Obama “Pretends” on Iraq

[GaryC 7]

Obama “Pretends” on Iraq

Peter Wehner - 06.05.2008 - 12:15 PM

Senator Obama’s speech on Tuesday in St. Paul, when he finally locked up the Democratic presidential nomination, was typical: rhetorically powerful, well-delivered, with some clever and well-constructed lines. But when you examine the substance of what he said, the speech breaks down. Some of his claims are questionable and misleading; others are ill-informed; and still others border on being intellectually dishonest. Obama’s statement on Iraq are particularly revealing.

According to Obama:

I won’t stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq.

In fact, Obama doesn’t have to “pretend” there are many good options left in Iraq. There is one obvious good option: to continue policies that are manifestly succeeding and qualify as one of the most impressive military turnabouts in our history. According to yesterday’s operational update by Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner,

For the third week in a row security incidents in Iraq are at the lowest levels in four years. These numbers reflect fewer attacks on Iraqi civilians, fewer attacks on Iraqi and Coalition Forces, and fewer attacks on the Government’s infrastructure. These security gains follow the coordinated offensive operations over the past year, and the recent security operations in Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra.

The security progress we’ve making is now translating into encouraging progress on the political and economic fronts as well. There is no question, then, that Iraq, which remains in many ways a broken and splintered country, has made enormous strides. It is virtually beyond dispute that the “surge” strategy endorsed by President Bush (and opposed by Senator Obama) is working, and working better and faster than anyone could have imagined just a year ago.

In his speech Obama also stated:

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must.

Keep in mind that in his February 2007 speech announcing his bid for the presidency, Obama declared, “It’s time to start bringing our troops home. That’s why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.” In May, Obama voted against funding for combat operations. And in September, a mere three months after the final elements of the 30,000-strong surge forces had landed in Iraq, he declared that the moment had arrived to remove all of our combat troops “immediately.” “Not in six months or one year–now.”

Obama’s position, then, is the embodiment of carelessness in “getting out of Iraq,” and if he had his way, the progress we have seen would not have come to pass and Iraq would almost certainly be in a death spiral rather than on the (long and difficult) road to recovery.

As for Obama’s statement that “start leaving we must”: perhaps Obama is unaware that when he testified before the Congress two months ago, General Petraeus announced that he was recommending that we withdraw five brigade combat teams (more than a quarter of our total number of combat troops) from Iraq - or that this week, the fourth of five Brigade Combat Teams are returning home, including two Marine battalions and a Marine Expeditionary Unit which have already returned home.

Senator Obama also said this on Tuesday:

It’s time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future.

Perhaps Senator Obama is unaware of that, in the words of the New York Times (from May 12), “Basra has been transformed by its own surge . . . forces loyal to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki have largely quieted the city, to the initial surprise and growing delight of many inhabitants who only a month ago shuddered under deadly clashes between Iraqi troops and Shiite militia.” The principal factor for the success we’ve seen in Basra is the deployment of 33,000 members of the Iraqi Security Forces. And while we shared intelligence, helped the Iraqis in planning the operation and provided overhead reconnaissance, it was “totally Iraq planned, led and executed,” according to the U.S. military.

Perhaps Senator Obama is unaware, too, of the progress that’s been made in Sadr City. On May 21 the New York Times put it this way:

Iraqi forces rolled unopposed through the huge Shiite enclave of Sadr City on Tuesday, a dramatic turnaround from the bitter fighting that has plagued the Baghdad neighborhood for two months, and a qualified success for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. As it did in the southern city of Basra last month, the Iraqi government advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers of the militia.

It’s also likely, I suppose, that Senator Obama is unaware of the progress that’s being made in Mosul, the last urban bastion of al Qaeda in Iraq. According to the Times

The recent successes in quieting violence in Basra and Sadr City appear to be stretching to the long-rebellious Sunni Arab district here in Mosul, raising hopes that the Iraqi Army may soon have tenuous control over all three of Iraq’s major cities.

Senator Obama also appears to be wholly unaware of the political reconciliation and legislative progress we’ve seen in recent months, including the Iraqi parliament passing key laws having to do with provincial elections, the distribution of resources, amnesty, pensions, investment, and de-Ba’athification.

Also in his speech, Senator Obama said:

It’s time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda’s leadership

Perhaps during his busy campaigning Obama isn’t aware of the fact that al Qaeda is in the process of losing the hearts and minds of the Islamic and Arab world. Beginning late last year key figures in the jihadist movement–including Sheikh Abd Al-‘Aziz bin Abdallah Aal Al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia; Sheikh Salman al-Awdah, an influential Saudi cleric whom bin Laden once lionized; and Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (”Dr. Fadl”), once a mentor to Ayman al-Zawahiri and a legend within the global jihadist movement– turned against al Qaeda and their brutal tactics.

