ok i usually never venture into a political thread, and im sure ill need asbestos underwear for saying this but ill give my opinion on the die hard Clinton supporters. To a woman (and there almost all women) they are bitter middle aged women way past thier prime who are voting for Clinton because shes a woman. a vote for her is basicaly a vote for themselves in thier eyes. all the anger and frustrations in thier lives are being spewed out in this race and they feel thier woman (themselves) are being passed over and disrespected, rehasing old hurt feelings in thier own lives

I agree. For me, I'm a 31 year old engineer, with a 28 year old s wife who's a travel nurse. We plan to have our first kid next year once we're finished with her loans.

I want my family to feel safe from the world hating our hypocritical "pre-emptive striking" asses. I want my country to be self-sufficient when it comes to energy by the time my kids are teens. I want to get into a home within the next 3 years and at least, let me feel like I'm making a sound investment and not throwing our money away in a 250,000 stationary car. I don't think its too much to ask for, right?

Well its hard to vote against a president that scares the people into submission, especially if you want to get reelected.

If I thought Obama could do that I'd donate far, far, more than I could afford to his campaign, even if he spent the rest of his time in a shed out back behind the white house watching porn.

The fact that he tried to intelligently explain the futility of off-shore oil drilling to the American people for as long as he did, gave him a +1 for me. Again, another case where trying to go the intelligent, informed route, will not win the presidency.

1. It doesn't matter who ends up being president. After the Iraq screw-ups involving the reasons why we attacked, any future pre-emptive strike by a president is going to be scrutinized much more closely for the foreseeable future.

2. Regarding energy, it also doesn't matter a whole lot who is president. The vast majority of Americans, regardless of party, are calling for better energy policies and options. There is some disagreement, mainly regarding drilling off-shore, but both sides agree that stuff needs to change quickly. The Russia-Georgia situation only further amplifies that point. (By the way, if you want to see what oil companies have to do to drill now in protected areas, watch the latest season of 'Ice Road Truckers' on the History Channel. Amazing stuff.)

3. There's not a better investment right now than a home and that won't change regardless of who's president. The prices are ridiculously cheap.

For as much as we talk about the effect of each candidate, I'm relatively sure that the next president won't have much control at all over upcoming policies. Public sentiment and Congress will have much more control over that.

That's a plus, but a meaningless one, as he did ultamitely decide that offshore drilling would be a necessary part of his energy plan.

The American citizens are the only ones that can make us self-sufficient, and they won't do it until there's a catostrophic economic depression.

So I can't give Obama real points there just because he thinks nice thoughts. And that's where I'm stuck with Obama. Nice thoughts and nothing more.

So when issues like that are a wash, McCain's experience starts to look better.

I'd be interested in seeing what the disaffected Clinton voters think after they vote for McCain, he gets into office, John Paul Stevens retires from the court and Roe v. Wade is history.

There's no way that happens given the overwhelming Democrat majority in Congress. They'd never let that through.

At least not now that we've apparently agreed to withdraw all combat troops by 2011! It would be nice if that agreement made a little more news.

I can't believe that the new President(McCain or Obama) will not have a huge effect. For basically, all of my adult life I've been living under Bush. I look at how I felt 8 years ago and where we are now. The towers have been knocked down, two of my aunts have lost their homes, and I've got two frat brothers in Afgahnastan(sp, I know), whose safety I gotta pray for. I know, this is soapbox material but that's real life for me and these are issues near to me. I look at what Bush has done to this country and there's no arguement that can convince me that a new president will have some reduced role in the future of the country.

I saw that but didn't quite believe it for some reason.

That would seem to be a blow for the Dems that this isn't even a difference-point anymore. Though Obama had pretty much dropped the "accelerated withdrawal" push since his Iraq trip.

Do you think those things wouldn't have happened if Al Gore won in '00? (or a time-warped Obama?)

IMO:

-Clearly 9/11 was a long-term plan and it would have happened no matter what. Some blame Clinton but I don't think anyone would have had a real vision or courage needed to prevent that (just like nobody has the courage/vision on energy now to prevent the inevitable). Bush/Clinton were all warned ad nauseum about Osama - but what can you do in a pre-9/11 world?

-Tech bubble bursts no matter what, we have economic struggles no matter what (especially after 9/11). I think there is now an opportunity for either recovery or further stagnation, and I think this is a key issue for me in this election.

-Wasn't Afganistan "the right war" all along? Sure, we'd have focussed more attention there without Iraq, but the Afgan war was won early - how long would troops have stayed? Whenever we left, the Taliban would creep back (as they have). We certainly wouldn't have "won the war on terror" by now, there'd be a key battling ground somewhere. At least its not Pakistan (yet). Iraq was an abomination, but I'm not convinced that Bush has done an awful job on terror in general. I would have NEVER beleived, after 9/11, that our government would have kept terror out of US soil for 8 years, and that the world would see as few attacks as it has. They don't get enough credit for that. They're doing something right. I have confidence McCain will continue that success, Obama is a question mark.

