[goMac]

Part 1:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherl...ml_video=85762

Part 2:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherl...ml_video=85843

McCain was on the Daily Show last night, and personally, I think Stewart had the upper-hand the entire time. McCain did have the audience against him... but still, Stewart was definitely on top.

[osiris]

A mild Smackdown.

Personally I have no respect for McCain - he's become a Bushie mouthpiece and lost all independent thought.

[tie]

It's easy to disagree with the Democrats, but at least they have a plan and are doing something. McCain sits there and says that the war was terribly mismanaged, that he disagrees entirely with how it was conducted -- but that we should now stay the course exactly as Bush wants, and nothing more. He then throws out more administration rhetoric, about how much safer Iraq is -- he even defends Pense's statement that the Baghdad market was as safe as a market in Indiana! -- and about how setting timetables is surrender...

I think McCain is trying to walk the line between what he really believes, and what he has to say to stay loyal to Bush. But as these become more and more contradictory, he looks more and more like a political hypocrite.

"I don't know that that strategy will succeed, but we do have a strategy. That's a fact."

[SpaceMonkey]

It would have been a better smackdown if Stewart had actually let him talk.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by tie 

It's easy to disagree with the Democrats, but at least they have a plan and are doing something. McCain sits there and says that the war was terribly mismanaged, that he disagrees entirely with how it was conducted -- but that we should now stay the course exactly as Bush wants, and nothing more. He then throws out more administration rhetoric, about how much safer Iraq is -- he even defends Pense's statement that the Baghdad market was as safe as a market in Indiana! -- and about how setting timetables is surrender...

I think McCain is trying to walk the line between what he really believes, and what he has to say to stay loyal to Bush. But as these become more and more contradictory, he looks more and more like a political hypocrite.

"I don't know that that strategy will succeed, but we do have a strategy. That's a fact."

That's hardly accurate. What McCain says is quite logical. He acknowledges what most soldiers will tell you: the only thing holding Iraq together right now is our presence. When our troops are gone then the real bloodbath will begin, and that appears to be what the democrats want. It seems that the American people have resigned themselves to this and believe that it cannot be avoided now. I, for one, agree with McCain that we have an obligation to the people of Iraq to try to make this right by them. What I disagree with him about is whether we should have started this in the first place, but it's too late to change that.

You broke it, you buy it. Well, folks, we've bought it and the Democrats have been given a mandate to just chuck it in the trash, which I think is unconscionable.

[Peder Rice]

You broke it, you buy it. Well, folks, we've bought it and the Democrats have been given a mandate to just chuck it in the trash, which I think is unconscionable.

Quote of the year. I cannot believe the incredibly selfish attitude of the now plurality of Americans crying for Our Boys staying an extra month or two in Iraq, but blind to the death that awaits millions of Iraqis once we leave.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You broke it, you buy it. Well, folks, we've bought it and the Democrats have been given a mandate to just chuck it in the trash, which I think is unconscionable.

Truly.

That they think this way is an utter abandonment of the core Democratic principles.

Not that I want to cut Republicans any slack for their obnoxiousness in this whole matter, but I have to call a spade a spade. The way the Democrats are acting exactly fits the Republican allegation of "willing to do anything just to take out Bush's policies."

Of course, one of the many ironies is that this attitude is borne out of a compulsive need by the Democrats for the Republicans to be wrong, and in doing so, just makes them right.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph. People are such assholes.

[besson3c]

I remain convinced that there as absolutely nothing we can do in Iraq at this point that would amount to anything significant within the Shia/Sunni conflict.

Pulling out isn't a great option, but I think it's the only one we have.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I remain convinced that there as absolutely nothing we can do in Iraq at this point that would amount to anything significant within the Shia/Sunni conflict.