In addition, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, in a meeting with the Washington Post last week, portrayed al Qaeda as badly weakened in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive in much of the rest of the world. Al Qaeda’s core leadership has been destabilized and it has lost its ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. “You are not going to hear me say that al Qaeda is defeated,” the ever-cautious U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said on Saturday, “but they’ve never been closer to defeat than they are now.”

We know, too, that according to a report from the Pew Global Attitudes Project, “large and growing numbers of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere [are] rejecting Islamic extremism.” We are also seeing large drops in support for Osama bin Laden.

The idea that we would hurt al Qaeda by losing in Iraq, which would be the outcome of Obama’s policy, is profoundly confused and, if it were to be implemented, terribly dangerous.

Senator Obama’s statements on Iraq are representative of his larger weaknesses. If you strip away the eloquence, charm, and political skills and drill down on the substance, Obama is, especially when it comes to Iraq, misinformed and seemingly out of his depth. He continued to make claims that are demonstrably wrong–and perhaps the media, many of whom are utterly enchanted with the Obama candidacy, will begin to hone in on how out of touch with reality he is. We are, after all, electing a president and not a high school prom king. Obama’s lack of knowledge on issues like Iraq should matter more than his ability to excite a crowd and charm reporters. And his steadfast refusal to alter his views based on new, and in this instance encouraging, evidence is more evidence of the enormous gap that exists between who Obama is and how he presents himself to be. On Iraq, Barack Obama is in a state of denial.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/in...php/wehner/9931

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Trillions of dollars wasted, thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Americans maimed and injured, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, hundreds of thousands maimed and injured, an more powerful Iran, chaos in the Middle East and Persia, Americas reputation busted, the dollar gone to hell, gas at $135.00 a barrel. And all of that for a bunch of lies and a moron at the top. I don't call that success. Not by a long shot.

Edited June 7, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

Trillions of dollars wasted, thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Americans maimed and injured, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, hundreds of thousands maimed and injured, an more powerful Iran, chaos in the Middle East and Persia, Americas reputation busted, the dollar gone to hell, gas at $135.00 a barrel. And all of that for a bunch of lies and a moron at the top. I don't call that success. Not by a long shot.

I really don't care if you think it was a success or not. It needed doing, we did it and in the end it will be a success despite what you think. I am very glad we kicked Saddam out and would want it done again if asked to do it over. Some things cost blood and treasure. This is one that needed doing.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Trillions of dollars wasted, thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Americans maimed and injured, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, hundreds of thousands maimed and injured, an more powerful Iran, chaos in the Middle East and Persia, Americas reputation busted, the dollar gone to hell, gas at $135.00 a barrel. And all of that for a bunch of lies and a moron at the top. I don't call that success. Not by a long shot.

I really don't care if you think it was a success or not. It needed doing, we did it and in the end it will be a success despite what you think. I am very glad we kicked Saddam out and would want it done again if asked to do it over. Some things cost blood and treasure. This is one that needed doing.

The region there and the country here are worse off for it. It was a mistake. A huge mistake. Bush got tens of thousands of people killed for nothing. And I see you embrace that kind of thing. Not cool. Not cool at all. But I guess that is why you're supporting Bush's poodle.

[GaryC 7]

Trillions of dollars wasted, thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Americans maimed and injured, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, hundreds of thousands maimed and injured, an more powerful Iran, chaos in the Middle East and Persia, Americas reputation busted, the dollar gone to hell, gas at $135.00 a barrel. And all of that for a bunch of lies and a moron at the top. I don't call that success. Not by a long shot.

I really don't care if you think it was a success or not. It needed doing, we did it and in the end it will be a success despite what you think. I am very glad we kicked Saddam out and would want it done again if asked to do it over. Some things cost blood and treasure. This is one that needed doing.

The region there and the country here are worse off for it. It was a mistake. A huge mistake. Bush got tens of thousands of people killed for nothing. And I see you embrace that kind of thing. Not cool. Not cool at all. But I guess that is why you're supporting Bush's poodle.

I totaly disagree. It wasn't a mistake to go in. We should have done it long ago. The mistake was made when we didn't go all out in the begining and stopped the insurgancy. That is what I would fault Bush for. But doing it in the first place? No regrets at all.

But you disagree? Not cool, not cool at all. It needed doing. But I guess that is why you're supporting Carter 2.0.