First, we would have had the tower knocked down no matter who was in power. That's not Bush's fault. They hated us long before Bush.

Similarly, the towers provided perfectly good reasons to go into Afghanistan, regardless who was in power. The Taliban would have been targeted either way.

The only thing you could place on Bush is their slow reaction to the risky loans being handed out to consumers. But to be honest, I hold the consumers who took those risky loans just as responsible. If you buy a house and used a fixed interest loan, you'll never have any problems and will only be approved if you truly can handle the loan given the tighter restrictions on loans that now exist.

Edit: I should note that I'm not talking about your aunts and their situation because I don't know what the situation was. In general, there was a lot of people who borrowed over their head and should have known better.

They can't reject every justice he puts up. If they put up another Alito that is obviously qualified, they're going to have a hard time justifying opposition to that person.

Maybe had Clinton heeded those warnings, his wife would have been prepared to beat Obama ;)

Yes, having Bush and the Iraqi government sign an agreement that's basically what Obama's been advocating is bad for the Democrats. :confused:

If your argument is nobody is paying attention, you're right, but substantively this should be a blow to the guy that endorses 100 or 1000 or 10000 years in Iraq.

Woops.

And the Iraq War, but who's counting?

Dude, has McCain got, like, a PS3 in his pants or something? This discussion is getting one-sided in a hurry.

Yup, I cringed and edited that - thanks for immortalizing it :)

No, my argument that is if it's Obama's 2012 plan v. whatever McCain's plan is, that's a HUGE plus for Obama, because the vast majority of Americans prefer to withdraw. Now that that's (apparently) settled, it's not a reason to vote for Obama.

But he didn't mention the Iraq War in his post. He was mentioning things that affected him that were caused by Bush and mentioned Afghanistan. That would have happened regardless of who was in charge. Bush didn't create that problem.

We could argue who did and didn't support Iraq all day long, but it wouldn't accomplish much. They're moving in the right direction now and that's about all you can hope for.

Ok, the towers got hit. We go beat down Afgahnistan, but we don't go to Iraq and we'd be done with Afgahnistan already. Do I believe these things would have happened with Gore? Although irrelevant, no I don't believe the times would be as bad with Gore in office but again that's a moot point. I guess the point I was trying to make before I began rambling, is that I think the new president will have as much of a profound effect on the direction of this country, as W The Decider did.

Sure, I agree with that. Much different than your original point.

I saw it too. Freudian I guess....:lol:

I don't even count Iraq because my views on that probably belong on a conspiracy site. :D

I got some other controversial topics to bounce off you guys but time to go eat lunch with the Mrs.

MBBF, keep in mind that the story the press *wants* is that disaffected Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama.

Conflict sells more newspapers than puppies, kittens and rainbows.

They will find that story, no matter how deep they have to dig, because the alternative just won't sell newspapers.

I don't disagree. Some are overblowing it, while others try to diminish its relevance. But there is without question some discontent. Measuring the exact size of the problem is the hard part. The post convention polls should help with that. We likely won't see the full effect until after the Republican convention. The post Dem convention poll will likely be useless as McCain is going to announce his VP selection the night of the Obama speech or the next day after.

There's discontent. But you know what? I don't think W's voting base was necessarily 100% in lockstep with him in either election. There were more than a few folks who held their nose and voted for him in 2004 despite "discontent" because they felt the alternative wasn't an acceptable one.

The problem for McCain is that even if he leeches off, what. The numbers ABC was showing last night had 70% voting for Obama, 20% not, and 10% undecided, if I recall. So let's say they split the undecideds, and 25% of Clinton voters go for McCain. Great.

Now, he still has to get HIS base as fired up about him as Obama has the rest of the Democratic Party. McCain's ability to steal a quarter of Clinton voters only matters if he seals the rest of the deal.

And, frankly, anything that would get the conservative wing of the GOP fired up enough to turn out for McCain in droves would probably be polarizing enough for the rest of those Clinton voters to hold their noses and vote for Obama after all, don't you think?

His VP selection will define how McCain plans to attack the rest of the election. We'll be able to answer the questions you pose much more accurately at that point.

I agree that some voted for Bush that weren't in lock-step, but that was also a different situation than the one we're discussing here. He was an incumbant and so there was no real conflict at the convention. There was no choice over Bush unlike the Obama/Clinton scenario.

