Obama did learn one thing from the Clintons. Check the morning polls before you announce your stance on anything. And then, As The Polls Turn...

 

I believe the choice of Biden has sunk Obama's battleship.

Very simple answer to your question. No cherry picking. I referenced two polls conducted solidly in the middle of the surge to test your premise. If the surge was indeed the root cause of the drop in violence, as claimed by McCain, you would expect the people living in Iraq would recognize it and polls would show agreement. The first poll was taken in September 2007 eight months into the surge, the second was taken in February 2008, one full year into the surge. If the surge was indeed having the effect you claim, the polling data would support. There's nothing wrong with the polling data or the timing. What doesn't fit is your premise. I realize that being confronted with data that directly contradicts a hallowed tenet might be embarrassing for you.

 

As for the graph you reference, please show me the poll data in which the Iraqi citizens directly attribute the improvements in quality of life and security to the surge. If you can't, the graph is irrelevant to your argument.

The graph that I posted came from the same February 2008 poll that you cited in your own post. If you want to attack the validity of the data in the survey that you cited first, then go for it! :lol: (This is what I mean by "cherry picking.")

 

If you need a link to the survey that you cited, just let me know. I assumed that you had already read it before citing a single statistic from 46 pages of results.

 

More attacks on patriotism that do not warrant a response.

If the shoe fits...Russia's invasion of the democratically elected nation of Georgia is not morally equivalent to our toppling of Iraq's government after Saddam Hussein violated 17 different US resolutions and the terms of the surrender to which he agreed.

 

Obama needs to stop trying to paint the US and our current president as moral equivalents of Russia and Vladimir Putin, respectively. If he continues to draw such comparisons, then questions about his patriotism will continue to arise whether you want to respond to them or not.

The graph that I posted came from the same February 2008 poll that you cited in your own post. If you want to attack the validity of the data in the survey that you cited first, then go for it! :lol: (This is what I mean by "cherry picking.")

 

If you need a link to the survey that you cited, just let me know. I assumed that you had already read it before citing a single statistic from 46 pages of results.

 

If the shoe fits...Russia's invasion of the democratically elected nation of Georgia is not morally equivalent to our toppling of Iraq's government after Saddam Hussein violated 17 different US resolutions and the terms of the surrender to which he agreed.

 

Obama needs to stop trying to paint the US and our current president as moral equivalents of Russia and Vladimir Putin, respectively. If he continues to draw such comparisons, then questions about his patriotism will continue to arise whether you want to respond to them or not.

 

I'm sure you meant UN resolutions. (Afterall, why should Hussein have cared about 17 US resolutions)

 

As to the comparisons I did hear something the other day that was intriguing to speak of. I don't agree at all with what Russia did but consider this:

 

Georgia sits on the Russian border and is trying to openly start relations with nations that have a track record of being on the other side of issues with Russia. (US being example one) This means there is a fear of Russia that missles could be parked in Georgia and/or US backed military bases. To them, that would be a threat.

 

We did something similar to Cuba in the early 60's. The Cuban government was friendly to the Soviets but they were only 90 miles from our Southern most coast. So we helped an invasion that did not work because we did not support it well enough with our own people and it failed. Later we nearly went to war over the missles being parked on the island, near our coasts. We have since always cut off ties at every turn with the Cuban government. Why? They threatened us by their relationship with the USSR.

 

It's something worth hashing out sometime but probably not on this thread.

The graph that I posted came from the same February 2008 poll that you cited in your own post. If you want to attack the validity of the data in the survey that you cited first, then go for it! :lol: (This is what I mean by "cherry picking.")

 

Dude, I'm not attacking the validity of the data in the poll, I'm attacking the validity of your conclusion from the graph. The graph says Iraqis lives have improved. It does not say they credit the surge for that improvement as you claim.

 

 

 

If the shoe fits...Russia's invasion of the democratically elected nation of Georgia is not morally equivalent to our toppling of Iraq's government after Saddam Hussein violated 17 different US resolutions and the terms of the surrender to which he agreed.

 

Who said anything about Russia's invasion of Georgia? :confused:

 

If violation of UN resolutions is justification for invasion and regime change, when do we invade Turkey, Israel, Morocco, India, Pakistan, Russia, Croatia, Armenia, Sudan, and Indonesia? All of these countries are in violation of UN resolutions. Not a very sound argument.

 

 

 

Obama needs to stop trying to paint the US and our current president as moral equivalents of Russia and Vladimir Putin, respectively. If he continues to draw such comparisons, then questions about his patriotism will continue to arise whether you want to respond to them or not.

 

The failures of Bush's policies speak for themselves. No one needs to paint him a certain way. There isn't a large enough paint brush to do the damage he has done anyway.

Is there anyone who thinks Biden will actually help Obama?

Is there anyone who thinks Biden will actually help Obama?

 

I think there are some ways that Biden can help. Obviously that answer will receive a swift no on this website, due to the fact that there are a lot of conservatives that post here.

