Reverend Wright - which Barack lied about repeatedly.

Plagiarism in his speeches - caught and convicted there.

And we're still unraveling the whole Rezko mess but we know Barack lied about how much money his campaigns had received from Rezko -- first it was %80K, then later they admitted it was more like $150K, then revised again months later to something like $250K.

There is a definite pattern of lies and distortion, and what is amazing is that Barack stare into the camera in the clip above and flat-out lies some more -- even after he's been caught.

So since McCain "...as long as Americans aren't being wounded and killed" that means Obama lied? That's bull.

Everyone can hear that McCain said "100 years" in Iraq, and if you haven't noticed we are in a war in Iraq.

The fact is that McCain lied because what he really means is that as long as Americans ARE being wounded and killed in Iraq he will keep us there for 100 years. He has said repeatedly that we CANNOT leave while we are taking casualties; that this would dishonor those who have fallen.

So, in reality, as long as Americans are dying in Iraq McCain wants them to stay.

Five years into this bloody fiasco and we are still struggling to put down the resistance in the center of Baghdad. After spending half a trillion dollars and losing over 4,000 heroes we have accomplished nothing permanent in Iraq. If we pullout the house-of-cards Iraqi government would collapse in a weekend.

Enough of this nationbuilding fiasco. We need to elect Obama to get our troops the hell out of this nightmare because Clinton and McCain won't.

There is a definite pattern of lies and distortion,

Gee Lee, maybe you didn't notice that Meredith Viera said "both you and Hillary" have said the same thing about McCain?

And here's what Hillary says about this from her web site:

And Senator McCain will gladly accept the torch and stay the course, keeping troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary.

So is she "lying" and "distorting" McCain's words? Or is she somehow telling the truth but Obama is lying when he says the exact same thing?

Once again you have embarrassed the hell out of yourself.

Larkin like Hussein just doesn't pick sentences out of paragraphs, he picks words out of sentences to back his liars lies. 'If no one is being injured or killed' would indicate there was no war. Give it a rest, your BS has never won on a post anywhere on the net, BS oozes out your nose as your lies ooze out your mouth, same with Hussein.

McCain's reference to 100 years in Iraq was in the context of a Korea-like presence.

Obama admitted as much at one point:

At the end of the exchange Obama admitted that he understands McCain is talking about the Korean style bases and not a hot war like Iraq, "Well we've been in South Korea for 50 years and he's used that as an example as George Bush has and that is decades and we're spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq right now.

But since that one time he's pretty much lied his way through this issue ever since.

"When it comes to foreign policy, John McCain says he wants to fight a 100-year war--a hundred years, as long as it takes," channeling outrage from the crowd.

Obama - the great orator - riles up the crowd with lies, and like Larkin they just suck up bthe lies and cheer him on, blinded by his "MessiahLight (tm).

Obama is lying when he says "McCain says he wants to fight a 100 year war" - McCain has said no such thing. This is just one of Obama's recent lies, he's really on a lying tear these days.

And what's amazing is that he's been flat out caught and challenged for his distortion, but he just blusters on - what an amazing display of dishonesty. hes apparently a liar to the core of his being, and once he commits to a lie he can't let it go.

How many other lies has he told that we haven't discovered yet.

McCain's reference to 100 years in Iraq was in the context of a Korea-like presence.

I do love when someone who purports to be a Democrat defends the Republican candidate's magical thinking in order to attack another Democrat.

A Korea-like presence is not possible in Iraq, and you know it, and justifying a desire to stay in Iraq for 100+ years by saying it would be just like Korea is idiotic. I can understand such bullshit from someone who has defended the war all along; they're just doubling down, but for someone who's opposed to the Iraq war it makes no sense whatsoever, but Lee's never made much sense anyway.

100 years in Iraq is 100 years of war, regardless of how McCain wants it. But it is good to know you'll be campaigning for the Republican this year, Lee. Tool.

Now, now Lee and Larkin, quit your bickering. You're both right. Both marxists candidates, Hillary and Barack are liars.

It a requirement- you can't run for President of American with such an anti-American worldview unless you are a really good liar. Sadly for the neo-communists, the last one they could find was Bill Clinton and none of the current crop from Gore to Kerry to Hillary to Barack can measure up to that standard.

