Ron Brownstein nails why John McCain's whining and crying about mean ol' liberals quoting his oft-repeated dictum that he thinks our troops should stay in Iraq for 100 years rings so hollow -- he won't explain what he does think the future mission of our troops should be. As I've said before, McCain obviously isn't in a position to decide what our troops are doing in the 22nd century, but all indications are that he would keep on fighting the war throughout a four or eight year term in the White House.
« Shrill | Main | Some Advice »
Brownstein on McCain
02 May 2008 06:51 pm
Comments (48)
McCain's position is that he'd be all for staying in Iraq for 100, maybe 1,000 years as long as Iraq somehow and in a manner as yet unpredicted by even the most enthusiastic occupation activist becomes a peaceful South Korea type situation.
I, on the other hand, am clearly in favor of our occupation of Iraq for 100 years if Iraq becomes a magical floating cloud city in which rainbows become lasagna and children are born knowing all Earthly languages.
They just want to lie.
That's absurd.
How is it mean to poor old Mr McCain to cut out his "caveat"-- that he wants to stay for 100 years only if our soldiers are not targets--when that caveat is nearly a metaphysical impossibility?
Also, as Brownstein clearly points out, it would help McCain a great deal if he had a coherent idea of what our soldiers would be doing if they weren't being shot at. Since McCain doesn't seem to have such a clue, people are reasonably assuming he means he wants to stay there and fight.
Speaking of dishonesty, when this war was being planned people like me said to anyone who would listen that Bush and company wanted to invade and occupy Iraq for a long time. People like McCain, and you, Al, told us we were being fools for thinking that.
Democrats are full of crap on this one and they know it; hence, their attempt to provoke McCain with a "Gaslight" strategy. Hopefully he won't fall for it. He should just say that his intent is to win the war in Iraq, and after we win it, to be open to keeping some number of troops in-country to keep the peace, if the Iraqi government so requests. Let the Dems run on defeat and withdrawal in Iraq, while simultaneously running on endless occupation in Afghanistan.
he won't explain what he does think the future mission of our troops should be.
He did, today.
My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.
Al,
You may be fooling yourself, but you and John Kerry McCain aren't fooling us.
McCain said that he would be fine with the US keeping troops in Iraq for over 100 years, analogizing it to our troop presence in Korea, thereby demonstrating his ignorance about the disparate history of the two regions, i.e., the Koreans don't resent Westerners as a result of the Crusades.
Reality bites.
Fred,
Winning in Iraq, even according to McBush's definition would leave in place an Iraqi government that is aligned with Iran and is hostile to Israel.
When the cost of that um, plan is over $1 trillion, over 4,000 lives of US troops, and thousands more seriously injured, all to remove the regional counterweight to Iran, that "victory" is actually a defeat if fact, truth, and reality still matter.
McCain's position is that he'd be all for staying in Iraq for 100 years if Iraq became a peaceful South Korea type situation.
Yet John McCain has neither (a) predicted when Iraq could possibly become a peaceful occupation in the South Korean / separated by DMZ model; nor (b) suggested a method of getting there.
This is not an unfair statement, and it's not a lie.
It proves how either (a) deluded McCain is about the realities of the situation; (b) how hostile he is towards those who would expect some degree of non-fantasizing in military affairs; (c) or how callous he is about turning the situation into a joke.
Your choice.
Someone needs to ask McCain how long he'll keep troops in Iraq if conditions continue to stay roughly where they've been over the last five years, moving between roughly the best and worst of what we've seen so far. How long would he stay? Until I have some sort of clue what his answer is to that question, I'll go with the only number he's provided.
"Koreans don't resent Westerners as a result of the Crusades."
That's why our military presences in Qatar and Kuwait are so untenable, right?
In every foreign country (with the exception of Cuba, where we have a lease signed with the previous government) where we have a military presence, we are there with the consent of the local government. When a government asks us to close up a base and leave, as the government of the Philippines did, we close it up and leave. We'd do the same if the Iraqi government asked us to.
