Liar McSame claimed that Obama would "rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." Putting aside the obvious slander this represents, what does "lose a war" mean in the context of Iraq? How could Obama "lose the war" in Iraq?

Short answer....he couldn't. For several reasons.

First, it isn't a "war," and hasn't been since mid-2003. We invaded and quickly defeated Saddam's military that year, and took control of the country. That was the end of the "war in Iraq." Everything that's happened since has happened during the U.S. occupation.

Secondly, you can't "lose" an occupation. You can either stay....or go. Conditions for either may be favorable or unfavorable for the occupier, but neither represents "losing" or "winning."

Finally, what conditions are present that, if Obama were to start a pulllout immediately, would represent an American "loss?" Saddam's forces were destroyed, and Saddam executed along with most of his henchmen. Iraq has an entirely new, elected government. Security forces are stronger and more numerous every day. There is less Sunni-Shi'ite conflict every day. The country is not going to dissolve into civil war tomorrow. And the elected government wants a timeline for us to leave.

What here would represent "losing" in Iraq, Sen. McCain? Can you honestly answer that question, or do you simply prefer lying for political advantage?

Um, he was referring to Obama's VOTE against the surge vs. McCain's spearheading of the strategy, like a year and a half ago. Why are you so dishonest as to change the context of his remarks...

Obviously your feeble lies and spin are meaningless (how does "vote against the surrrrrrrrge" equate with "lose the war," dummy?), so why not just answer my points?

Or don't, I really don't care. You've proven yourself a partisan GOP liar of late, and can't really be trusted to debate questions honestly.

Horus:

Obviously your feeble lies and spin are meaningless (how does "vote against the surrrrrrrrge" equate with "lose the war," dummy?), so why not just answer my points?

Or don't, I really don't care. You've proven yourself a partisan GOP liar of late, and can't really be trusted to debate questions honestly.

Honesty? Honesty would be you acknowledging that McCain was referring to his opposition to the surge - NOT anything he is saying or doing NOW...

You've made up a meaning for his words, and you're sticking with it, facts be damned. Gotcha.

"rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."

We discussed a variation on this last night and the Hopeheads agree with me that Obama's presidential ambitions are more important to him and his followers than the lives of the troops or our fiscal strength. That's why he didn't try to filibuster and block supplemental funding for the Blunder, according to my friends here. He prefers having the war as an issue rather than actually doing anything beyond talk to end it. I see the same things on the economy, bewailing the results of inflation in words while piling fuel on the fire in his Senate votes.

"We discussed a variation on this last night and the Hopeheads agree with me that Obama's presidential ambitions are more important to him and his followers than the lives of the troops or our fiscal strength."

Here, on this message board?