To reiterate my earlier point, can you imagine the conservative uproar that would happen if Stevens retired, leaving a 4-4 Roe split on the court, and McCain appoints a pro-choice justice? Let's get real here. That wouldn't even be an option for him. He will keep appointing pro-life justices until enough Dems cross over to support one. Voting for McCain is voting for the end of Roe vs. Wade.

Personally, I don't mind that so much as I am a liberal who thinks Roe should be overturned. I'd be more worried about the erosion of civil liberties that would take place.

I have two separate questions on this point.

1. How much of Roe v. Wade was a political decision by the courts? I'm assuming that at one point the Supreme Court made decisions based on the law and not on politics, but how much did politics play a role in the original decisions?

2. What happens to the Government or the perception of Government if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Does the SC lose any credibility if they change a law of this magnitude based on politics?

This is where there's a real misunderstanding. The Supreme Court has never made decisions without the influence of politics. One, these are humans with political agendas and ties to the most powerful people in the country. Two, the law is often what lawyers and judges say it is. The cases that make it to the Supreme Court are those where the laws don't provide a clear enough answer to the problem.

And why is that a bad thing?:)

I believe the nomination of Obama did a great deal of that work for him already.

If I've ever been a good example of anything, it would be a GOP voter who was unenthusiastic about McCain (putting it mildly). And I wouldn't miss voting for him now for any reason short of being dead.

It was a 7-2 decision, but there were rumors that Burger joined the majority just so he could assign the opinion to Blackmun and this angered Brennan and Douglas who wanted a far more liberal opinion. However, I've read Blackmun's notes, which seems to refute that.

The Planned Parenthood vs. Casey case in the early 90's was definitely filled with politics. Rehnquist considered delaying it after the election, which seemed like a political move and only put it on the docket because some of the liberal justices furiously protested and threatened to write a dissent on that decision. Rehnquist thought he had a majority and circulated an opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade. It looked like this would be the case, until three GOP appointees got together and decided to allow some of PA's limitations on Roe, but to uphold the central finding.


I don't see how it could possibly be any worse than what happened after Bush vs. Gore.

Also, some people seem to think that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal nationwide. Not true. It would simply send the issue back to the states, and the laws would differ from state to state.

This makes me sad - and probably more than a little bit naive. With all of the discussion in the past few years about "activist judges", I had the impression that personal politics were set aside more in the past. Maybe this was never the case and I just had an idealized impression of the SC.

And the number of states than give people a right to abortion (or just retain existing statues) might create another argument about whether abortion is a fundamental legal right, federally speaking.

I wonder if anyone's ever done a study/prediction about how states would respond.

Of the two the bigger issue IMO is that the cases selected by the court rarely have obvious answers. Certainly politics enters into the equation and on some decisions it dominates, but justices can and do disagree over what the law actually means. My big complaint with folks like the Federalist Society is that they falsely argue that there is always a right and wrong decision based solely on the wording of the Constitution or federal statute. Cases like Roe v. Wade, the recent one on the 2nd amendment, and countless others can be argued with an honest disagreement over the meaning of the law.

Here's a blog that cites a report from The Center for Reproductive Rights that talks about that subject.

4 states have "bans-in-waiting" (as of 2007), basically they kick in if RvW is overturned. 5 others are/have considered the same sort of thing.

They estimate 21 states (including the nine above) would ban ASAP.
They estimate 20 states would not ban.
They considered 9 states as possibly going either way - Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

FWIW.

Activist justices are only apparently bad if they actively create law you don't like.

Surprising to be that so many would ban.

I should maybe start up an "abortion tourism" business that provides airfare, hotels, and limo to the clinic in an abortion-friendly state.

You won't find me arguing against minimizing the role of the religious right in politics.

I know you're kidding, but I'm sure there would be attempts to pass a federal law disallowing this.

I would imagine that's probably a worst case scenario (or best, depending upon your POV of course) since the report was from a group that definitely has a direct interest in the outcome.

Wouldn't surprise me if it were around half & half though, since it's such a contentious issue and we seem to be split close to the middle on so many things today.

Yes, but Jon, it's been established already that you're a lunatic, and thus not representative of the voter pool at large. ;)

Ah, call me the waahmbulance. Every industry has a cost of entry and this is the oil industry's. Such difficulties keep scores of lawyers, geologists and accountants in jobs, which is good for the economy. :D

Actually, I'd argue that holding off on drilling in many of these areas is actually good for the U.S.'s long-term economic/energy interests.

For one, as many have pointed out, drilling in these areas isn't going to put a dent in world supply. So it's not like opening up ANWR is going to result in $1.00/gallon gas.