Now you're just being naive, Fred.
Al's a liar and Fred's an idiot. All we need is a young earth creationist and we'll have the perfect representation of the Republican party in this thread.
McCain has specifically rejected a Korea/Germany style mission for us in Iraq. So, what we would be doing in Iraq, if we're not taking casualties, other than a Korea/Germany style mission is yet to be decided. IOW, McCain's a babbler who doesn't have any idea what he wants except he wants to use force in doing it.
Well since I have long been making the same basic point, I guess I have to agree. This line of attack remains fair until McCain provides his exit strategy for Iraq, which of course he will never do since he sees no need for one, which is why this line of attack remains fair.
Hopefully, the GOP will produce an attack ad stating that Clinton and Obama also want to keep American troops in Iraq indefinitely. They can support it using a creatively-edited clip of the candidate's own statements.
After all, as DTM assures us, "this line of attack remains fair" until Obama and Clinton have committed to a date for a complete U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Mixner,
That was unusually low quality, even for you. The problem isn't that McCain won't give a specific date for the completion of his exit strategy. The problem is that he has no exit strategy, and sees no need for one.
By the way, here is Obama's exit strategy:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf
I, on the other hand, am clearly in favor of our occupation of Iraq for 100 years if Iraq becomes a magical floating cloud city in which rainbows become lasagna
That will only happen with divine intervention, specifically if Iraq is touched by his Noodly Appendage. Perhaps the sunnis and shiites could get along if they converted to Pastafarianism. After that, rainbow lasagna for all.
"The problem is that he has no exit strategy"
Why have an exit strategy when you can have a victory strategy?
Meanwhile, with respect to Afghanistan, Democrats have neither an exit strategy nor a victory strategy. Why not?
Just once I'd like to see a conservative be half honest and at least say that McCain was stupid to say that we should be in Iraq for 100 years. It's like Kerry saying he voted for the 100 billion before he voted against it; no matter whether the explanation is innocent or not so innocent, it was bound to be hung around his neck politically.
DTM - I notice FDR refused to give a specific date when WWII would be over and doctors refuse to give a specific date when a disease will be over.
Could it possibly that Lefty idiots do no recognize there are things in life that no specific date can be assigned unless one quits?
**************
McCain said that he would be fine with the US keeping troops in Iraq for over 100 years, analogizing it to our troop presence in Korea, thereby demonstrating his ignorance about the disparate history of the two regions, i.e., the Koreans don't resent Westerners as a result of the Crusades.
Reality bites.
Posted by Rich
The only thing that bites is Lefty cocksuckers that lie for political gain. McCain did not analogize 100 years to troops, but to America staying in.
And UK-America has been in several Muslim Countries for many years - over a century in the case of facilities in Oman, Egypt, Bahrain, despite the Lefty and radical Islamic obsession over the Crusades 800 year ago. (With both Lefties and their dear Jihadi friends conveniently forgetting Islamoid raids and invasions of Europe that lasted up to the 18th Century and Islamoid pirates still being a threat into the 19th)
In the last 50 years, we have had bases added to the Muslim countries of Qatar, UAE, Turkey without real incident. Plus, our Navy maintains occasional presence in other Muslim country ports of call.
We had substantial facilities in Iran in WWII, and have gone from low profile to high profile (under Clinton) back to low profile in KSA.
*************
If "100 years of war" is a fair line of attack that Obama sinks to, it is just as fair as saying Obama believes white people invented AIDs to wipe out blacks. And that he believes God only listens to black people. That America is the source of most violence and evil in the world. All Obama beliefs "as evident as McCains 100 years", from 20 years of Obama hearing it and doing nothing to dispute it until if began adversely affecting his political fortunes.
I guess it's also fair to say that Obama is an apostate Muslim who was educated in a madrassa as a kid in Indonesia, if we go by Dem rules of fairness. And if Obama objects, we can characterize that as just "whining and crying".
