"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
Unless it is, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Actually, that wasn't a lie. The British Govt had learned that. Only it was wrong.

That's the kind of answer a lawyer trains a client to give in a deposition. "I don't know for sure. You'd have to ask the British. Oh, they're beyond your subpoena power? That's too bad."

Proving willful ignorance is really hard, particularly in a room full of fall guys.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Actually, that wasn't a lie. The British Govt had learned that. Only it was wrong.

That's the kind of answer a lawyer trains a client to give in a deposition. "I don't know for sure. You'd have to ask the British. Oh, they're beyond your subpoena power? That's too bad."

Proving willful ignorance is really hard, particularly in a room full of fall guys.

plus, i don't think that was a statement from "ty's side."

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
well if by "bring home" you mean that some of the actual people are brought home, but others are shipped there, hell bush has done that. they mean bring down the troop levels overseas, and I can't see how that isn't a lie.

I initially thought that that was a rhetorical, or "funny Hank," question, but I guess not.

I don't think that either Clinton or Obama are talking about moving all 135,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq to Afghanistan if one of them wins the general election.

I also think that it has been pretty clear that both Clinton and Obama, if one of them wins, intend to use the military in various places around the world, so I don't think that any voter is going to be shocked when there are still troops in Kuwait, Gutter (I can't spell Quatar, and one of my cousins was stationed there, and he spells it with a "G"), et. al. in 2009.

Maybe you are flashing back to McGovern again? A little 1972, and "Come Home, America"? Hint -- bet on the Oakland Athletics.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I initially thought that that was a rhetorical, or "funny Hank" question, but I guess not.

I don't think that either Clinton or Obama are talking about moving all 135,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq to Afghanistan.

I also think that it has been pretty clear that both Clinton and Obama intend to use the military in various places around the world, so I don't think that any voter is going to be shocked when there are still troops in Kuwait, Gutter (I can't spell Quatar, and one of my cousins was stationed there, and he spells it with a "G"), et. al. in 2009.

Maybe you are flashing back to McGovern again? A little 1972, and "Come Home, America"? Hint -- bet on the Oakland Athletics.

honestly? you think voters who are going for hil's "i'll start bringing them home in 2 months," will be cool with troops being sent back out anywhere? you can't campaign on getting troops out of fights, then go back into some other one.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
honestly? you think voters who are going for hil's "i'll start bringing them home in 2 months," will be cool with troops being sent back out anywhere? you can't campaign on getting troops out of fights, then go back into some other one.

They're not. They're only saying the troops should have been sent to Afghanistan to gird against looking weak. If Obama brings troops back from Iraq, they're staying home. But he needs to look hawkish at the same time. Nobody's voting for "Cut and Run Now!" "Pull Out and Redeploy Where it Matters!" sounds much better.

Even if it's a lie.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
honestly? you think voters who are going for hil's "i'll start bringing them home in 2 months," will be cool with troops being sent back out anywhere? you can't campaign on getting troops out of fights, then go back into some other one.

That's ridiculous, Hank. We can't ever leave Iraq because then we can never use the military again? There are certainly people who think that all wars are bad, and would object to fighting Hitler or Tojo or Bin Laden, but I think that you are being grossly unfair to the vast majority of people who think that the war in Iraq should end.

Plus, HC and BO aren't just saying "bring the boys (and girls) home." They are saying things like "Iraq is the wrong war, it is a distraction from Al Qida in Afghanistan, the real enemy, the ones who killed 3,000 Americans." (paraphrasing what BO said at the debate in Texas the other day)

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Actually, that wasn't a lie. The British Govt had learned that. Only it was wrong.

That's the kind of answer a lawyer trains a client to give in a deposition. "I don't know for sure. You'd have to ask the British. Oh, they're beyond your subpoena power? That's too bad."

Proving willful ignorance is really hard, particularly in a room full of fall guys.

Yeah, whatever. It was only meant as a joke. See, 'cause Ty thinks it was a lie (which it was) and all.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Pull Out and Redeploy Where it Matters!" sounds much better.

Even if it's a lie.

What are you talking about?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob


Plus, HC and BO aren't just saying "bring the boys (and girls) home." They are saying things like "Iraq is the wrong war, it is a distraction from Al Qida in Afghanistan, the real enemy, the ones who killed 3,000 Americans." (paraphrasing what BO said at the debate in Texas the other day)

exactly. that's why I can't see how "bringing them home" isn't deceitful, or talking about afghanistan is a lie.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Yeah, whatever. It was only meant as a joke. See, 'cause Ty thinks it was a lie (which it was) and all.

post hoc.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
exactly. that's why I can't see how "bringing them home" isn't deceitful, or talking about afghanistan is a lie.

I don't follow. How are either of them lying? End the Iraq war. Deal with Afghanistan. What am I missing?

Is it because some of the soldiers will presumably go to Afghanistan some time after they leave Iraq? That makes "bring them home" a lie? If so, wouldn't that same logic make it a lie if instead of Afghanistan, the 3rd Division goes back to Germany? Or if the Big Red One heads to South Korea instead of Ft. Riley?

edited for clarity, I hope.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
well if by "bring home" you mean that some of the actual people are brought home, but others are shipped there, hell bush has done that. they mean bring down the troop levels overseas, and I can't see how that isn't a lie.

I don't hear anyone saying we need to withdraw from Afghanistan. Any I missing something?

The US voters do seem to understand that those are different countries -- and very few (if any) seem to be pissed that we are still fighting the Taliban and AL Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I do think HC and BO are pretty clear that they want to withdraw the US forces from Iraq. That would bring down the troop levels overseas, even if the number rises in Afghanistan.

I think you're just stirring the pot.

S_A_M

P.S. Not sure how the uranium thing got in this conversation. It was what it was. History will judge him. Let it go.

[Replaced_Texan]

This makes me happy.

The Tejanos for Obama people gave me a sign to put in my window at a rally on Saturday.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
honestly? you think voters who are going for hil's "i'll start bringing them home in 2 months," will be cool with troops being sent back out anywhere? you can't campaign on getting troops out of fights, then go back into some other one.

Yes you can.

Or, should I say, you don't campaign on it, but once elected you do what needs to be done. Like Not Bob, I also don't see most Dems having any problem with that. As we keep hearing, the world has changed since 1972 -- and especially since 2001. Our granola-crunching friends are a distinct minority, and I think even most of them are no longer pacifists.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I don't follow. How are either of them lying? End the Iraq war. Deal with Afghanistan. What am I missing?

because reading everything together, they aren't bringing people home, they'll just ship them East. why not say so?

Is it because some of the soldiers will presumably go to Afghanistan some time after they leave Iraq? That makes "bring them home" a lie? If so, wouldn't that same logic make it a lie if instead of Afghanistan, the 3rd Division goes back to Germany? Or if the Big Red One heads to South Korea instead of Ft. Riley?

edited for clarity, I hope.

going to Germany = Afghanistan? that's your argument?