It's also a good thing that most Americans are not as bigoted as mantis who above displays the typical leftist "soft bigotry of low expectations". Such a predictable tool he is.

By all means, Bunyan, tell us how a permanent military presence in Iraq leads to a Korea-like state. Do take into account all the ways in which Iraq differs from Korea (cultural, ethnic, geographic, political, etc.).

When you can do that, I'll consider the idea that we can stay there without being involved in constant fighting.

McCain's reference to 100 years in Iraq was in the context of a Korea-like presence.

I do love when someone who purports to be a Democrat defends the Republican candidate's magical thinking in order to attack another Democrat. "

Barack admitted that he knew the context was with regards to a Korea-like presence - and speaking the truth transcends politics, mantis.

Yu also said: "A Korea-like presence is not possible in Iraq, and you know it,"

Wow - Even Barack hasn't made that claim. If he had it would show a degree of intellectual honesty sadly lacking from the Obama side these days.

It would have been just fine for Barack Obama to argue that we cannot maintain a 100 year presence in Iraq - even one that's like Korea.

He didn't do that. He just dishonestly mis-charecterized McCain's statement.

I'm not defending McCain - McCain's words stand on their own, and I'm not suggesting that McCain is correct in his view of Iraq.

That's not the point - Barack's lying about what McCain said is the point.

It's the subject of the post. Feel free to address it anytime.

Iraq will never be like Korea. I never said it would. But that does not mean there will never be peace in Iraq. It will just take time. (For that matter Korea has been at war for the last 50+ years, they're just in a cease-fire right now, so I wouldn't want Iraq to be like Korea.)

I willing to give the Iraqi's the benefit of the doubt and believe that they like those of us on the American right want peace in the middle east. I believe that assuming that they can never live in peace is very narrow minded and bigoted, but that typical for a leftist.

Now, you leftists are preferring a course of action that will lead to an escalation of war in the middle east and eventually world wide. Why are you agaist peace? Why do you want the war to escalate? And why do you have such a bigoted, pessimistic opinion about the Iraqi people?

The left's position on Iraq is as ironic as it is moronic. The "anti-war" protesters actually support escalating the war. They are actually anti-peace protesters, but are too stupid or narrow minded to see that.

(Of course everyone who actually uses their brain knows that if Al Gore had sent troops into Iraq, then it would have been o.k. and we would have never heard a peep from Larkin, Mantis, Lee, Barney, Hooson, JFO, et. al.)

Technically, we are still of course, at war with North Korea.

On February 20, Lee Ward, Jim Addison's scout and trouble shooter for Obama lies, published 'Barack Obama 1979 and Today: Student, Radical, Future President."which contained Lee's quote that :

'We cannot continue down the dark road for four more years lead by yet another doddering old white man who believes that 100 more years in Iraq is time and money and lives well spent."

Of course seven weeks ago, Lee was almost semi sane even though in that post, he felt that Obama, surprisingly very wan "a mulatto boy" in complexion,had been a dangerous student radical, talking about "getting reefers legalized and "******* into the the World Bank". Since then Lee has descended even lower into Dante's Inferno, even lower than his candidate in the national polls, and is now so blinded by his rage for Obama, that he has picked up a confederate in Addison and they are trading youtube tape posts.

Be warned readers, there my enough bootleg tapes around that they may try to use the old February 20th 'Obama tape' on the readership of Wizbangbpolitics, Why not? it almost worked once, after all it still may be genuine; only questions about its veracity were raised. Nothing conclusive either way, right Lee.."Try and debunk it(this tape) if you can." But be careful Jim, Lee is notorious for trying to spread disinformation...That is lying with forethought and malice.

He knew the tape wasn't genuine, he altered the years twice from 74 to 78 and then to 79 to give it more versimultude. Lee as we all know prides himself on his fact checking. I believe like Mantis, Lee thought it was too good to throw out even if it was a sendup, much like his Larry Sinclair tape posts. It can only hurt Obama what damage can it do if it was false..We haven't heard the verdict on those posts either Lee., but of course the charges were always more important, that is what a smear operaator like Rove does.

Lee is still upset at Mantis, Larkin and me because we spoiled his fun and questioned him about the February 20th day tape in the link I provided, which was his exhibit A, that Obama should withdraw, when he he was in the middle of an eleven primary sweep .Lee still insisisted he should even after we 'raised questions' about the tape It would have been a nice scam if he could have pulled it off.