Let me get at my 12:47 comment another way.
To our Republican friends, such as Chris, Al, and Fred:
If the Democrats put an ad up, that just shows the person asking the "50 years" question and McCain making the "100 years" response (including his reference to not taking casualties). No narration. No statements about McCain's policies. Just the question and the answer.
Do you guys consider that to be an unfair ad? Is your position that any attempt by Democrats to call attention to the fact that John McCain at least envisions a potential scenario where the US stays in Iraq for 100 years is per se unfair?
I don't see how that is tenable. And if you can't envision a single "fair" way to criticize McCain's statement, I don't see how you can credibly condemn other uses of it as "unfair".
"Do you guys consider that to be an unfair ad?"
If the ad shows McCain's follow up sentence which puts the first sentence in context then no, it wouldn't be unfair.
“In every foreign country (with the exception of Cuba, where we have a lease signed with the previous government) where we have a military presence, we are there with the consent of the local government. When a government asks us to close up a base and leave, as the government of the Philippines did, we close it up and leave. We'd do the same if the Iraqi government asked us to.”
While I can not name every country that our government has troops stationed in, I’m guessing that it is in countries where the local government is usually democratic and always functional. So if a country’s citizens can’t have the satisfaction of voting out a politician who goes against their wishes on the matter, at least they can know their government is calling the shots.
Iraq’s government is completely dysfunctional and thusly can not convince, nor coerce the native population into accepting the US presence. Just because the Kabuki Theater Troupe that is the Iraqi Government say they want us there does not mean that the Iraqi people want us there. That’s why we have mortars killing US personnel inside the “Green Zone”. That’s why we have a “Green Zone”! The Iraqis not only want us out, they view the US as occupiers and the Iraqi government as largely ineffectual puppets. Insurgencies are like fish and the native population is like water. But even if the natives dislike the insurgency, chances are the longer it remains active the more support it gets. That’s because the longer the foreign power stays, the greater the chance it is looked upon as a colonial imperialist. That’s why AQI is largely non-existent but the Mahdi Army and the Badar Brigades are still around.
The Germans and the Japanese viewed themselves as defeated nations, the Iraqis do not. The South Koreans are thankful to be protected from the Communist north, what do the Iraqis have to thank us for lately?
"I notice FDR refused to give a specific date when WWII".
WW2 was over when the first US Army private could walk through the streets of Berlin/Tokyo. Everyone knew that, it didn't need to be said. So the "1945" moment in Iraq was on April 9, 2003. Yet victory is still far off, at least according to General David Patreus.
The rest of your post should not be dignified with a response. Did not your college prof.....yeah right. Did not your mother and father teach you that "cocksucker" is not a suitable word to use in an intelligent, adult conversation?
What victory meant in WWII was marching on kicking the fascists out of government power in Berlin, Rome and Tokyo. Once they surrendered, the war was over. This just isn't the same type of war and talking about how FDR had no end date for WWII, especially considering he died just a few months before the war ended, is masturbation.
"McCain has specifically rejected a Korea/Germany style mission for us in Iraq. So, what we would be doing in Iraq, if we're not taking casualties, other than a Korea/Germany style mission is yet to be decided. IOW, McCain's a babbler who doesn't have any idea what he wants except he wants to use force in doing it.
Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 2, 2008 10:15 PM"
Good point. What Al and Fred are calling lies are actually the most charitable interpretation of what he said because in that scenario at least we would know what the whole point of having the troops there would be. We have troops in South Korea to keep out North Korea as a tripwire deterrent. We had troops in West Germany to keep out the Soviets and they are still there just to buy soft power because post-Cold War having a bunch of American consumers plopped down in Germany puts money into the German economy. Our troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were there to keep out Saddam Hussein. What would be the point of having our troops in Iraq, to keep out Iran, the biggest patron of the ruling parties in Iraq for the foreseeable future? That's like proposing we occupy Cold War-era Cuba while keeping Castro firmly in control to keep out Soviet influence while he was still free to collect Soviet funds. It makes no sense. Maybe McCain is Calvin's dad and thinks our troops will build character spending the next 100 years burning their asses on metal toilet seats.