For two, the idea that this is a near-term strategic risk is pretty laughable. The U.S. is the world's biggest market for petroleum. Producers can't simply cut the U.S. off without in turn destroying their income source. That's a dangerous line for them to walk as well, and we've seen absolutely no inclination from them since 1973, and I'd argue it's even less possible as we have a greater variety of producers these days. Sure, this will change as China & India become greater consumers but then:

For three, we should use this time period to work on alternative fuels and conservation, so that by the time we get replaced as a significant consumer of petroleum, we're much more insulated against the whims of the producers.

And finally, if we wait many decades before opening up these areas, we'll be doing so a) with better and safer technology and b) in an era of even higher petroleum prices, which will be more money going into our coffers at a later date when, arguably, we'll need it even more.

Supply and Demand has made the U.S. its bitch with regard to oil. We still have time to turn the tables in the long-term. Now there's a goal. :D



It was Bush, however, who decided to ignore the "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Mainland" NIE, though, not Clinton. Maybe that's just part-and-parcel of a pre-9/11 world, but you can't argue that Gore would have done just as much zilch that summer as Bush did. You just don't know. Heck, maybe a continuity in cabinet and sub-cabinet positions between the Clinton & Gore administrations may have pushed some action in the summer of 2001.


Bush responded to the bursting bubble and signs of slowdown by cutting taxes and hoping for the best. Now at the end of the Bush Administration we have near-unanimous agreement in finance & economics circles (including the WaPo and even the Cato Institute) that some earlier action and/or increased scrutiny by Treasury, SEC and/or the Fed would have been a good thing. Again, Bush did zilch.

To make this relevant to the thread, McCain's a candidate with an avowed lack of experience on the economy and has a chief economic advisor who thinks the recession is mostly psychological and that Americans are whiners. So there'd definitely be continuity between the Bush & McCain administrations on economics. So that would be awesome.


You're forgetting that the Afghan war, like Iraq, was won, and then lost. You seem to have forgotten the many, many analyses done by the DoD and others in the past few years which have concluded that the shift in priorities to the Iraq war left the door open for today's resurgent Taliban. The entire military establishment is pretty convinced that if we stayed in Afghanistan full strength and not gotten distrated by Iraq, it'd be much, much better off today.


I'm going to disagree with "as few attacks as it has". There's Britain & Spain, for two, plus the development of a whole new generation of terrorists & advancement in terror tactics facilitated by the two "proving grounds" in Afghanistan & Iraq.

I don't get the whole McCain/Obama assessment here either. The info coming out of the intelligence agencies is going to be largely the same Administration to Administration. Either candidate is going to staff their cabinet & sub-cabinet with competent people (especially in a post-9/11 world) in this area. So it comes down to thinking that Obama's going to underestimate threats coming out of the intelligence apparatus that McCain won't because of McCain's superior "experience". I highly doubt that.


:+1:

Out of all the "what would a McCain/Obama Administration look like?" speculation, this (and its converse with Obama) is one of the few certainties, especially since I'm sure Stevens & Ginsburg are the next to retire.

What? You mean those likely (R) voters who don't care for McCain aren't written off as lunatics ;)

No, no. Just that you're too much an outlier to be representative of the pool of (R) voters!

But not all oil goes into the world pool. If we were able to increase our oil production somewhat, wouldn't that provide some help against rising prices? Wouldn't this help from the speculation angle as well as the "let's not make it expensive enough to make extra drilling worthwhile" angle?


I've never understood this as an argument against more drilling or more production. Shouldn't we be doing both? We need more oil for today and more alternative fuels for tomorrow. I don't see how one should affect the other.

I be willing to trade off-shore drilling or ANWR in exchange for some meaningful alternative energy steps, but there's no way I'd give them away without doing something to get us closer to a petroleum free autos.

I love that now all of the sudden people have decided that a "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Mainland" memo should have provided immediate authority for the president to....do what? It's the same people who criticize the US intelligence around 9/11. Similar memos led to the Iraq invasion. Colin Powell even had photos!

I could have told you that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US Mainland in 1998. I could have read Reader's Digest and their 1998 cover story on Bin Ladin, "This Man Wants You Dead". You don't think Clinton received memos about Bin Laden? You don't think Bush receives memos even today? What if he invades Pakistan tomorrow based one of these holy memos - would you be for that?

I can see it now, this alternative reality of early 2001:

Bush: "As a result of a very strongly-worded and disturbing memo, the United States has launched an all-out assault on Afghanistan, the FTA has signficantly enhanced airline security to a critical level, and I ask all citizens to remain aware and vigilant at all times".
Crunchy Liberals: "OMG - Bush is worse than Hitler! He wants to take over the world! He rigged the election and now this! Fear-Mongering! King Bush's evil reign has begun!!"

You're in a fantasy world and that's what scares me about Obama. After he's president, how long do I have wait for Candyland and the streets to be paved with gold? How long before he gets us off oil? How long before all troops are out of Iraq? And there definitely won't be any more terrorist attacks, right? Or does none of that matter, as long as he has "vision"?

