Umm, sure. Just dance right in, snatch him, dance right out, no problem at all, easy as pie. Right.

No one said it is easy. I'm sure it would be difficult, dangerous, and costly. But it is worth it to live up to the ideals of our country.

Living up to the ideals of this country to what end? With so much unrighteousness, what level of morality are trying to achieve? Rhetorically speaking.

Is it "legal" for the U.S. to even wander around Yemen without permission and arrest people? (edit: isn't that what extradition treaties are for, and isn't that why we just can't go and grab Roman Polanski?)

Or is this a threshold thing - it's OK to play fast and loose with international law/conduct unauthorized missions if we're talking arrest rather than death? If that's the case, isn't the question a moral one rather than a legal one (if both outcomes are illegal)?

Edit: At least Obama gave him notice last year that we were coming to kill him. I guess, in theory, he could have appealed that "death warrant" in a U.S. court if he was so inclined (not sure if he tried to do that or not). Of course, I'm not sure if death in this manner was a desirable outcome for him or not (it's hard to tell the difference between the real-believer terrorists and the everyone-else-should-die-a-martyr-except-for-me-terrorists)

Dola, I guess there was a lawsuit, which was thrown out.....

"Anwar al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, with the help of the ACLU, sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta a year ago, when it became clear that the U.S. was targeting the younger al-Awlaki. But U.S. District Judge John Bates threw the case out, ruling that federal courts were in no position to evaluate whether someone was a terrorist whose activities threatened national security and against whom the use of deadly force could be justified.

"This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion -- that there are circumstances in which the executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable," Bates said, quoting an earlier decision on a similar issue."

The family had 60 days to appeal that decision to the D.C. Circuit, but they decided not to.

I googled on fathers name to see if there were any comments since the killing ... didn't find any.

I saw this today from WaPo. If everyone wants to be above average...

Anyone with thoughts on a possible trade war with China?

SI

All those multi-millionaire Dems who think they aren't paying enough in taxes now have an easy way to fix the issue:

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/

Lifetime savings sent!

My vote is to crash their economy somehow (give them a Japanese lost decade/generation) before they overtake us. Send them into a depression, create political unrest, foment a revolution where they start to recover in 20+ years.

Still hoping for their real estate market to pop.

Obviously this would hurt us also but think we are better apt to cope with it than them and it will give us another x years of being the only military and economic superpower.

With that said, no I don't think we'll win a clean fight/trade war.

So tired of these specialized taxes that politicians keep proposing.

Sources Say Sen. Reid Wants Millionaire Surtax To Pay For Jobs Bill | Fox News

Either raise the taxes overall, start removing existing deductions/credits, or don't do anything at all. These extra tack-on taxes only make the tax code a bigger mess. Use this opportunity to simplify it rather than make it worse.

FWIW......I'm opposed to the jobs bill anyway, but if you do believe in it, this is the wrong way to go about it.

Any chance Obama repeats as Nobel Peace Prize winner? Maybe he needs another call to action?

So where you at conservatives? States rights or nannying adults?

Where are you at liberals? Personal freedom or pandering for votes?

Hard to see the sense in this... my only hope is that usually the mass media has alternative motives so maybe this story is the beginning of the deserved backlash on the pointless drug war.

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

I think its fine to have some things be universally enforced by the fed.

This doesn't happen to be one of them, in my opinion, unless you can somehow tie this into national security. So this is a case where states rights should be respected so long as it doesn't impede the federal government's ability to protect people from foreign threats. If pot were legal, I would think it would actually slow down the threat and spillover of illegal trafficking, so not sure that case has a ton of merit.

It may (or may not) make California a less desirable place to live for the majority of people...but that is what elections are for.

A Cain vs Obama would be fascinating but don't think Obama has to worry about this scenario. I don't really see Cain winning the GOP nomination regardless of where he is right now in the polls ... and yes, the GOP as a whole just isn't ready for it yet.

Herman Cain’s surprising rise to GOP front-runner - The Washington Post

Good to see that he is more combative, the GOP will obviously resist. The rhetoric will start heating up thru election day. Wish he had done this earlier on the budget/downgrade.

Obama: Jobs bill could prevent second downturn - politics - White House - msnbc.com

Cain, really? Well, he's up to 8% on Intrade...