If we aren't going to be there 100 years under McCain's plan for our soldiers to be there fighting for a century, then McCain is just off his meds. If this is the incorrect and dishonest interpretation, then McCain is just an old idiot who is going senile and babbling. Is that what we want in a president, a grandpa that forgets why he's at the mall? His comment might have well come out of the mouth of an old man in a Woody Allen movie, like a guy walking the streets complaining about how the Kaiser stole his cheese. What's with the GOP obsession of becoming the Abraham Simpson party?
I guess it's also fair to say that Obama is an apostate Muslim who was educated in a madrassa as a kid in Indonesia, if we go by Dem rules of fairness".
Um, no.
Obama was never brought up as a Muslim, both his father and step-father were Atheists and his mother was a non-church going Christian. Nor is there any proof that Obama made the confession of faith that is required for all Muslims.
And he never went to a "Madrassa". He went to a public school while he lived in Indonesia. Madrassas didn't even exist in Indonesia when he lived there.
Jeez, how can he be a secret Muslim, a disciple of a racist Black Christian preacher and an elitist who is just using his faith for political purposes all at the same time? Can’t the right just pick one smear and run with it?
"His comment might have well come out of the mouth of an old man in a Woody Allen movie, like a guy walking the streets complaining about how the Kaiser stole his cheese. What's with the GOP obsession of becoming the Abraham Simpson party?"
Now you are just defaming Mr. Simpson. He never claimed that the Kaiser stole his cheese. He said that the Kaiser stole the word "twenty". That's why we had to use the word "dickety". Just what do you have against America’s elderly?
Any state senator who decides to run for president after a one-year stint in the U.S. Senate is delusionally dangerous. Let's be clear.
"Any state senator who decides to run for president after a one-year stint in the U.S. Senate is delusionally dangerous. Let's be clear.
Posted by Israel | May 3, 2008 2:58 AM"
And he's winning. Any First Lady who thinks being married to a president whose two terms were often spent trying to get laid and thinks this qualifies her to be president is dangerously delusional. Also, doesn't thinking you are dodging sniper fire while instead a little girl is reading you a poem make you delusional?
I think Dilan Esper makes a good point. McCain's remark was on the level of Kerry's "voted for before I voted against" line, and I'll bet dollars to Navy beans that he wishes he could have a mulligan. No amount of explaining fixes this.
In fact, though, McCain has been pretty clear about what he thinks our role in Iraq should be going forward, and it's about the same as what Clinton and Obama have said. We have a huge ongoing interest in supporting the development of a reasonably stable, reasonably pro-Western (or at least not ANTI-Western) ally in Iraq. There is going to be some military component to this project for the foreseeable future, and every serious observer knows it.
The politics of this reality are made more difficult by the kind of willful ignorance demonstrated by Raindog, who like others here imagines that he knows the minds of not only all the Iraqi peoples, but the Koreans, Germans, Japanese, Afghans, and others as well based on what we can only guess. It is painful to see partisan political bias used as a vehicle to insult the most representative and legitimate government in the Arab world, put in place by millions of Iraqis risking their lives to do so. There are serious problems with Iraq's government, but it's off to a much better start than that of South Korea, which we supported through decades for it to reach its current state; and the governments of about half the current members of the General Assembly.
Iraqi Government say they want us there does not mean that the Iraqi people want us there. That’s why we have mortars killing US personnel inside the “Green Zone”.
No, what we have found is they are Iranian mortars and rockets hitting the Green Zone, operated by agents trained in Iran. Just like the far deadier EFP devices that cut through any armor and have killed a few hundred and severely maimed almost 1,000 Americans.
Iran.
Know your enemy, Lefties...And it isn't America.
***************
Well Rep. Brownstein, let's apply your analytic abilities to Hussein bin Obama shall we?