I'm surprised by the lack of terror attacks in the World in the last 8 years, but that's just a personal assessment. I remember people being afraid to go to work in Boston when the Iraq war started - "now it's going to be just like Israel here" they told me. ZERO attacks in the US. Can Obama improve on those numbers?

I think both Bush and Clinton should have done more but it drives me crazy when liberals come around after the fact and argue that Bush should have been more hawkish in the first few months of his presidency when I know they would have opposed any kind of military action at the time.

I also don't believe for a second you would have been in favor of "staying in Afgahnistan full strength". With no Iraq, the Republicans would argue for a lengthy stay in Afgahnistan, and Democrats would be for a withdrawal. It all comes down to politics. If Bush wanted to stay in Afgahnistan, Republicans would follow him, and Democrats, as reverse-lemmings, would be opposed to it. In any event, a continued occupation of Afgahnistan wouldn't have solved the world's terror problems. We HAVE made huge progress in that area, by all accounts, Al-Qaeda has been severely compromised and disabled. Why is Obama more qualified than McCain to continue that? I'm certainly willing to listen.

Well, something would have been nice, at least. Accounts of the NIE indicate it was pretty actionable. Something more than "nah, I don't want to read that thing, let's go clear brush instead" would have been nice.

Of course, then the next 7 years sees Bush flip over to a stance that if anyone so much as mentions terror or nukes, we start talking invasions. That, frankly, is not that kind of sophisticated foreign policy I want to see more of in the next 4 years. Given McCain's reaction to Georgia, it's pretty clear that's exactly what we'll get if he's elected.


Oh that's not the point and you know it. Don't be obtuse. The President was given information that was above and beyond the usual "terrorists want to kill Americans" schtick and he decided to be 100% laissez-faire about it. His reaction on the day the attack actually happens shows exactly how surprised and psychologically unprepared he was for the actual incident.

Now a guy, McCain, who's been in lock-step with Bush ever since he lost an election to him in 2000 is supposedly going to offer us more from a security and/or foreign policy standpoint? Sure, I'd be comforted, but he's the same guy who ate birthday cake with Bush in Arizona while Katrina was raging in New Orleans. Presented with a new challenge, they still didn't know what to do.

Look, we all know how to react to a terrorist attack now. That's not the point. I think it's crazy to argue that the next President, regardless of who he is, is going to somehow ignore threats or not know how to react to them. That, my friend, is the reality of the post-9/11 world, for better or for worse. No President's going to want another 9/11 on their watch, and you can bet they're going to do everything they can to avoid it. To claim otherwise is really bizarre.


There's nothing more hawkish than invading a sovereign country, and yet that's exactly what we all, including liberals, supported when we invaded Afghanistan. So I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you conflating Afghanistan & Iraq?

Edit: Sorry, ignore that previous paragraph, I missed the time period of which you were speaking. Here's the real response: I'm not saying Bush should have been more "hawkish" prior to 9/11, I'm saying he should have been more circumspect. Reading this information, determining what's actionable and what's not, and being prepared is part of the job and Bush couldn't be bothered to do jack. Now, note that I'm not saying that 9/11 wouldn't have happened anyway. I'm just saying that it would have been nice if Bush had given the possibility any reasonable thought at all.


How quickly we forget about the details of the war in Afghanistan. Had we stayed in strength in Afghanistan, and had we helped more than we did (because of resources being diverted to Iraq) we'd have prolonged the peaceful period of post-invasion Afghanistan, which would have helped it rebuild, which would have helped us eventually leave, which would have helped bring stability to the region. Clear, Hold and Build, my friend. If we're making progress and keeping casualties low, there's no problem from my liberal viewpoint.

But maybe a liberal talking about actionable information, measurable goals and accountable progress just blows your mind. :D

Well, we were certainly "on alert" if you read the 9/11 commission report. Somebody called the FBI to tell them that a sneaky Arab guy was trying to learn how to fly. He was immediately detained on INS charges, and out of the conspiracy. The ACLU probably would have flipped out if they knew about it.

"Something" was done. Not nearly enough.


Things are different after 9/11. Which way would you prefer? Everybody has a different tolerance of action/impact on civil liberties v. mitigation of perceived but unknown threats. Liberals tend to lean towards protection of civil liberties/inaction side of that ratio. That's not necessarily right or wrong. But can you at least see how its annoying when that side, after the fact, complains that a government, (who they think is on the complete wrong side of that ratio) was too inactive?