SI

I'm guessing this is just like the stimulus projection graph. Sounds like we know all this in advance so there's no reason to oppose it.

Is he certain that this will "improve our economic situation"? Or will this be like a lot of other legislation of high costs and low benefits?

Is there an echo in here? in here?

Thats what is great about spending money you can print. If you don't fully grasp the severity of the economic situation (which is what he claims was the case when he took office in 2009)...then at least no harm can be done by printing more, right?

Right? None...no fundamental problems from it. It will evenly disburse and not create further wealth disparity at all.

My favorite part of the jobs bill is the part that discourages employers from hiring (unemployed people would be able to sue for discrimination if they felt their unemployed status had kept them from getting a job.)

You can't seriously think that will affect hiring, right? That's like the rationale behind "Here's a $5000 tax credit to hire someone who you pay $50,000"- all that means is that you pushed those companies willing to hire at $45K but not $50K into hiring, which is a really small number.

If there's demand, you hire. If you get a good enough incentive, you'll hire. If there's no demand, you don't hire. If there are products to be made and services to be sold, you'll do it.
"Well, we have an order for $3M in product and need 10 people to build it!" "Nah, we won't do it because the guys we won't hire might sue"

That said, the more interesting question is when did employment status become a protected class for the purposes of hiring. Not really saying it's right or wrong, but wondering aloud whether it should be.

SI

But...I thought it was all about the confidence fairy!

I don't think it will effect hiring from an economic perspective in the way you describe no (and I don't think tax credits do either), but I'm concerned about adding additional liability exposure to the hiring process now. It's pretty easy and correct to isolate out factors like race, religion, and gender in the hiring process - but experience and employment status? And it seems ass backwards to include that in the "if you oppose this bill you must just hate jobs" bill. Maybe we should focus on the jobs and not pander to the unemployed for votes.

But I don't think it's as simple as that. If you're going to make it an issue, this is the bill to do it with (not that it will ever see the light of day).

I think it's a real and legitimate problem but I think one of those that falls into the category of "Yes, it's morally wrong. But should it be illegal?". There have been quite a few news stories over the past couple of years about people who are unemployed not applying. I know myself that I'm currently employed due in large part to luck: I had a lot of being in the right place at the right time with where I am now. I know I was prepared enough and good enough to get the job when it was offered but, at the same time, there were some better people who didn't have that opportunity. Should they be discriminated against when looking for their next job?

SI

Its better for Romney to have this now than later. I think it'll be interesting to hear the Southern Baptists vs Mormon debate the theology, philosophy etc.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Perry camp suggested it to the Pastor.

First Read - Pastor backing Perry: Romney not a Christian

I get wanting to tell the story and wanting to provide context but why lie. The employed or not could be simple mistake, timing issue but "met" is just not right.

President Obama's Teachers Tale Embellished? - Fox News

Mormons are christians by default since they believe in jesus. A cult? I don't find that description too far off the mark. Christian cult would be more accurate in my opinion.

That's actually really funny (the mixup part). :)

All presidents embellish quite a bit. My guess is he meets 100 people on a given day and his aides likely "just figured" he must have met him when they read his story. Obama likely deferred to them as to whether he met him before.

Yay. Presidential fact checker fail. They're pretty bad about that in this administration

It's the Information age. It takes an extra minute to fact check. Do the damn job because if you don't, someone else will check for you and the upside is not worth the downside.

I'm sure Obama has met some teacher who was pink slipped- you can't throw a rock without hitting one but you gotta get the name and situation right.

SI

Started doing some research to figure this out.

Mormonism and Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comparison Chart of Mormonism vs. Mainstream Christianity - ReligionFacts

I don't know this for sure but suspect the large number of medical marijuana operations indicates an abuse of what truly should be prescribed for medical reasons only. DOJ seems to be going to the extreme in the other direction ... why can't medical pot just be dispensed in a hospital pharmacy?

Pot advocates livid over feds’ Calif. crackdown - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

Seems like odd timing and I just don't get why

SI

That's the big question I have about MMJ. I work downtown and live 7 miles away. On the way home, there are 12 MMJ shops just on my route. There is no way that there are that many patients to support 50-60 (?) shops just in my city. Seems like the two big hospitals could handle the relatively few patients that are prescribed.