As I implied the last time we discussed it, I find your position "that there as absolutely nothing we can do" a little too convenient considering that you have never called for anything else to be done.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

That's hardly accurate. What McCain says is quite logical. He acknowledges what most soldiers will tell you: the only thing holding Iraq together right now is our presence. When our troops are gone then the real bloodbath will begin, and that appears to be what the democrats want. It seems that the American people have resigned themselves to this and believe that it cannot be avoided now. I, for one, agree with McCain that we have an obligation to the people of Iraq to try to make this right by them. What I disagree with him about is whether we should have started this in the first place, but it's too late to change that.

You broke it, you buy it. Well, folks, we've bought it and the Democrats have been given a mandate to just chuck it in the trash, which I think is unconscionable.

But you need a strategy to succeed. McCain's statements imply that he doesn't think our current strategy, staying the course, will succeed.
(I say this because 1. he says that the war has been run terribly incompetently up to this point, and 2. he won't fully endorse the current strategy. It isn't hard to deduce 3. he doesn't believe in the current strategy either, especially as it hasn't changed!)
But he doesn't want to suggest any alternative, because doing so would hurt him politically. I think this is betraying both American soldiers and the Iraqi people.

If McCain wanted to help, he would pressure the administration to change its course in Iraq. He must know that if he becomes president, after staying the course deeper and deeper for almost two more years, it will be too late for him to salvage Iraq. The time for change is now. If he doesn't have a plan for changing course now, then the best thing to do is cut our losses and leave now.

[subego]

Originally Posted by tie 

But he doesn't want to suggest any alternative, because doing so would hurt him politically. I think this is betraying both American soldiers and the Iraqi people.

Agreed.

This was the point that Stewart needed to hit McCain with.

I think he's only got half the equation right. The most obvious "solution" involves a draft, which is political suicide.

Where I think he may be wrong though, is that the reason a draft is the obvious solution is everyone thinks asking the American people to sacrifice (by having their taxes being raised) is also political suicide.

I'd like to maintain my faith that the American people as a whole would be willing to make the sacrifice, though I wouldn't exactly call that an easy row to hoe.

If there is anything that would give me hope, it's that wanting to take care of this properly should be (as I said) a core Democratic value.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I implied the last time we discussed it, I find your position "that there as absolutely nothing we can do" a little too convenient considering that you have never called for anything else to be done.

I wasn't for the invasion in the first place, you're right. However, I've called for all sorts of other things to be done along the way other than what was done. I'm flattered that you've kept track of what I've called for though

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think he's only got half the equation right. The most obvious "solution" involves a draft, which is political suicide.

I could agree with a mandatory military career, like Sweden. I could not agree with creating a draft during wartime. You will end up with much more strife among the troops than what the current level is.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I could agree with a mandatory military career, like Sweden. I could not agree with creating a draft during wartime. You will end up with much more strife among the troops than what the current level is.

As a rule, conscripts suck and are to be avoided.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wasn't for the invasion in the first place, you're right. However, I've called for all sorts of other things to be done along the way other than what was done.

Such as?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm flattered that you've kept track of what I've called for though

But I apparently did a crappy job.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I remain convinced that there as absolutely nothing we can do in Iraq at this point that would amount to anything significant within the Shia/Sunni conflict.

Pulling out isn't a great option, but I think it's the only one we have.

What do you mean it's the only one we have?

We can stay and see this to the end. If we leave now, MILLIONS of Iraqs die, Iran takes over Iraq and it's oil, Iraq turns it into a massive terrorist training camp to take over Saudia Arabia, the rest of the Middle East and eventually Europe.

[tie]

Originally Posted by subego 

As a rule, conscripts suck and are to be avoided.

Stupid wars are to be avoided, too. The war in Iraq has hugely damaged our national security. Do you have a better idea?

I don't like the idea of a draft because I believe our government can make the right decisions, and that we can learn from history. But Iraq has proved me rather dramatically wrong on this. Maybe a structural solution is the only way to prevent future self-inflicted calamities.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

We can stay and see this to the end. If we leave now, MILLIONS of Iraqs die, Iran takes over Iraq and it's oil, Iraq turns it into a massive terrorist training camp to take over Saudia Arabia, the rest of the Middle East and eventually Europe.