If we had access to that memo in 2001 at FOFC, the liberals and conservatives here might argue what to do about it. The conservatives would be arguing for a harsher, more active response, even at the expense of some civil liberties (at airports, profiling of arabs, etc). The liberals would argue for a more restrained reponse. The actual response was probably less than what ANYONE would have argued for. So how is this an argument point for the liberals? Shouldn't this be an "I told you so" for the conservatives?


Sometimes it seems like you're more concerned with the superficial reactions - you're very into Bush's response at the school, and McCain eating birthday cake. I don't give a shit about any of that. I'm sure Obama's reactions will be right on, and that's not exactly comforting.

My point on Afghanistan is just that it rings shallow when liberals say that if we didn't go to Iraq, we could have fixed Afghanistan and everything would be fine. Afghanistan was clean because al-qaeda essentially sacrificed the Taliban. Al-qaeda is (was?) a worldwide network. I think (just my opinion), that they figured the US would destroy Afghanistan and then declare mission accomplished, leaving them alone to prepare for the next attack. I'm not saying Iraq was right, but the military solution was never going to be Afghanistan alone. Under the divisive Bush administration, Democrats would have opposed any additional military action anywhere. Are they over that? Does Obama have the courage to use the military if necessary? Does he have the courage to do whatever dirty work helps us in Pakistan, helps Al-Qaeda stay on the run?

What would Obama have done after 9/11? Will anyone ever ask him that at a debate? Would we still have gotten KSM in Pakistan?

By the way, this is that entire memo that apparently could have saved all the 9/11 victims. I'm not sure there's much here that wasn't in that 1998 Reader's Digest article.

CNN.com - Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US - Apr 10, 2004

"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related."

The US was freaked out about this guy - both Bush and Clinton. The 9/11 report gives a sense of the panic in the administration in 2001. The only stuff that would have stopped it is the kind of stuff every liberal who likes to cite that Ben Franklin quote would be against. I'd love to ask Clinton (after he's had a few) if he has any regrets. Though I believe his hands were pretty much tied politically, and I don't blame him (neither Dole, Bush I, or Bush II would have done better)

So what are you saying? The fact is we've spent over 600 billion dollars in 5 years for what end-product in Iraq? I mean what have we gained?

Is America safer now? No.
Did we win the "war on terrorism?" No.

Hell, we don't even know where Osama is. What the hell does courage have to do with starting a war in Iraq, when we didn't even pursue our attacker to completion? That's not courage. That's a lack of determination and stupidity.

America appears to be safer now than it was 8 years ago. I don't think that has anything to do with Iraq, but who knows? The Iraq war was handled so horribly that it wasn't worth it, but there sure were a lot of terrorists who came there to die. I don't have a great understanding of why there's been peace here since 9/11. I think McCain does. No idea if Obama does.

All I was saying is that Afghanistan isn't the answer to world security, just because Osama happened to reside there around 9/11. The terrorists weren't Taliban.

We won't know for at least 5 years what we gained, if anything in Iraq. From the larger picture, if Iraq winds up being a stable democracy, we made some long term gains in regional stability. If Iraq can export democracy to other countries in the region, even better.


We do not know the answer to the first question. The one thing we can say is that we have not been attacked in 6 years and 11 months and counting. That is the problem with answering that question. Heck, as unsafe as many thought we were in the 60s, you had people after the Cold War saying we were safer then because the world was essentially divided into two camps. Personally, I think it is a fallacy, people are just more comfortable with fewer factions/sides in an issue.

To answer your second question, we have won the battles against terror, but we have not, nor will we ever "win" the "War on Terrorism." It is an impossible war to win. As long as there is one person that is willing to kill others, the war will not be over.

Like him or not, there are a few things I think are in order on Bush. We will not know how successful the Bush presidency is for at least 5 years. Another thing to consider, Congress' approval rating is lower than Bush's. Why is that? Why, if their approval rating is so low, why are the Democrats (who control Congress) supposed to sweep to victories in November?

Because the Republicans hate the Dems and the Dems are pissed that Congress isn't standing up to Bush.

The Dems are supposed to pick up seats in both chambers largely due to a wave of Republican retirements, but also due to corruption, more cash and generally a better stable of candidates with broader appeal.

So... McCain's big advantage over Obama is his experience and the manner in which he will use it to keep us safe?

Yet... No matter who would have been president on 9/11, we would have suffered the same attack (but, we can still give credit to Bush for keeping us safe since?)?

Is any of that inconsistent?

None of the mainstream, realistic presidential types could have saved us on 9/11, but we have been saved a number of times since then (and before) by the current administration. Your mileage may vary, but that means SOMETHING to me.

That's not true. He's been in office for 8 years. It's not going to take 5 MORE years to see the damage that he's caused in the last 8. If he served one term, I could, grudgingly, see that as a possibility but not in a two-term presidency.