"What we are finding, however, is that California's laws have been hijacked by people who are in this to get rich and don't care at all about sick people."

Ya, it's not really about the marijuana, it's about people making money. Can't have that!!

That is true, I'm wondering if the finance media is trying to push things into another recession to put another squeeze on people. Wild volatility like we have had recently is very profitable, but a longterm drop beyond say 1100 is a serious factor in the way I approach long portfolios (I don't believe in buy and hold across market declines, better to cash out and load up after the noise, that way you only lose opportunity dollars you might have made and not real frickin money).

I don't want a double-dip recession, we don't need it, the only thing that is truly ugly numbers wise these days is the massive financial industry debt, derivatives are still measured in the trillions and most of this has little to do with individual debt (massive foreclosures, bankruptcies, and debt paydown have done a lot to that area). There are not enough job cuts to cover the amount of gambling rich people can rack up.

You're giving the media way too much credit for even being able to think of such a plan, much less execute it.

It doesn't take the media as a monolith to do it. You just have a couple of key players and all others are just sheep and, what's one of JimGA's more favored phrases: "useful idiots".

SI

More news on the justification. Don't sweat it Obama, this one the public stands by you.

NYT: Secret US memo OK'd killing of American cleric - World news - The New York Times - msnbc.com

Friedman's article wasn't Obama specific but had the below which made me think some.

Where Have You Gone, Joe DiMaggio? - NYTimes.com

Hmm...same conclusions I had arrived myself. Maybe I should have a second thought on that. :D

Interesting interview with Gingrich and Cain this morning. Some highlights:

Both Cain and Gingrich commented on Romney's faith, saying nobody's faith should be questioned. Unfortunately that wasn't followed up with a question on how both of them have questioned whether Muslims can faithfully serve in the government.

Both also used a very interesting phrase along the lines of, "Mormons consider themselves Christian." Neither was willing to say Mormons are Christians. Sounded like very carefully chosen language designed to anger neither Mormons or fundies.

Cain said his 9-9-9 plan would reduce taxes for everyone and be revenue neutral.

Both claimed Occupy Wall Street was organized and controlled by the White House.

dola

Does anyone regret their decision more than Huckabee? Certainly seems like he'd have a good shot at being the not-Romney frontrunner.

Still not too late to get in. It would only be a week after when Clinton announced he was running. I've thought about Huckabee a lot as the guy who really should be running for the Republicans.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he is sitting around on the sidelines for. Unless he really just doesn't care to go through the campaigning again or something.

I don't see how he could lose in the primaries & if he is committed (which presumably he would be) could be a real threat to pull in independents in the general.

Apparently doing a show and playing some music is good enough for him now.

Given that the start of the GOP primaries is in early Jan, maybe mid-December, it's just too hard to enter now. He doesn't have any of his money folk and no infrastructure. The early primaries take a lot of hard work on the ground and he just can't get that done in the time needed.

Perhaps if you're a new candidate but people know who he is from last time and have seen him on TV a lot. He's been on not just his show but many others. He could get in right now if he wanted to. He won't -- but he should. The Republicans are going to do everything they can to not run Romney and therefore give Obama four more years.

But he shouldnt do this... Just like Bachmann's lady with the HPV story.

His ground people have already picked new teams. They aren't sitting and waiting for him. He'd get some of them back, but he can't fill all the holes in two months.

Shit there are like seven within a few blocks of each other on Colfax further up past East HS. I recall being on the bus once last year after taking light rail and heard two people in their 20s talking about "which doctors to go to" that would prescribe it to them. "Just tell 'em you have pain."

There might not seem to be that much demand and at least one of those former weed shops is already a car dealership, but...there's no doubt that it's the newest boutique business in Colorado and they're working hard to get some regulation and licensing to keep upstarts from getting in.

There's got to be way more demand and the "patient" numbers have to be increasing significantly to warrant how many shops there are in the city, the suburbs and even along I-25 that sell it or sell the supplies to grow it.

Should be interesting. I'm kinda glad the Tea Party forced this ultimatum.