Edited June 7, 2008 by GaryC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I really have to hand it to that guy... That's the most doggie-do I've ever seen someone pull out of two paragraphs of text - or more specifically 177 words out of an approximately 2600 word speech.

I mean seriously... its a victory speech, not a policy speech - so picking holes in what is a passing reference for a lack of detail seems rather presumptuous. I mean does anyone really expect a guy giving a rhetorical morale speech to go off on a huge digression to cover every possible angle of every issue he mentions in passing... Jeez...

Here's the section of the speech referred to in the article. If anyone's actually interested that is...

Change is not one of them. Because change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged. I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years -- especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in -- but start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It's time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century -- terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.

Talk about making mountains out of molehills

Edited June 7, 2008 by Number 6

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Trillions of dollars wasted, thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Americans maimed and injured, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, hundreds of thousands maimed and injured, an more powerful Iran, chaos in the Middle East and Persia, Americas reputation busted, the dollar gone to hell, gas at $135.00 a barrel. And all of that for a bunch of lies and a moron at the top. I don't call that success. Not by a long shot.

I really don't care if you think it was a success or not. It needed doing, we did it and in the end it will be a success despite what you think. I am very glad we kicked Saddam out and would want it done again if asked to do it over. Some things cost blood and treasure. This is one that needed doing.

The region there and the country here are worse off for it. It was a mistake. A huge mistake. Bush got tens of thousands of people killed for nothing. And I see you embrace that kind of thing. Not cool. Not cool at all. But I guess that is why you're supporting Bush's poodle.

I totaly disagree. It wasn't a mistake to go in. We should have done it long ago. The mistake was made when we didn't go all out in the begining and stopped the insurgancy. That is what I would fault Bush for. But doing it in the first place? No regrets at all.

But you disagree? Not cool, not cool at all. It needed doing. But I guess that is why you're supporting Carter 2.0.

W's old man knew it. Anyone with a bit of intelligence in them knew it. But W totally blew it and his poodle is standing for it. Support failure all you want. It isn't going to prevail. Not this time. Ain't gonna happen. The poodle will be retired along with his master.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's some irony here given the thread Gary posted earlier about Carter's shortcomings in putting morality and human rights over strategy. And yet with Iraq here is the exact same argument in reverse.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There's some irony here given the thread Gary posted earlier about Carter's shortcomings in putting morality and human rights over strategy. And yet with Iraq here is the exact same argument in reverse.

Indeed. Remember Bush running on this "we're not in the business of nation building" platform. They all fell for it. Twice.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The issue is clearly not should we, or should we not have gone to Iraq. The answer, with all the knowledge we now have in our possession is not just no, it is H&!! NO!

Saddam may have royally sucked, not doubt about it, but there are more than a few horrendously twisted governments out there still we have not attacked. Nor should we. I don't cry for Saddam at all, but seriously, to claim in the face of all rationality going to Iraq was 'the right thing to do' is unrealistic.

However, what has been done, has been done. Simply leaving Iraq is NOT really an option either. I think Obama made pretty clear early on in his campaign and to the present, his idea is we simply get out. BAD IDEA...

Not unless the hard fought gains we have made are to be undone, we fight our way out leaving a ton of blood, material, and equipment in the process, and leave the Iraq we have created a black hole for Iran to sweep in to.

The surge is working, sort of. Come on Gary, would you take Luz on a second honeymoon in Baghdad? Nope... You would not...

At this point, our military is the only ones to listen to in regards to the future of our forces in Iraq, and how soon we can get out. A pledge from Obama to listen to US military leaders would be greatly welcomed.

Edited June 7, 2008 by ready4ONE

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Please Barack will you just take care of me! PLEASE!

[zqt3344 21]

Thank you GaryC, finally someone exposing Barry Ovamit for what he is! Keep posting, seek the truth and it shall set you free, funny how Ovamit supporters never want to mention that Ovamit attended a supposed church of God in Chicago for 20 years plus, listening to a racist preacher, you ever notice they do not want to talk about that. Wonder why, never fear GaryC, Barry will be swiftboated soon.

Obama “Pretends” on Iraq

Peter Wehner - 06.05.2008 - 12:15 PM

Senator Obama’s speech on Tuesday in St. Paul, when he finally locked up the Democratic presidential nomination, was typical: rhetorically powerful, well-delivered, with some clever and well-constructed lines. But when you examine the substance of what he said, the speech breaks down. Some of his claims are questionable and misleading; others are ill-informed; and still others border on being intellectually dishonest. Obama’s statement on Iraq are particularly revealing.

According to Obama:

I won’t stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq.

