"Dano" <janeanddano@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> The_Carpathia <writingken@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> [nothing sane]
>>
>> For anyone who cares, here is the rejected op-ed piece by McCain.
>> Notice that it was published by CNN, which is another
>> supposedly-biased-towards-Obama media source
>> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.op.ed/index.html
>>
>From McCain's op-ed (campaign stump speech):
>
>"The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination
to
>pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale.
In
>a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for
>Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more
>than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of
our
>troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he
>thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been.
>Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our
>assistance."
>"To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if
Prime
>Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is
>that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at
some
>unspecified point in the future."
>
>Now...since I watched on several broadcasts just last night, PM Maliki
and
>other Iraqi officials, repeatedly mention the end of 2009 as a pretty
>specific timeframe, I can only conclude that either McCain is
ill-informed
>(entirely possible, since just yesterday, I heard him speak of the
>Iraq-Pakistan border) or deliberately lying. Take your pick. An
>incompetent or a liar. Although I suspect he could easily be both.
I think it is just irony. He hasn't been to Iraq quite as recently as
Obama, and therefore isn't quite as aware of the current facts on the
ground. %^)
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
