. Doesn't exactly sound like honoring the wishes of the Iraqis has ever been a major driver in U.S. policy there. I suspect the only reason now for the show of deference for "the will of the Iraqi people" is because it facilitates an attack on Biden.

 

As stated above, we have never let the desires of the Iraqi people outweigh what was unilaterally felt to be in the best interests of the United States. The modern day nation of Iraq is nothing more than a construct of convenience by the British and French at the end of World War I anyway. The Brits faced rebellion by the Kurds and Shiites in the period between the wars--these groups have always had great difficulty getting along with each other (and portraying any semblance of national unity). The idea that they will unite, in mixed provinces to form a strong and pro-western Iraqi nation is largely a Bush/neo-con fantasy. But then again, awareness of complexity, nuance, and the lessons of history have never been strong attributes of that group.

 

Oh yeah, Lieberman would have been a perfect running mate for Obama. Put someone on the ticket who, like his Republican handlers, continues to obstruct every attempt to change course in Iraq, regardless of the will of the American people. Brilliant.

:lol: The hatred among liberals for a decent man (and fellow liberal) like Joe Lieberman never ceases to amaze me. Lieberman disagrees with the left wing fringe on national security and he gets crucified by Soros and his minions. It would serve the Democratic Party right if Lieberman does switch to the Republican Party next week and announces the immediate release of his life story, including the smears and attacks from the left.

 

News flash: The surge has worked. Polls through "the end of 2007" have no relevancy to the situation in Iraq today. Had Biden's partition plan been implemented, it have caused a deep rift between Turkey and the US and may very well have sparked a large scale Turkish invasion of the Kurdish region. Biden's plan arrogantly disregarded Iraqi wishes and poorly conceived. We are lucky that President Bush adopted McCain's stategy instead of the strategies put forth by Harry "the war is lost" Reid, Jack "redeploy troops to Okinawa" Murtha, or Joe "let's split Iraq" Biden.

Edited August 25, 200818 yr by AcesFull

:lol: The hatred among liberals for a decent man (and fellow liberal) like Joe Lieberman never ceases to amaze me. Lieberman disagrees with the left wing fringe on national security and he gets crucified by Soros and his minions. It would serve the Democratic Party right if Lieberman does switch to the Republican Party next week and announces the immediate release of his life story, including the smears and attacks from the left.

 

News flash: The surge has worked. Polls through "the end of 2007" have no relevancy to the situation in Iraq today. Had Biden's partition plan been implemented, it have caused a deep rift between Turkey and the US and may very well have sparked a large scale Turkish invasion of the Kurdish region. Biden's plan arrogantly disregarded Iraqi wishes and poorly conceived. We are lucky that President Bush adopted McCain's stategy instead of the strategies put forth by Harry "the war is lost" Reid, Jack "redeploy troops to Okinawa" Murtha, or Joe "let's split Iraq" Biden.

 

Lieberman is nothing more than a political hack not only does he support bad policy that is completly against his own party but he is just a horrible prime time canidate, just ask Al Gore...

Lieberman is nothing more than a political hack not only does he support bad policy that is completly against his own party but he is just a horrible prime time canidate, just ask Al Gore...

 

You want to talk about a horrible candidate, look no further than Gore....

:lol: The hatred among liberals for a decent man (and fellow liberal) like Joe Lieberman never ceases to amaze me. .

 

 

This is no different than the vitriol that came McCain's way from conservatives from about 2000 through 2006 or 2007. The loudest in the party are the least accepting.