It was fun reading the discussions here (until flere chimed in on the last page :) )

I agree with MMBF points about alternate history, as in what would have been different. I have argued that not much would have been different, except that I have come to believe that going into Iraq was a singular event (despite the pressures from all sides to do something about Iraq). Those claiming that 9/11 wouldn't have happened is pure fantasy. The so-called smoking gun memo is being viewed in pure hindsight, a needle in a haystack. (That's similar to the code breaking from the WW2 Enigma - among the hundreds of messages, some of them were actually right on).

Anyway, I would still argue that the next 4 years will be pretty much the same regardless of who becomes president. We know that the troops will be shifted out of Iraq, as I have said before - all you had to do was wait and things will change on their own. The same will be true for energy, economy, etc. Maybe people will feel better if Obama (or McCain) becomes president, for whatever that's worth (I won't like some/many/any of the bills that a Dem congress will give him to sign). Meanwhile, there are things YOU can do locally that can make a difference, regardless of who's in power.

You are seriously grasping for straws to validate Bush's presidency.

ace, part of the reactions against you is a matter of historical perspective. You even said that you have only known one president during your adult life. What if others had known many more or if others read history and take a broader view of things?

Caveat: I am not grasping or spinning to validate Bush's presidency, just a general question regardless what year we are talking about.

I'm not trying to validate anything.

No terror attacks = good.

I want more good.

If someone isn't capable of acknowledging ANY success of this administration in fighting terror, I don't think they can see beyond the Bush hatred.

You've quoted me, yet you've not addressed my point. I'm not talking about the "somethings" that were done anyway by the various intelligence agencies. I'm talking about the Bush Administration, in reaction to that NIE, doing nothing. Not even a token something, not even a "let's get a follow-up report" something, not even a "let's get an in-depth briefing" something, not even a "what can we do given our hands being tied politically something". No, he went and cleared brush.


This could be the start of an interesting discussion, definitely, but again I don't see how it's related to what you quoted from me. Bush went from a policy of complete inaction to a policy of absolute pre-emption, with no stop in between. It's a lazy man's approach to security and foreign policy issues and looks like it'll be the same approach for McCain. I don't want an absolutist approach to security and foreign policy that's rooted in the Cold War and the fight on communism, I want a more sophisticated, flexible approach as we tackle this increasingly sophisticated threat.


I think we can take something from both reactions. The former indicates that Bush was completely unprepared for such an event and didn't know how to react. The latter indicates that Bush & McCain just didn't give a shit. I mean, it's not even as if the birthday cake photo op was opening a school or giving a medal to a handicapped kid or something. You'd think people would have the decency to put a hold on that kind of self-interested stuff during such a national tragedy.


And basically that's what happened, with the additional benefit of our early exit allowing their old buddies the Taliban to make inroads back into Afghanistan, and the lack of attention to the border areas providing a place for many Al Qaeda to hide. It was a squandered opportunity, and I don't see how you can see it any other way.


You must have missed the debate where he said he would, as President, go into Pakistan's border regions if necessary.


Hey man, it's the only think I got to distract me from the horror of dirty diapers.


In a war, if your allies are attacked, you too are attacked. As molson stated above, Al Qaeda is still a worldwide network, still able to execute missions on a global basis, and have repeatedly attacked our allies.

I'm not going to argue (here) whether we are more or less safe now. I just think statements like "we have not been attacked in 6 years and 11 months" is a particularly narrow way of looking at the War on Terror.

First of all, I'm impressed that you're able to not only quote one person multiple times in a thread, but multiple posters multiple times in a thread. I just don't have the patience for that.

The "they did nothing" angle is a huge exaggeration. As I quoted one part of that memo above, "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related." The 9/11 report details how the efforts increased as 2001 went on.

Where they stopped short was any kind of actual military intervention somewhere, which I guess is what you're saying he should have done. Pre-emptive strike of Afghanistan? Not sure even THAT would have done anything, the terrorists were already here. And it wouldn't have gone over well here with the people.

The only thing that might of helped is suspension of civil liberties for any middle-eastern nationals (aggressive no-fly lists, mass INS raids and deportations). Surely you're not suggesting that's what should have happened?

If you're just saying "something", they did "something".

Tactically, the Bush Admin has clearly done a bunch of things right and made good changes, with the truly bad/pointless ones being weeded out by Congress and the Supreme Court. Intra-agency and cooperation with the intelligence agencies of our allies has definitely brought a bunch of good wins (and those are just the public ones).

Strategically, though, and this is really my point over the past page, I don't think he's put us in a good position. We're increasingly isolated and placed in an antagonistic stance with a lot of people who should either be our allies or sympathetic neutrals. There's a lot the next President needs to undo in order to make this better and secure more wins in the WoT. Electing McCain pretty much tells these people that it's going to be business as usual from a strategic standpoint.