What exactly is Obama's plan for the American troop presence in Iraq? Does it differ one iota from John McCain's?
For a very long time Obama promised, PROMISED, that he would have all US fighting forces withdrawn within 16 months of his inauguration, one division a month. It was a policy position on his website for gods' sake.
Now Obama has flushed that promise down the memory hole. Now he says only that he will withdraw forces as events and conditions allow.
That is BushSpeak.
That is even more a stupidity than McCain's incoherent pronouncements. That is as incoherent and as big a lie as his serial dicta on Wright.
If the warped ad version of McCain's 100 years is considered fair attack by progressives and DemNuts then it is just as fair to say that Obama wants to leave American combat forces in Iraq for a million gazillion years; that ios a fair reading of "until events and conditions allow for withdrawal".
And we can further honestly say that Obama has been a consistent and opportunistic Flip Flopper on Iraq. He was against the war before he was for it. He simply used his antiwar stance to get elected to the Senate.
Since then OBAMA HAS SUPPORTED EACH AND EVERY BUSH WAR FUNDING REQUEST until quite recently.
By the standards of the progressives this makes Obama a war criminal.
Obama has regularly voted the billions to fund the illegal war which has killed hundreds of thousands.
Under International Law, especially that which grew out the Nuremberg trials, Obama is guilty of War Crimes. Period.
Matt and the "progressives" are urging that we elect a War Criminal, a mass murderer, to the presidency.
What could be more corrupt or degenerate on their part?
If the ad shows McCain's follow up sentence which puts the first sentence in context then no, it wouldn't be unfair.
You know whats unfair? Being a soldier who gets killed in Iraq.
Having your own words used like a cudgel to bash in your political prospects doesn't really rise to that level.
What was that saying? McCain wants to stay for as long as it takes, and lose as many lives as it takes, to ensure that our troops are no longer getting killed in Iraq. And then, after that time, he wants to stay for 100 years.
Fred,
It is fine if your military strategy ends with removing a government from power, since that is something a military can do. So if that was McCain's definition of victory in Iraq, then that would be fine ... but of course we already did that.
Unfortunately, instead the current terms of "victory" in Iraq for people like McCain are not goals the U.S. military can achieve. Rather, whether or not those terms will be met is up to the Iraqi people, and there is no guarantee they will do so. So, that doesn't actually constitute a strategy for a military victory, since a military victory has to be something the military can achieve.
Fred,
It is fine if your military strategy ends with removing a government from power, since that is something a military can do. So if that was McCain's definition of victory in Iraq, then that would be fine ... but of course we already did that.
Unfortunately, instead the current terms of "victory" in Iraq for people like McCain are not goals the U.S. military can achieve. Rather, whether or not those terms will be met is up to the Iraqi people, and there is no guarantee they will do so. So, that doesn't actually constitute a strategy for a military victory, since a military victory has to be something the military can achieve.
"Any state senator who decides to run for president after a one-year stint in the U.S. Senate is delusionally dangerous. Let's be clear."
Ordinarily, perhaps, but in Obama's case, this was a smart decision. The timing was right for him: he could still use anti-Washington sentiment as an advantage, since he hadn't been there that long; and he was the only candidate except for Dennis Kucinich who vocally opposed the war in Iraq before it happened, so he had that going for him. Being short, white, funny-looking, and undeniably leftwing, Kucinich never had a chance against Obama.
"You know whats unfair? Being a soldier who gets killed in Iraq."
What's unfair is being a soldier who volunteered to serve (in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere) and getting used as a prop by someone like you who never served.
What's unfair is being a soldier who volunteered to serve (in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere) and getting used as a prop by someone like you who never served.
Posted by Fred
Here here. It's not like Republican politicians or pundits who have never served would ever, ever dare use the troops as props for their political gains.
Dick Cheney didn't earn his 5 purple hearts by avoiding service, and he never once considered lying about anything and accusing his enemies of not loving the troops if they opposed his policies.