.. no doubt all with Gore's secret assistance, part of his nefarious plan to drive us all into poverty. Or, perhaps it's those evil gays. Meanwhile, back in the real world..

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by tie 

.. no doubt all with Gore's secret assistance, part of his nefarious plan to drive us all into poverty. Or, perhaps it's those evil gays. Meanwhile, back in the real world..

What? Hello, this is the real world. What rock have you been living under?

[subego]

Originally Posted by tie 

Do you have a better idea?

Better salary = more recruits.

Simple economics.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

We can stay and see this to the end. If we leave now, MILLIONS of Iraqs die, Iran takes over Iraq and it's oil, Iraq turns it into a massive terrorist training camp to take over Saudia Arabia, the rest of the Middle East and eventually Europe.

And if we stay, the problem will only get worse and worse because we agitate things.

It's better that somebody win than nobody. Unless you'd like to play the "If we can't have it, no one will" game.

We don't have the money to continue fighting, and we don't have the troops. If you have a few hundred billion you'd like to give to the US government, along with a new supply of troops, then we can stay.

It's going to get bad if we leave, very bad. But we've stayed for a while, and it's continually gotten worse. We're not a positive in Iraq, and we're only barely keeping the inevitable from happening. Some things are going to happen, and yes, the Republicans should feel very guilty about what they've done, but it's far too late to change things.

If we leave, eventually it will get better because someone will resume control and at least improve the country. Iraq needs Middle Eastern leadership and guidance, they don't trust the Western culture and will continue not to as long as we stay.

With regards to Iraq becoming a terrorist camp, the same thing was said about Vietnam. Except no one is buying it this time.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

We don't have the money to continue fighting, and we don't have the troops. If you have a few hundred billion you'd like to give to the US government, along with a new supply of troops, then we can stay.

Some things are going to happen, and yes, the Republicans should feel very guilty about what they've done, but it's far too late to change things.

Again, not one to cut the Republicans slack, but I think pinning the lack of existence of what you state in the first paragraph on the Republicans is kind of a load.

The Republicans could be easily convinced to do this if the Democrats had any desire to do so. They don't. End of story.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

Again, not one to cut the Republicans slack, but I think pinning the lack of existence of what you state in the first paragraph on the Republicans is kind of a load.

Any moderately intelligent person saw six years ago that this is exactly what would happen if we occupied Iraq. I blame them almost completely, if it weren't for the Democrats who supported it simply because they could use the disaster they knew was coming as a way to garner votes for the Democratic party. Both parties knew what they were doing, but they were bllinded by the large stacks of money they'd see from the contracts.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Such as?

A change in attitude. Alliances with other countries, attacking this problem with a more intelligent means rather than via a purely military one. Better planning, better intelligence, etc.

Nothing profound here.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

What do you mean it's the only one we have?

We can stay and see this to the end. If we leave now, MILLIONS of Iraqs die, Iran takes over Iraq and it's oil, Iraq turns it into a massive terrorist training camp to take over Saudia Arabia, the rest of the Middle East and eventually Europe.

What is the end, and when will it be? Should we leave our current troop numbers in Iraq for the next 10 years? How do you propose we do so?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

What do you mean it's the only one we have?

We can stay and see this to the end. If we leave now, MILLIONS of Iraqs die, Iran takes over Iraq and it's oil, Iraq turns it into a massive terrorist training camp to take over Saudia Arabia, the rest of the Middle East and eventually Europe.

Sensationalize much?

[goMac]

The thing about Iraq is the Iraqi's are too busy fighting each other for it to turn into a black hole of terrorism. Heck, Iran and Al Qaeda are on opposite sides, it's not very likely that they'd work together in Iraq. And Iraq under Iranian influence would still be a heck of a lot better than Iraq is right now.

That said, one option I'm surprised that Bush has not brought up is splitting Iraq into two countries. I have a feeling his pride is in the way of it becoming an option.