It's more of a self-defence mechanism. I quote everyone to whom I want to reply, and then I have a general idea of what I'm trying to compose over the course of several dirty diapers, child soothing, etc.... :D


I'm not talking about efforts by the various agencies that I would consider a normal reaction to increased threat level chatter. I'm talking about a top-down reaction and response to this increased chatter. I agree with you on the first point.


That's not what I'm suggesting. Who knows if any intervention in Afghanistan would have been any good, prior to 9/11, even if politically he could have done it. No, I'm suggesting actions more like the laundry list I already made above. Basically taking some personal interest in the issue, getting some things moving from a high leve, maybe even trying to implement some security measures domestically. Maybe something with airline/airport security that could have been done with the FBI or another relevant agency relatively quietly. Yes, probably none of it would have helped, but it's the thought that counts.

Maybe because it would make Obama appear foolish for suggesting a politically-motivated 16-month withdrawal or McCain appear foolish for suggesting a more permanent stay. Things alway have a way of changing, history constantly proves that.

It's not so bad, esp. when it's old enough for the garden hose (or at least the faucet) phase.

Big Bill up next.....this ought to be good.

Can't really blame any U.S. politician if there are other nations that have their heads up their asses.

wow. Big bill is lining them up and hitting HR's with everything. Given it's a partisan crowd, but he is strong!

Makes you realize how much you've missed this man, missed have a president who could actually speak and captivate an audience and work them (instead of a chimp).

Allies like the Soviets in the 30s and 40s, or Iraq in the 80s? ;) Nations' leaderships come and go (including our's), so does the ebb and flow of diplomacy and the nature of enemy-of-your-enemy.

Yes, everyone else is wrong.

Honestly though, I expect the US to look out for its own best interests, obviously. I think the problem however, and the thing that worries a great deal of people outside of yourself, is that these other nations with "their heads up their asses" are also your allies. You have to balance your own direct interests with the interests of your allies, because no country can risk "going it alone" - not even the US.

I don't think it would ever get to that point, but it is at least possible that a combined Europe would weaken its ties with the US in the face of an aggressive China or Russia, should it ever get to that point (or, perhaps, when it gets to that point, to be more accurate). At a time like that, your current administration's (and, most likely, your future administration as well, unfortunately) actions could really turn around and bite your nation in the ass.

Actually speak and captivate an audience and work them, all the while not believing a word he has ever said. :)

you're such a cynic

And you were only a teenager throughout his presidency. :)

aaaah - but see I wasn't your average teenager. I've always been a politically astute, politically involved, intelligent person. Even as a teenager - probably to a greater degree than anyone else that I've met in my life really.

With or against, any country is free to make their own choice as long as they understand choices have potential consequences I'm very cool with that.

But when interests diverge, the value placed on the word ally is frequently inappropriate. It's overused, overhyped, and overvalued since ultimately it often means nothing more than "we happen to have a common interest at the moment and we'll work together until that temporary situation passes".

1,000-1 that Obama doesn't deliver his speech in Spanish. If he did, he would truly be a minority Presidential candidate. What a poseur.

Follwed by...


heh...teenagers. :)

huh? what's your point?

He's saying that a "politically astute, politically involved, intelligent person." would appreciate the chimp that's been in office for 8 years over the man before him. Of course, I consider that so much hoowah myself..

:lol:

You said you stood out as intellectually superior vs. your peers. Based on the last few comments you made, I found it slightly amusing. That's all.

Did Joe Biden really call Milosevic a war criminal to his face? That's pretty cool.

I have no doubt that i'm intellectually superior to the vast majority of my peers. Whether my political affiliation is the same as yours or not does not reflect at all on my intelligence (or yours for that matter).

I think it's fairly commonly accepted on both sides of the aisle that Bill Clinton is a VASTLY superior public speaker to George Bush. That's not a partisan viewpoint, it's fact.

Yeah, I'm curious about that claim.

If so, that's awesome :D

SI

Someone needs to ask Barack to tone down the wrestler with a mic impression a bit.

Hmmm, after McCain's "the One" commercial...which I found highly humorous, what braniac in the Obama entourage decided to stage his acceptance speech with a Greek temple set as a backdrop?

Maybe the same guy that designed this:

heh...your tax dollars at work... :popcorn:

Hilarious if this is true and holds up.
Also a complete blow to McCain.


Barr Only Presidential Candidate on Texas Ballot — Bob Barr 2008

dola ... maybe its not a Greek temple...maybe its a facsimile of the White House...to go with the faux presidential seal he used on his overseas trip.

All of this from a press release from the Barr camp? Not one mention in the MSM? No way this happens.