Remember Obama is the candidate Lee you never thought had a chance to win because your candidate the very 'electable Hillary' was the one that was unbeatable and Americans would never accept a black candidate for President, or is truer to say that you won't, since you consistently focus on race and his non-practicising Muslim biologicical father.

Lee,

Go ahead and let the Republicans dishonestly frame their positions. 50 years in Iraq? How about 100, or 1,000, or 10,000! As long as everything is a paradise there that would be fine!

Bullshit. McCain wants to stay there no matter what, and you know it. You can push his line that he only wants to stay there if things are sunshine and rainbows, but he's very much on the record as saying we have to stay there if there is violence. So basically you have a candidate saying he wants a US military presence in Iraq no matter what happens, and furthermore has no plan to fix the problems there, and you're willing to carry water for him. Good job. Did Obama say "100 years of war" on a couple of occasions even though McCain added the caveat that he would like us there if everything was magically peaceful? Yes. So what? I refuse to let them frame the debate that way. Our presence guarantees continued violence in Iraq, and letting them talk about staying there indefinitely in a magical wonderland of peace and democracy is conceding that is even possible with us there. Screw that. McCain wants us there forever, democracy or not, peace or not. No matter what, he wants us there. He can plug it into ridiculous hypotheticals all he wants, the fact remains he wants us there, fighting, indefinitely.

Bunyan,

Thanks for conceding you have no clue.

So your argument Mantis is that there will be peace in Iraq if we pull out?

And there is guaranteed endless war in Iraq if we stay?

I'd like a real answer if you're man enough, not something juvenile like: "Thanks for conceding you have no clue.", I'd expect better from a 3rd grader.

McCain wants us there forever, democracy or not, peace or not. No matter what, he wants us there. He can plug it into ridiculous hypotheticals all he wants, the fact remains he wants us there, fighting, indefinitely.

A direct, bald-faced LIE.

You guys should form a group: LIARS for OBAMA.

Somewhat redundant, though . . .

So your argument Mantis is that there will be peace in Iraq if we pull out?

If the Iraqis can work their shit out and achieve peace eventually (unlikely, IMO, as the nation is currently constituted - I predict eventual balkanization), it will only be with us gone.

And there is guaranteed endless war in Iraq if we stay?

Pretty much, yes, depending on how you define "war." It will certainly not be Korea, or anything like it.

Once again, tell us how peace will be achieved in Iraq, taking into account every roadblock on the way (cultural, ethnic, geographic, political, etc.).

You can't do it, can you?

A direct, bald-faced LIE.

Do tell us the circumstances under which McCain has indicated we may leave Iraq.

I look forward to seeing this on TV.

"So basically you have a candidate saying he wants a US military presence in Iraq no matter what happens, and furthermore has no plan to fix the problems there, and you're willing to carry water for him. Good job."

The subject of the post is Obama's lie.

You just can't admit that he's lied about what McCain said can you? Just as Barack can't admit that he's lying.
And loko at how you've attempted to spin and frame this.

"but he's very much on the record as saying we have to stay there if there is violence."

And now YOU'VE decided there will be violence for 100 years, therefore ABarack isn't lying?

Amazing - the depths some 'people' will go to in order to spin a lie further.

Obama lies about what McCain said, admit it. He claims McCain said we'd wage war in Iraq for another 100 years -- and McCain said nothing of the sort.

Is the truth - the simple plain truth - really that hard for you to admit?

"Do tell us the circumstances under which McCain has indicated we may leave Iraq."

I can tell you what he hasn't said - he hasn't said what Obama says he stated -- Obama is lying.

How long we need to stay there is a valid discussion. Obama avoids valid discussions by lying about McCain.

Obama is running for the highest office in the land, and he's unfairly smeared an opponent, and he can't admit that he's lied - mispoken - incorrectly quoted - whatever - he just can't admit it.

That's just plain weird....

McCain repeatedly avoided directly answering how many years he would be willing to fight a war in Iraq if Americans are "being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

McCain said he would be actually willing to stay in Iraq for "ten thousand years" as mantis said, then "a million years," when questioned by a reporter the same night. ..McCain plainly has said he wants an 'open -ended comitment'-.

