<p>There are gaffes (Isn’t if French? In French, it means a small error) and there are huge mistakes (e.g whether Iraq had WMDs).
I’m a little less generous than JHS about McCain’s understanding of who is who in Iraq and whom is being supported by Iran/</p>
<p>As for Rezko’s purchase of the strip of backyard, I don’t see anything wrong with that, no matter which other Rezko deal may have been illegal. Obama paid full price. I’ve been astonished at the prices listed as purchase prices in my neighborhood. Million dollar houses being recorded as $57,000 purchases. Obviously, some deal was struck. But I’m not ready to say these were illegal.</p>
<p>“I’m a little less generous than JHS about McCain’s understanding of who is who in Iraq and whom is being supported by Iran”</p>
<p>I suspect that you have fallen for a common misconception that has been promoted by many - that Iran being Shiite would never support al Qaeda since they are Sunni. What this really highlights is the level (lack) of understanding as promoted by the media and the Dems of the actual relationships that exist between Sunni and Shia and between Iran and al Qaeda. This has been known for some time, but since it doesn’t fit into a simple world view that some cling to, it is easily forgotten.</p>
<p>Here is what the 9/11 report said:
</p>
<p>This is just one of many reports which dispel the notion that cooperation between Iran and al Qaeda was not only feasible but actually occurred/occurs.</p>
<p>McCain did make a gaffe, but the gaffe was to be so easily “corrected” by Lieberman. The Dems on the other hand continue to make this gaffe each time they try to bring it up.</p>
<p>FF:
I have not fallen for anything except that McCain is unable to distinguish between Shiites and Sunnis and does not seem to know what the pre-surge troop level was.</p>
<p>Cottonwood: What did Rezko expect in return? That is a question for Rezko. It does not seem that he got anything in return. But I’m open to proof that he did.</p>
<p>The following clip of McCain is about as clear a demonstration as anybody could get that McCain was making a huge gaffe and confusing Shi’ites and Sunnis and Al Qaeda and other extremists, but I know, FF and Parent2Noles, even your own eyes and ears will deceive you. </p>
<p>What cracks me up is that you and others enter yourselves into a “stupid trance” to make statements that aren’t even borne out by the barest of facts. If this is an example of McCain being “better on Iraq than Obama” god help us if McCain becomes president. And this is supposedly his issue of strength.</p>
<p>The weakness of the Republican position is manifest by the suggestion that because Obama hasn’t gone to Iraq since 2006 he doesn’t know what is going on there. And McCain goes there puts on a photo op, ignores what is going on around him, and this supposedly qualifies him to understand Iraq better. As if a one-man one-day reconnaissance mission to a country the size of California could tell one anything. That’s about the level of smarts behind the war effort to begin with.</p>
<p>Please, snap out of your “stupid trance.” It just makes the Republicans look really stupid. Good luck.</p>
<p>Like I said, McCain did make a gaffe by not sticking with what he originally said. Olberman on the other hand, is a walking, talking gaffe who doesn’t even realize how stupid he is.</p>
<p>“What cracks me up is that you and others enter yourselves into a “stupid trance” to make statements that aren’t even borne out by the barest of facts.”</p>
<p>I’d say that the “stupid trance” that you see is in the mirror. There is a myriad of evidence that shows cooperation between Iran and al Qaeda and it has been known for years. Yet, somehow you persist in promoting this erroneous folly. This simplistic worldview that seems common amongst the Dems is what makes me very worried about an Obama victory. This is part of the same simplistic theme that cliams that Saddam would never cooperate with bin Laden because they were enemies. This is yet another disproved fairy tale.</p>
<p>Wow, that is really all you have. An attack on Olbermann? I think you are proving the stupidity thesis that you yourselves put out there by acting so stupidly…</p>
<p>Iran has links to both of the main rival Shiite factions within Iraq. Whether or not McCain misspoke on that particular occasion, it’s not farfetched to suggest that Iran will support Sunni terrorists in Iraq if it suits their purpose.</p>
<p>So much for the assertion no WMDs have been found and that the concept of Iraqi WMDs is somehow a Republican pipe dream. :)</p>
<p>Marite, concerning the ability to better handle Iraq, frankly this is like putting toothpaste back into the tube after most has been squeezed out. Despite errors at the outset, the situation has improved since then. Obama’s unwillingness to visit and be briefed by those closest to events indicates that he is not committing enough energy to learning about the issues. Further it seems he is not interested in supporting deployed troops with his presence and personal contact. This leads me to believe Obama is merely listening to the Democrat Left on Iraq and is therefore demonstrating little potential for leadership as the Commander-in-Chief, who needs the best information possible, not just politically slanted information.</p>
<p>Oh yes - my remarks concerning Congress are not irrelevant, they were merely to correct your implication the war is all the fault of GWB, which is patently false.</p>
<p>Read Scott McLennan. Congress acted on information provided by the White House. Bad information, bad decision. There were many who thought that invading Irag was a bad idea. Congress chose to put its trust in the White House. It bears some responsibility, I agree, but the main responsibility resides with those who provided bad information in the first place, not out of ignorance but out of being hell-bent on invading.</p>
<p>It’s not appropriate for a presidential candidate in a hard-fought campaign to be going to Iraq. Obama has said he will go if he is nominated. Time to hold him to his word is in the future, not the past. I agree that whatever mistakes were made in 2003, there needs to be an exit strategy unless the US is prepared to stay in Iraq permanently (and Iraq is neither postwar Germany, South Korea or Japan). But I have yet to be convinced that McCain has the better strategy.</p>
<p>As for the chemical weapons, I understand that these were leftovers from 1991 and would be past their usable date. This is not news.</p>
<p>The White House (or, more correctly, the Executive Branch) does not control all intelligence of a sort that could lead to war. Congressional oversight is always present (see that fax for a list of Congressional leaders who probably have access). Even if Bush was determined to engage in war, Congress could stop him. They did not, the loyal opposition (Democrats, in this case) did not stop the process and consequently all parties are to blame.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, even today I don’t know if the U.S. did the right thing by invading Iraq and I’m a conservative.</p>
<p>Senator Obama could well indeed go to Iraq and support his constituents deployed in the War on Terror. It’s not so much I think he’s incapable of leading but he should go and visit the troops before he criticizes their leaders and deployment.</p>
<p>That Saddam Hussein maintained direct ties to regional and global terrorism, other than al Qaida, has never been in dispute. The evidence from the Iraqi papers in your link (post #30) shows that his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime–but not the United States.
[McClatchy</a> Washington Bureau | 03/12/2008 | Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida](<a href=“http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/intelligence/story/29959.html]McClatchy”>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/intelligence/story/29959.html)</p>
<p>What is the disproved fairy tale? I don’t understand. Speculation that Saddam Hussein might have decided at some point to link up directly with the terrorist al Qaida network against the United States doesn’t negate the fact that he didn’t. Are we to invade every rogue state on the presumption it might ally with terrorists against our interests?</p>
<p>Well, yes, of course. Do we invade GB, France, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos because they still have live unexploded ordnance? Or do we support campaigns against landmines and cluster bombs?</p>