In fact, Obama doesn’t have to “pretend” there are many good options left in Iraq. There is one obvious good option: to continue policies that are manifestly succeeding and qualify as one of the most impressive military turnabouts in our history. According to yesterday’s operational update by Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner,

For the third week in a row security incidents in Iraq are at the lowest levels in four years. These numbers reflect fewer attacks on Iraqi civilians, fewer attacks on Iraqi and Coalition Forces, and fewer attacks on the Government’s infrastructure. These security gains follow the coordinated offensive operations over the past year, and the recent security operations in Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra.

The security progress we’ve making is now translating into encouraging progress on the political and economic fronts as well. There is no question, then, that Iraq, which remains in many ways a broken and splintered country, has made enormous strides. It is virtually beyond dispute that the “surge” strategy endorsed by President Bush (and opposed by Senator Obama) is working, and working better and faster than anyone could have imagined just a year ago.

In his speech Obama also stated:

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must.

Keep in mind that in his February 2007 speech announcing his bid for the presidency, Obama declared, “It’s time to start bringing our troops home. That’s why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.” In May, Obama voted against funding for combat operations. And in September, a mere three months after the final elements of the 30,000-strong surge forces had landed in Iraq, he declared that the moment had arrived to remove all of our combat troops “immediately.” “Not in six months or one year–now.”

Obama’s position, then, is the embodiment of carelessness in “getting out of Iraq,” and if he had his way, the progress we have seen would not have come to pass and Iraq would almost certainly be in a death spiral rather than on the (long and difficult) road to recovery.

As for Obama’s statement that “start leaving we must”: perhaps Obama is unaware that when he testified before the Congress two months ago, General Petraeus announced that he was recommending that we withdraw five brigade combat teams (more than a quarter of our total number of combat troops) from Iraq - or that this week, the fourth of five Brigade Combat Teams are returning home, including two Marine battalions and a Marine Expeditionary Unit which have already returned home.

Senator Obama also said this on Tuesday:

It’s time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future.

Perhaps Senator Obama is unaware of that, in the words of the New York Times (from May 12), “Basra has been transformed by its own surge . . . forces loyal to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki have largely quieted the city, to the initial surprise and growing delight of many inhabitants who only a month ago shuddered under deadly clashes between Iraqi troops and Shiite militia.” The principal factor for the success we’ve seen in Basra is the deployment of 33,000 members of the Iraqi Security Forces. And while we shared intelligence, helped the Iraqis in planning the operation and provided overhead reconnaissance, it was “totally Iraq planned, led and executed,” according to the U.S. military.

Perhaps Senator Obama is unaware, too, of the progress that’s been made in Sadr City. On May 21 the New York Times put it this way:

Iraqi forces rolled unopposed through the huge Shiite enclave of Sadr City on Tuesday, a dramatic turnaround from the bitter fighting that has plagued the Baghdad neighborhood for two months, and a qualified success for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. As it did in the southern city of Basra last month, the Iraqi government advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers of the militia.

It’s also likely, I suppose, that Senator Obama is unaware of the progress that’s being made in Mosul, the last urban bastion of al Qaeda in Iraq. According to the Times

The recent successes in quieting violence in Basra and Sadr City appear to be stretching to the long-rebellious Sunni Arab district here in Mosul, raising hopes that the Iraqi Army may soon have tenuous control over all three of Iraq’s major cities.

Senator Obama also appears to be wholly unaware of the political reconciliation and legislative progress we’ve seen in recent months, including the Iraqi parliament passing key laws having to do with provincial elections, the distribution of resources, amnesty, pensions, investment, and de-Ba’athification.

Also in his speech, Senator Obama said:

It’s time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda’s leadership

Perhaps during his busy campaigning Obama isn’t aware of the fact that al Qaeda is in the process of losing the hearts and minds of the Islamic and Arab world. Beginning late last year key figures in the jihadist movement–including Sheikh Abd Al-‘Aziz bin Abdallah Aal Al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia; Sheikh Salman al-Awdah, an influential Saudi cleric whom bin Laden once lionized; and Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (”Dr. Fadl”), once a mentor to Ayman al-Zawahiri and a legend within the global jihadist movement– turned against al Qaeda and their brutal tactics.

In addition, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, in a meeting with the Washington Post last week, portrayed al Qaeda as badly weakened in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive in much of the rest of the world. Al Qaeda’s core leadership has been destabilized and it has lost its ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. “You are not going to hear me say that al Qaeda is defeated,” the ever-cautious U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said on Saturday, “but they’ve never been closer to defeat than they are now.”