[besson3c]

It is amusing to me how in previous months/year, many Republicans in here lambasted people in here that identified themselves as Democrat supporters by accusing them of not having any plans, not having a strategy, etc.

Now, where is the Republican plan? We're just supposed to hang out in Iraq sometime between now and the end of time and hope that we don't run out of money and willing soldiers?

[Big Mac]

Wake me up when Colbert is on.

[wolfen]

I don't pretend to have THE answer. But the constant panic-button pushing with NO CREDIBILITY is extremely harmful to this nation and to the world. And I'd rather do the wrong thing for the right reason than be dragged along by lies anyday. Spin Exhaustion is why the troops will ultimately be brought home "prematurely." That's our history.

Prediction: the next argument will be "Magic unicorns will bring joy to the hearts of the arab world. But if we leave the unicorns will get scared and not show up. And it will be the dems fault -- because THEY DON'T LIKE UNICORNS!"

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Now, where is the Republican plan? We're just supposed to hang out in Iraq sometime between now and the end of time and hope that we don't run out of money and willing soldiers?

Bush has already run us out of money and soldiers. And of course he's trying to pin it on the Democrats but nobody is buying it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Bush has already run us out of money and soldiers. And of course he's trying to pin it on the Democrats but nobody is buying it.

Maybe it was Bill Clinton's fault?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe it was Bill Clinton's fault?

Hey, if the Republicans had stuck with Bill Clinton's balanced budget, we might have some surplus money to help pay for a war. But the concept of saving up money for a rainy day seems to be beyond Bush.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Any moderately intelligent person saw six years ago that this is exactly what would happen if we occupied Iraq.

You predicted gross incompetence?

Unless you think the conduct of the reconstruction is beyond any criticism, I can't see how you can use the current situation as evidence that what got us here is the flaws in the policy from six years ago.

I'm not saying there aren't flaws in the policy, but I'm saying the execution was so bungled that our current situation is useless as a barometer for the wisdom behind the idea of going there in the first place.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I blame them almost completely, if it weren't for the Democrats who supported it simply because they could use the disaster they knew was coming as a way to garner votes for the Democratic party.

Way harsher indictment that I would make. I see it as more likely they felt stuck supporting the president after 9/11.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A change in attitude. Alliances with other countries, attacking this problem with a more intelligent means rather than via a purely military one. Better planning, better intelligence, etc.

Nothing profound here.

I think I let the symmetry of my post take precedence over the intent.

You can read it as "never called for anything else to be done militarily".

While what you suggest above isn't exactly equivalent to a call for a withdrawal, can I take it to mean you have never militarily called for anything other than a maintaining or reduction of our military stance?

Since (if?) this is the way you have always felt, it comes off (to me) as somewhat disingenuous to say "I've called for other things but this is what I'm calling for now."

Especially since I would imagine that you aren't going to stop calling for those other things.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think I let the symmetry of my post take precedence over the intent.

You can read it as "never called for anything else to be done militarily".

While what you suggest above isn't exactly equivalent to a call for a withdrawal, can I take it to mean you have never militarily called for anything other than a maintaining or reduction of our military stance?

Since (if?) this is the way you have always felt, it comes off (to me) as somewhat disingenuous to say "I've called for other things but this is what I'm calling for now."

Especially since I would imagine that you aren't going to stop calling for those other things.

I see where you're coming from.

Well, for a while I was relatively content to give things a chance in Iraq after we had invaded just to see what would come of our toppling Saddam. After we had committed, I was not calling for an immediate withdraw or reduction of our forces. If somebody had made a public case for an increase in troops, I might have supported that.

My general position on Iraq hasn't changed a whole lot, but various aspects of it, including the "what should we do right now?" has been somewhat of a moving target.

I'm firmly committed to us getting out of there now though, unless things take an extremely sharp and unprecedented turn in our favor, which seems entirely unrealistic.

[Moderator]

You know....why call this a "Smackdown?" Why lower this to that level. This was the first honest political debate I ever....EVER...recall witnessing.