Get real!
El Cid gives me the impression that he's going to miss Dick Cheney.
Rich wrote :"McCain said that he would be fine with the US keeping troops in Iraq for over 100 years, analogizing it to our troop presence in Korea."
Chris Ford writes: "The only thing that bites is Lefty cocksuckers that lie for political gain. McCain did not analogize 100 years to troops, but to America staying in."
McCain said that he would be fine with the US keeping troops in Iraq for over 100 years as long as they were on bases and not being shot at.
or am i lying?
El Cid gives me the impression that he's going to miss Dick Cheney.
Posted by Fred
He will never be truly gone. His spirit will be with us always. Where ever there is a gigantic government contract to be given unbidden to one's corporation, he will be there. Where ever a false imminent threat is used to justify unhelpful and counterproductive violence, he will be there. Whenever there is a shadow remaining just out of focus in your mind's eye, pressing just that since of undefined horror into your spirit, he will be there.
That was actually funny, El Cid; nice work. Though just to correct one small point: I believe the Halliburton contract you were alluding to was established during the Clinton Administration.
Fred: I was counting KBR. And of course I meant "sense" not since.
"What's unfair is being a soldier who volunteered to serve (in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere) and getting used as a prop by someone like you who never served.
Posted by Fred | May 3, 2008 1:19 PM"
What's unfair is signing up for the National Guard to pay for your kid's college fund and then being sent of to Iraq and being shot at by guys whose names you can't even pronounce over some local tribal grievance you have nothing to do with. A friend of a friend who had jumped from foster home to foster home all his life was all set to start at an Ivy with his new scholarship paying the way, but he had signed up for the National Guard as a way out of his bad situation. A few days before Christmas they pick him up and he has to forfeit his scholarship as a result. Then again, he's a Latin guy from a poor urban neighborhood, which to you means he's sub-human, so I don't expect you to give a fuck, you sick little freak.
Un-Reality Man - What's unfair is signing up for the National Guard to pay for your kid's college fund and then being sent of to Iraq and being shot at by guys whose names you can't even pronounce over some local tribal grievance you have nothing to do with.
If the Guard existed solely to allow disadvantaged people college scholarships to prestigious universitys and told people that when they volunteered, you might have a point. But they didn't. Just as people in other potentially risky jobs accept higher pay for the risk factor - you can be a fish gutter in Alaska or if you are strong, smart, and brave - make 10 times that going out on the Bering Sea, where you are far likelier to be hurt or die.
I joined the military to serve. Secondarily for some skills I wanted and a few benefits. Definitely not for the pay and education offers out there in the late 80s. And I voluntarily extended active duty to finish my job and duty assignment in the Gulf War.
As for your "poor Latin guy" you are the sick freak if you think his educational aspirations trump his obligated duty.
***************
""What's unfair is being a soldier who volunteered to serve (in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere) and getting used as a prop by someone like you who never served.
Posted by Fred"
I wish you wouldn't rile up the Lefties. The best they can do is claim either Cheney didn't serve despite 20 years of public service including time in military leadership because he never served in the Lefty "Big One" (Vietnam), or that Dubya ducked service by having the easy, cushy job of flying some safe jet like a 767 and greeting Soviet or Cuban warplanes if need be.
My nephew medically separated from the Army after a car bomb broke eardrums and gave him minor balance problems. He really hated not being able to go back with comrades he helped train up. Going to a state university, he and other vets went ballistic when campus lefties somehow got their names and declared them "hapless victims" of Bush at an anti-War reading. They responded to students en mass in a letter to both the School newspaper, town paper, and university radio that Iraq vets are all over the map in how they feel, but they unanimously resent being used as props and having their names abused for poliical purposes by anti-War people who don't know what they think.
You gotta be sh*tting me -- Chris Ford is now claiming that Dick Cheney has pretty much the equivalent of military service.
Jeesh. No wonder we in the South got our a** whooped so bad when the rednecks rose up. At least, though, the re-enactors feel they got their sh*t together.