We know, too, that according to a report from the Pew Global Attitudes Project, “large and growing numbers of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere [are] rejecting Islamic extremism.” We are also seeing large drops in support for Osama bin Laden.

The idea that we would hurt al Qaeda by losing in Iraq, which would be the outcome of Obama’s policy, is profoundly confused and, if it were to be implemented, terribly dangerous.

Senator Obama’s statements on Iraq are representative of his larger weaknesses. If you strip away the eloquence, charm, and political skills and drill down on the substance, Obama is, especially when it comes to Iraq, misinformed and seemingly out of his depth. He continued to make claims that are demonstrably wrong–and perhaps the media, many of whom are utterly enchanted with the Obama candidacy, will begin to hone in on how out of touch with reality he is. We are, after all, electing a president and not a high school prom king. Obama’s lack of knowledge on issues like Iraq should matter more than his ability to excite a crowd and charm reporters. And his steadfast refusal to alter his views based on new, and in this instance encouraging, evidence is more evidence of the enormous gap that exists between who Obama is and how he presents himself to be. On Iraq, Barack Obama is in a state of denial.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/in...php/wehner/9931

[GaryC 7]

Trillions of dollars wasted, thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Americans maimed and injured, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, hundreds of thousands maimed and injured, an more powerful Iran, chaos in the Middle East and Persia, Americas reputation busted, the dollar gone to hell, gas at $135.00 a barrel. And all of that for a bunch of lies and a moron at the top. I don't call that success. Not by a long shot.

I really don't care if you think it was a success or not. It needed doing, we did it and in the end it will be a success despite what you think. I am very glad we kicked Saddam out and would want it done again if asked to do it over. Some things cost blood and treasure. This is one that needed doing.

The region there and the country here are worse off for it. It was a mistake. A huge mistake. Bush got tens of thousands of people killed for nothing. And I see you embrace that kind of thing. Not cool. Not cool at all. But I guess that is why you're supporting Bush's poodle.

I totaly disagree. It wasn't a mistake to go in. We should have done it long ago. The mistake was made when we didn't go all out in the begining and stopped the insurgancy. That is what I would fault Bush for. But doing it in the first place? No regrets at all.

But you disagree? Not cool, not cool at all. It needed doing. But I guess that is why you're supporting Carter 2.0.

W's old man knew it. Anyone with a bit of intelligence in them knew it. But W totally blew it and his poodle is standing for it. Support failure all you want. It isn't going to prevail. Not this time. Ain't gonna happen. The poodle will be retired along with his master.

No, you got it all wrong. We should have taken Saddam out in the first gulf war. Clinton should have taken him out in his 8 years. Bush II is the only one with the guts to do what was right. The war was the right thing to do and I support it 100%. The American people also see the need for keeping at this until we win. That is why Carter 2.0 will not win. Send the punk kid back to Illinois until he is no longer wet behind the ears and let the grown ups take over. McCain will win.

[William33 110]

Gary,

Bad days at work? As, you are so agressive lately....Obama sux and so does Mcain.....these are the lame choices....

Non-vote from here, for the untested one and the retiree....Your direct thoughts?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Trillions of dollars wasted, thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Americans maimed and injured, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, hundreds of thousands maimed and injured, an more powerful Iran, chaos in the Middle East and Persia, Americas reputation busted, the dollar gone to hell, gas at $135.00 a barrel. And all of that for a bunch of lies and a moron at the top. I don't call that success. Not by a long shot.

I really don't care if you think it was a success or not. It needed doing, we did it and in the end it will be a success despite what you think. I am very glad we kicked Saddam out and would want it done again if asked to do it over. Some things cost blood and treasure. This is one that needed doing.

The region there and the country here are worse off for it. It was a mistake. A huge mistake. Bush got tens of thousands of people killed for nothing. And I see you embrace that kind of thing. Not cool. Not cool at all. But I guess that is why you're supporting Bush's poodle.

I totaly disagree. It wasn't a mistake to go in. We should have done it long ago. The mistake was made when we didn't go all out in the begining and stopped the insurgancy. That is what I would fault Bush for. But doing it in the first place? No regrets at all.

But you disagree? Not cool, not cool at all. It needed doing. But I guess that is why you're supporting Carter 2.0.

W's old man knew it. Anyone with a bit of intelligence in them knew it. But W totally blew it and his poodle is standing for it. Support failure all you want. It isn't going to prevail. Not this time. Ain't gonna happen. The poodle will be retired along with his master.

No, you got it all wrong. ...... McCain will win.

Yeah, I remember the last prediction contest we had. And I remember who lost that one. It wasn't me.