I'm voting for Obama but I give credit to McCain, and respect him more...for going tow to toe with Stewart in an honest debate.

We need to see more of this. Now that Stewart has let this cat out of the bag...lets see who else has the balls to hang with him....and that includes Democrats.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Moderator 

You know....why call this a "Smackdown?" Why lower this to that level. This was the first honest political debate I ever....EVER...recall witnessing.

I'm voting for Obama but I give credit to McCain, and respect him more...for going tow to toe with Stewart in an honest debate.

We need to see more of this. Now that Stewart has let this cat out of the bag...lets see who else has the balls to hang with him....and that includes Democrats.

Indeed! Stewart said so many things I wanted somebody to say for a while, including the "win/lose" language we use, and how at some point "between now and the end of time" is just not going to be a sufficient plan in how long we leave our troops in the country.

[tie]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

I don't pretend to have THE answer. But the constant panic-button pushing with NO CREDIBILITY is extremely harmful to this nation and to the world. And I'd rather do the wrong thing for the right reason than be dragged along by lies anyday. Spin Exhaustion is why the troops will ultimately be brought home "prematurely." That's our history.

Prediction: the next argument will be "Magic unicorns will bring joy to the hearts of the arab world. But if we leave the unicorns will get scared and not show up. And it will be the dems fault -- because THEY DON'T LIKE UNICORNS!"

So why don't we turn the tables on them?

BUCKAROO DOESN"T LIKE UNICORNS!!!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

You predicted gross incompetence?

Yes, I did. And there's a follow up thread (which I'll find later) expanding on my thoughts in regards to Krusty's take, which I found to be a more plausible scenario.

Originally Posted by subego 

Unless you think the conduct of the reconstruction is beyond any criticism, I can't see how you can use the current situation as evidence that what got us here is the flaws in the policy from six years ago.

Complete and utter ignorance in regards to a culture (however we might disagree with it) and their passion to protect it. From day one it was obvious it was going to happen. Lots of people drew parallels to Viet Nam while others stuck their fingers in their ears and exclaimed it's completely different. Short of dropping nuclear weapons (which many Republicans openly supported), there isn't any contingency plan that would've worked in Iraq, save one: stir up a hornet's nest and get out of the way while they kill each other.

Originally Posted by subego 

I see it as more likely they felt stuck supporting the president after 9/11.

Which they gladly took advantage of. Let's blame Iraq for 9/11, people will stand behind the president. It's like half this country is on a permanent brain fart.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Yes, I did. And there's a follow up thread (which I'll find later) expanding on my thoughts in regards to Krusty's take, which I found to be a more plausible scenario.

So you did predict gross incompetence six years ago, but to prove it you show me a post from two and a half years ago that doesn't state anything about incompetence, and as you point out, the prediction you made in that thread wasn't even right, Krusty's was.

Did I already say ?

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Complete and utter ignorance in regards to a culture (however we might disagree with it) and their passion to protect it. From day one it was obvious it was going to happen. Lots of people drew parallels to Viet Nam while others stuck their fingers in their ears and exclaimed it's completely different. Short of dropping nuclear weapons (which many Republicans openly supported), there isn't any contingency plan that would've worked in Iraq, save one: stir up a hornet's nest and get out of the way while they kill each other.

Here, let me put this another way. The point is that we completely broke whatever plan we had when we fired the Iraqi army and de-Baathified the government.

I'm not saying that had we followed our original plan it would have absolutely worked, but I am saying that once we broke the plan, the situation was no longer relevant to the original plan.

So if you predicted the original plan would fail, that's just smashing. Good for you. We didn't end up following anything even remotely resembling that plan, so how does the current situation prove your prediction that the plan we did not use would fail?

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Which they gladly took advantage of. Let's blame Iraq for 9/11, people will stand behind the president. It's like half this country is on a permanent brain fart.

The Democrats took advantage? You see, this is where I would blame the Republicans. They knew they had a lever to use against them, and they used it.