Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Military Men and Women Prefer John McCain Overwhelmingly; Democrats on Iraq

That's right folks,

"Sen. John McCain enjoys overwhelming support from the military’s professional core, a Military Times survey of nearly 4,300 readers, indicates, though career-oriented black service members strongly favored the Democratic Party candidate.
McCain, R-Ariz., handily defeated Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., 68 percent to 23 percent in a voluntary survey of 4,293 active-duty, National Guard and reserve subscribers and former subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times.
The results of the Military Times 2008 Election Poll are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The group surveyed is older, more senior in rank and less ethnically diverse than the overall armed services. But as a snapshot of careerists, the results suggest Democrats have gained little ground in their attempts to significantly chip away at a traditionally Republican voting bloc in campaign messages and legislative initiatives, such as the recent expansion of GI Bill benefits, experts said."

Also, I want to remind our viewers the opinion of our dear democrats on the Iraq war, back when their opinion actually mattered,


Merge Divide said...

I'm sure the soldiers currently fighting overseas will be heartened by your assertion that Iraq doesn't matter anymore.

Ferny for McCain at Stanford said...

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I don't say that Iraq doesn't matter, what I said is that today's democrats opinion doesn't matter as it did in 2003 and before. I am going to correct the wording. Thanks!

Merge Divide said...

Ok Ferny,

If that's what you meant to say, how do you justify your opinion? What do you mean by it?

Ferny for McCain at Stanford said...

First, I am happy that we cleared the misunderstanding.

The message that I am trying to convey is that in 2003 and before, especially after 9/11 and right before the Iraq invasion, the Democrats, including many prominent ones such as Biden, H Clinton, Edwards, Pelosi, sided with Bush because they understood that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States. There is no evidence whatsoever that GW Bush deliberately lied the nation on the WMD issue. Bush did exactly the same thing that any other president, Democrat or Republican, would have done given the circumstances and the knowledge at hand (even President Clinton in his 1998 remark hinted to an Iraq invasion).

Then, after the WMD fiasco, the Democrats "en masse" repudiated Bush (and their own assesment because the war resolution was voted for by the vast majority of them) only for political expediency. In 2006 they went as far as suggesting a surrender. Biden was one of the most prominent proponents of breaking the country into pieces.

To me, one of the most refreshing things, that show the degree of progress achieved with the surge, was the massive protest against extending the presence of US troops for too long in Iraq. Why? Because that's how things work over here and other Western democracies. When you disagree, you protest, you don't kill the person with whom you disagree, which was until very recently the tactic used by the insurgency. If they have understood that they can make their case by protesting, that's a huge advance in the situation in Iraq.

I think that we are all proud of the sacrifice that US service men and women have done to take Iraq from a brutal dictatorship to the current situation.

Merge Divide said...

"There is no evidence whatsoever that GW Bush deliberately lied the nation on the WMD issue."

What you mean to say is that you haven't read or heard any such evidence, and I'll buy that.

Regardless Bush was wrong about WMDs (and ties to al Qaeda), and he deserved to be repudiated. Biden's idea was a good one, because at least then we could have broke it up according to our terms. As it is now, Southern Iraq has become an Iranian proxy, and Baghdad is a becoming tight with Iran as well. Is that "victory" as far as your concerned?

The insurgency stood down on Iran's orders. Moqtada al-Sadr was told by Supreme Leader Ali Khameni to quit resisting so that the US would have political cover to leave. It has very little to do with "the surge".

US servicemen and women always try their best to complete the mission. Unfortunately the goals of this mission have been muddied from the start. Before you start getting excited about the "progress" in Iraq, wait for the full NIE report to come out after the election.

Ferny for McCain at Stanford said...

Two things,

1- On the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that Bush deliberately lied about the WMD, I can point you to the bipartisan comission that said so (the one mentioned by Bush in the video)

2- On the effect of the surge, I give you that the surge is not the only reason we have political stability in Iraq. That said, I don't buy that its success is Khamenei induced. Not that I don't think Iranians are able to do what you are saying (I have a few Iranian friends) but I also know how prone they are to conspiracy theories such as the one you are describing. If you have evidence of what you are saying, other than the testimony of some conspiracy-theories-prone Iranian, I would love to see it!

Merge Divide said...

Well... I don't know if this meets your standard of "evidence", but if you get a chance, listen to an interview ex-CIA agent Robert Baer did with NPR. Here's my post about my reaction... the first hyperlink takes you directly to the NPR Site where you can listen:


Ferny for McCain at Stanford said...

I listened to it but I learned nothing new about Iran. As I said, I have many Iranian friends. A few years ago, I read this article "Conspiracy theories and
the Persian Mind"
which describes in quite detail Iranians' obsession with conspiracies.

Merge Divide said...

"I don't buy that its success is Khamenei induced."

Well, Robert Baer claims otherwise, and I have no reason to believe you over him.

Ferny for McCain at Stanford said...

Well, it could well be that the Iranian regime has been unable to accept their failure and they are spreading rumors. It wouldn't be the first time the regime engages in this type of decepcion tactics. I take the word of the report on the Washington Post over Baer's, in the sense that the success of the surge is more related to a new strategy by the US army than by a false peace induced by Khamenei.

Merge Divide said...

It will be interesting to see what the NIE has to say about "victory: in Iraq, and the effectiveness of the surge. It's a shame that it won't be released in full until after the election. I bet Colin Powell's seen it.

Ferny for McCain at Stanford said...

"I bet Colin Powell's seen it."

Talking about conspiracy theories...

Merge Divide said...

OK... Powell serves on the Council on Foreign Relations Board of directors, but his security clearance has been revoked? Her advised Bush on foreign policy after resigning from the state department, yet no one will let him see any "sensitive documents". Uh-uh... people have leaked portions of it already to the press, but Powell hasn't seen it?

Sure... it's "conspiratorial" to think Powell is still connected to the military and the intelligence apparatus.