It's regrettable that this type of spin and liar's math is used on both sides of the isle. I think the reason is to make a point which really should not be obscured by focusing on the math. Of course the point is that Biden and Obama feel very strongly that policy now and in the future under a McCain presidency would be far too focused on Iraq and not nearly focused enough on Afghanistan. Even by the numbers you quote, BTW you never actually finish you math problem either, it is clear that the spending favors Iraq -- and why exactly does it? Did we all forget that there were not weapons of mass destruction? That appears to be either a sham to get us to agree to an invasion, or it was an example of very poor intelligence that a more experienced, considered, and reasonable Commander In Chief should have been willing to question further before committing a course of action.

Let's not get get in to a situation where we can't see the forest for the trees.

Do you realize (judging by your post that you do not) that EVERY member of Congress had access to all of the intelligence gathered before voting on whether to go to war or not? The means that everyone who voted for the war, including the president, relied on the same advice of experts.

You also seem to be stating that Obama is more experienced and reasonable than McCain. This is a joke right? Obama has NO experience. None. Zip. He hasn't a clue what to do and it is only because of his rich liberal backers that he knows what to say. And "reasonable"? Please, he wants to talk with world's dictators as if they were actually human.

If Obama actually wins the only person who will be happy is Carter since he will no longer be considered the worst president in the last 100 years!

You are overlooking the fact that Cheney sold the WMD argument claiming to have information not listed in the intelligence reports (and later proved to be a lie). Specifically, that Sadam was directly linked to terrorism.

Obama is clearly more intelligent, and more reasoned, than McCain. Years of experience are worthless unless you have the intellect and judgment to fully utilize knowledge. McCain sees the world through a prism colored by his own war experiences. Sadly, his war experiences do not lend themselves to being able to take a neutral and unbiased approach to conflict.

Mr. Parker,

It's hard to take you seriously when you say, 'Obama has NO experience. None. Zip.'

A large majority of the people in this country would count his time in the Senate, his time in the Illinois legislature, and his time as a Constitutional scholar as experience relevant to becoming the next President. How quantitatively much those experiences prepare him for President is a legitimate question, but to say he has 'NO experience. None. Zip' make you sound like a crackpot.

So you know.

Neuro:

Mr. Parker,

It's hard to take you seriously when you say, 'Obama has NO experience. None. Zip.'

A large majority of the people in this country would count his time in the Senate, his time in the Illinois legislature, and his time as a Constitutional scholar as experience relevant to becoming the next President. How quantitatively much those experiences prepare him for President is a legitimate question, but to say he has 'NO experience. None. Zip' make you sound like a crackpot.

So you know.

If you add that he was a boy scout school paper editor, and regular gold star student in kindergarden, then you have enough experience to push him to a second term I guess

entj4sure,

The attack on the neocons that got us into Iraq (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) was always that they were chicken hawks that dodged service, didn't have children in harms way, and thus didn't have the proper perspective and respect for life to properly decide when and how to use the military.

Now you want to argue that having war experience means that McCain's judgment on combat is skewed? Bull.

Incidentally, McCain has opposed having american troops in Beirut and Bosnia (at least initially) so that would indicate to me that he usually is hesitant to put troops in harm's way.

libertyforall:

Incidentally, McCain has opposed having american troops in Beirut and Bosnia (at least initially) so that would indicate to me that he usually is hesitant to put troops in harm's way.

Just another partisan hack. Republican CongressCritters always oppose military intervention whenever there is a Democratic President.

I mentioned Beirut as well... go look up who our president was in the early 80's. McCain wasn't the only republican to vote against continued military presence in Lebanon, but if he was a party hack that fell into line, he'd join the majority of republicans and vote in favor of the motion.

You could argue McCain is exaggerating how brave and incisive his vote was, but you instead appear to prefer to argue Reagan is a democrat. He certainly wasn't a Goldwater republican, but I don't think I'd go that far :)