What do these neo neocons like Addison and Ward think that will lead to? Cheney uses the term, when referring Iraq, "an endeavour"," a successful endeavor" he called twwo weeks ago, so if Barack thought that Cheny said the war was going well he would be lying because Cheney said it was an endeavor and not a war... o' kay..another lie according to our twins here. The dictionary definition of war is

a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
b. The period of such conflict.
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
intr.v. warred, war·ring, wars
1. To wage or carry on warfare.
2. To be in a state of hostility or rivalry; contend.

Jim and Lee Iraq five years counting, are living in a fantasy world if they think that as long as our forces are in Iraq we are not going to involved in a large part of that equation or definition.

Perhaps, if more people would have spoken out (I'm sure that Lee or Jim didn't ,but I would loved to bbe proved wrong) but we were getting outselves involved in 'stuck' in 'a dumb wa'r we couldn't get out of, before it began they would more critical of McCain, who has always voiced strong support for the war, and less critical of Obama who has concsistently been right about the war, oh sorry I can't use that word, I mean our endeavour, 'operation freedom' Bush's words if you are more comfortable with that euphemism for Iraq.

Ward, see how those who you once sided with have turned on you. Do you now understand the frustration of dealing with individuals such as the idiot Mantis, larkin and crickmore? Obama lies at every turn. If you want to have fun, watch the MFer try to speak off the cuff with no teleprompter. I must go Lee, have fun with the bozos.

Not a single word about the subject of the post, Steve - just personal attacks instead. You didn't even mention Obama's name in your rant/attack - and that's the subject of this post.

Amazing - so I'm a "neocon" now? Simply because I keep after you Obama supporters like mantis who -- for some odd reason -- can't admit it when your candidate makes a mistake?

Gee, Barack Obama sure has brought the nation together, hasn't he... lol.

RE #16: O.k. Mantis, that was better.

I have to start by stating the obvious, that neither of us know what's going to happen. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Doesn't mean I'm clueless or your clueless we just believe different things are going to happen. I don't want war any more than you do.

"I predict eventual balkanization"

It is very true and I agree with you that Iraq is not like Korea, but it is also not at all like the former Yugoslavia and I believe that Balkanization would never work there.

It is a "war for oil" after all. Not in the way most clueless leftists want to believe, but it is in the best interest of the world that the 2nd largest oil reserve not fall into dangerous hands.

If we follow the course of action on which I see the left campaigning, I believe it will lead to an endless cat and mouse game where a strong man will build up an army and go for the oil, then we'll go in (with a few allies, of course) and drive them out and pull back and the next guy will rise up and well go back and on and on.

I don't like a lot of what has happened, but a lot of good has happened and I'm proud of that. An argument could be made that it has been more good than bad (but you'd just focus on what supports your beliefs and I'd focus on what supports mine). It could have been easier. It would be nice if the words of so many Americans on the left would not be so encouraging to the terrorists and thugs. I wish the press did not report with a 25:1 ratio of pro terrorist bias. But that is as it is. What's important is where we go from here.

"it will only be with us gone"

I just can't see how we get to a peaceful and safe conclusion but abandoning them. I do not believe just pulling out and letting them fight it out is a better course of action than trying to create and keep the peace and plant some seeds in the minds of a few Middle Easterners that there are better options than hate and killing. They may grow.

Hate is a powerful thing and very attractive to some. Look and Kos, DU, and Huffpo and see what a following they draw. So it's not going to be quick and easy (look how long it took Hillary to bring peace to Northern Ireland), but good things can and do happen.

As for this whole foolish "100 years" argument, lets get back to reality. The most John McCain CAN DO, regardless of whatever he may want to do, is affect the course of Iraq for the next eight years.

When the bible authors wrote that it rained for "40 days and 40 nights, or that the Jews wandered for 40 years", it didn't mean those time frames literally, but more likely just meant "a long time". When Jesus said to forgive "70 times 7 times" he didn't not mean literally 490 times. Likewise when McCain said "100 years", I believe he meant "as long as it takes to win and ensure peace". On that I agree with him wholeheartedly and because of that I will vote for him without reservation.

"The clip of what McCain actually said is sort of herky-jerky"-ja

It's termed "foreshadowing".

(Good thread BTW.)

please don't bother mantis about Iraq, he's too busy slapping "Free Tibet" bumperstickers on his hybrid car and preening about his (cost-free) "courage" in doing so.

Iraq is SO last century (and those kind of brown people just don't matter).