Obviously that answer will receive a swift no on this website, due to the fact that there are a lot of conservatives that post here.

Or just a lot of people who see him as a poor choice.

Or just a lot of people who see him as a poor choice.

 

That could be the case, but I think you would have a hard time arguing my point that there are a lot of conservatives on this site who will disagree with anything Democrats or liberals do.

Obama-Biden ticket.....

 

Wow.....

 

Eerily close to

 

Obama -Binladen

 

Perhaps this observation was made previously on BGP.............

I'm sure you meant UN resolutions. (Afterall, why should Hussein have cared about 17 US resolutions)

 

As to the comparisons I did hear something the other day that was intriguing to speak of. I don't agree at all with what Russia did but consider this:

 

Georgia sits on the Russian border and is trying to openly start relations with nations that have a track record of being on the other side of issues with Russia. (US being example one) This means there is a fear of Russia that missles could be parked in Georgia and/or US backed military bases. To them, that would be a threat.

 

We did something similar to Cuba in the early 60's. The Cuban government was friendly to the Soviets but they were only 90 miles from our Southern most coast. So we helped an invasion that did not work because we did not support it well enough with our own people and it failed. Later we nearly went to war over the missles being parked on the island, near our coasts. We have since always cut off ties at every turn with the Cuban government. Why? They threatened us by their relationship with the USSR.

 

It's something worth hashing out sometime but probably not on this thread.

Yes, I did indeed mean UN resolutions. The comparison between Georgia and Cuba is also flawed (although less so than the Georgia/Iraq comparison). Cuba's government was not democratically elected. JFK could have saved a lot of lives and decades of misery if he had finished the job that he started before the Cuban thugs became entrenched.

Obama-Biden ticket.....

 

Wow.....

 

Eerily close to

 

Obama -Binladen

 

Perhaps this observation was made previously on BGP.............

 

First of all....who cares?

Dude, I'm not attacking the validity of the data in the poll, I'm attacking the validity of your conclusion from the graph. The graph says Iraqis lives have improved. It does not say they credit the surge for that improvement as you claim.

I never said that the Iraqis credited the surge. In fact, I said the exact opposite and attributed the credit that they give to their own government to national pride (which is a good thing, IMO). Please stop mischaracterizing my posts.

 

Who said anything about Russia's invasion of Georgia? :confused:

Obama did and the way that he did it was not particularly patriotic.

 

If violation of UN resolutions is justification for invasion and regime change, when do we invade Turkey, Israel, Morocco, India, Pakistan, Russia, Croatia, Armenia, Sudan, and Indonesia? All of these countries are in violation of UN resolutions. Not a very sound argument.

The US invested heavily in the Gulf War, in which we freed Kuwait. Afterwards, the losing party - the agressor, agreed to certain terms of surrender and then failed to live up to those terms. In fact, Iraq continued to fire upon our aircraft after agreeing to the terms of surrender.

 

We are not obligated to enforce every UN resolution and we fought no war with any of the examples that you cited. Talk about a weak argument...

 

The failures of Bush's policies speak for themselves. No one needs to paint him a certain way. There isn't a large enough paint brush to do the damage he has done anyway.

I agree with you on many of Bush's policies being failures but on 9/12 nobody expected that we would not have another large scale terror attack in the next seven years. To pretend that the absence of such an attack had nothing to do with Bush's policies is to be unreasonably partisan.

 

The US invested heavily in the Gulf War, in which we freed Kuwait. Afterwards, the losing party - the agressor, agreed to certain terms of surrender and then failed to live up to those terms. In fact, Iraq continued to fire upon our aircraft after agreeing to the terms of surrender.

 

We are not obligated to enforce every UN resolution and we fought no war with any of the examples that you cited. Talk about a weak argument...

 

 

 

Without the cherry-picked WMD intel and the bogus links to 9/11, do you honestly think the American public would have supported the idea of 4,147 military deaths, tens of thousands of combat wounded, a trillion dollars in foreign-held debt, and the diversion of resources from fighting our legitimate enemy in Afghanistan because "we invested heavily in the Gulf War" and because Iraq periodically took a shot at our jets? I can tell you the answer to that question is a resounding NO. A solid majority of Americans disagree with your flawed rationale.

Why does Michelle Obama have this look on her face like she wants to strangle Hillary? :eek:

I agree with you on many of Bush's policies being failures but on 9/12 nobody expected that we would not have another large scale terror attack in the next seven years. To pretend that the absence of such an attack had nothing to do with Bush's policies is to be unreasonably partisan.

 

 

The decisions to take the fight to the real enemy in Afghanistan, to increase cooperation with foreign countries, and to step up anti-terrorism efforts at home are responsible for the fact that America has not suffered a large scale terrorist attack since 9/11. For those (rather obvious) actions, credit is due. Of course, the same result could have been achieved with a fraction of the loss of life, cost, and damage to the international standing of the United States if it had stopped there.