Let's see Obama whine and cry about this -- Barack Obama's Muslim Childhood
As Barack Obama's candidacy comes under increasing scrutiny, his account of his religious upbringing deserves careful attention for what it tells us about the candidate's integrity.
Obama asserted in December, "I've always been a Christian," and he has adamantly denied ever having been a Muslim. "The only connection I've had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father's side came from that country [Kenya]. But I've never practiced Islam." In February, he claimed: "I have never been a Muslim. … other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for 4 years when I was a child [Indonesia, 1967-71] I have very little connection to the Islamic religion."
"Always" and "never" leave little room for equivocation. But many biographical facts, culled mainly from the American press, suggest that, when growing up, the Democratic candidate for president both saw himself and was seen as a Muslim.
Obama's Kenyan birth father: In Islam, religion passes from the father to the child. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936–1982) was a Muslim who named his boy Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Only Muslim children are named "Hussein".
Obama's Indonesian family: His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also a Muslim. In fact, as Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of the New York Times: "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim." An Indonesian publication, the Banjarmasin Post reports a former classmate, Rony Amir, recalling that "All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims."
The Catholic school: Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports that "documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim" while at a Catholic school during first through third grades. Kim Barker of the Chicago Tribune confirms that Obama was "listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school." A blogger who goes by "An American Expat in Southeast Asia" found that "Barack Hussein Obama was registered under the name ‘Barry Soetoro' serial number 203 and entered the Franciscan Asisi Primary School on 1 January 1968 and sat in class 1B. … Barry's religion was listed as Islam."The public school: Paul Watson of the Los Angeles Times learned from Indonesians familiar with Obama when he lived in Jakarta that he "was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended." Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star visited the Jakarta public school Obama attended and found that "Three of his teachers have said he was enrolled as a Muslim." Although Siddiqui cautions that "With the school records missing, eaten by bugs, one has to rely on people's shifting memories," he cites only one retired teacher, Tine Hahiyari, retracting her earlier certainty about Obama's being registered as a Muslim.
Koran class: In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies, thereby revealing he was a Muslim, for Indonesian students in his day attended religious classes according to their faith. Indeed, Obama still retains knowledge from that class: Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times, reports that Obama "recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them [to Kristof] with a first-rate accent."Mosque attendance: Obama's half-sister recalled that the family attended the mosque "for big communal events." Watson learned from childhood friends that "Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque." Barker found that "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers." One Indonesia friend, Zulfin Adi, states that Obama "was Muslim. He went to the mosque. I remember him wearing a sarong" (a garment associated with Muslims).
Piety: Obama himself says that while living in Indonesia, a Muslim country, he "didn't practice [Islam]," implicitly acknowledging a Muslim identity. Indonesians differ in their memories of him. One, Rony Amir, describes Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."
Obama's having been born and raised a Muslim and having left the faith to become a Christian make him neither more nor less qualified to become president of the United States. But if he was born and raised a Muslim and is now hiding that fact, this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president.
Harry:
(1) I am really, really starting to enjoy the feeling of desperation I'm getting from you nimrods.
(2) Snopes.com.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
By the way, I could recite off the top of my head the first part of the "call to prayer" -- ZOMG I iz a MOOOZLIM now???!!! An' I nevr livd in a MOOOZLIM country neither!!1 AAAAAAGH!!!
| 
Heads in the Sand
Nice try, but Brownstein said that McCain's position raises additional questions; Brownstein did NOT say that that lying about McCain's position (which is what Obama and the Democratic Party have been doing for months) is OK.
Lots of political positions raise additional questions. Hillary's health care proposal raises the question - how is she going to enforce her mandate? That question doesn't give Obama carte blanche to lie.
Matthew, Obama, and the Democratic Party aren't raising additional questions about McCain's position, which is what Brownstein was talking about. They just want to lie.
Posted by Al | May 2, 2008 7:06 PM