Deficit 'Supercommittee' Struggles as Clock Ticks - ABC News

I think we are agreed the medical marijuana policy is being abused. I'm good with the DOJ clamping down ...

Without changing the tax codes, there is very little chance that they will get "lots of new tax revenue". Simply raising the rates will not get anywher near the revenues that will make a difference. But neither sides want to simplify the tax codes; one is being delusional and ignoring how tax changes behaviors, while the other is protecting the status quo.

Dr. Seuss must be pissed.

Ah, sorry about the typo.

I don't know much about it but seems to be out of the norm for Obama. Why poke our nose into something that isn't related to our war against AQ and Uganda doesn't seem very strategic to us?

Obama sends U.S. military advisers to Africa - World news - Africa - msnbc.com

I sure hope this doesn't come back as crying wolf (e.g. weapons of mass destruction), we can't afford another one. The meeting with Iranian officials is interesting, you wouldn't think Iran would want to meet with us ... wonder what's going on.

"Unusual" meeting between US, Iran over plot - CBS News

Well, crap ... hope its not an indication of things to come.

Obama administration scraps program in health reform law - latimes.com

Was wondering where Jesse Jackson was since hearing about Al doing the occupy Wall St thing. Didn't know he had a son in Congress. His numbers don't add up imo but there is something appealing about its simplicity to me.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Calls On Government To Hire All Unemployed Americans For $40,000 Each | Fox News

And the answer ...

Why send US special forces troops to Uganda? - World news - Africa - msnbc.com

1. Would there be a public report to the hiring entity (i.e. the taxpayers) detailing what was accomplished by those workers?

2. What percentage of that bailout money for states would go to California? Got to be a pretty large number.

It's still going to be a mess in the end. The states will feel like they can start spending again. It also disincentives the states who have remained responsible during this period. They receive nothing for their good financial management.

There was no way it could work. I told you that last year.

We're suddenly surprised that a program that gives away insurance to millions isn't going to be implemented due to solvency issues?

That's rich.

I'm impressed they pulled the plug on it rather than do the sports gm "refuse to admit mistakes" thing and keep a guy around when its clear he wasn't going to work out.

I'm good with this. Sure there will be violence and instability after we leave and it would be nice to leave some troops (when will it ever be a good time to leave 100%?) but if they can't do this by themselves by now ...

U.S. Lawmakers Warn Of New Violence In Iraq If White House Abandons Deal | Fox News

Oops, spoke too soon.


Obama opposes repeal of healthcare program suspended last week - The Hill's Healthwatch

That's the problem when you worry about the cart more than the horse to pull it.

Of course we can't fund it yet with our current taxes/expenditures. That is why the first thing a forward thinking person looks at in 2009 is how to get us started on recovering our value as a nation. And our value begins with figuring out what we export vs what we import. And evaluating that doesn't need to conclude in (traditional) protectionism.

It begins by seeing that energy sourcing is a massive black hole we send money down every year and will be the problem we face with moving to a next generation world. And the outpouring of dollars to it can be slowed & eventually stopped so that we keep those dollars in the US economy. This leads to an increased demand for educated researchers, engineers to implement, construction workers to enable the infrastructure, and raises real buying power of individuals (to the extent it lowers energy and/or increases the avg wage more than the energy price rises). This doesn't even assume any ability to outsource our developments to other countries nor does it even need to frame the (potentially bigger) issue of national security interest in being 100% self-reliant regarding energy.

Does anyone have any good info on why the House GOP is going to kill the bill that would get tougher on Chinese currency manipulation? I've read a lot of reports of what, but I don't know why. I don't understand why the GOP is against sanctions on China.

Well it's a bit of a wedge issue, for one thing. Quite a few Republicans voted for the bill in the Senate, and quite a few rank and file Republicans would do the same in the House. I think some of the GOP leadership believes it would be dangerous to threaten some kind of trade war (so do I actually, as a Democrat.) I think the House GOP leadership doesn't want to bring the bill to a vote because they are afraid it will pass. Why they don't want it to pass could be "dangerous" and "potential trade war" as they have been saying, but probably also most likely companies that back them are lobbying hard against it to avoid increasing their costs.

To be honest it's one of those issues which doesn't cut across the normal political lines - especially since the President doesn't really support the bill either.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure where I fall on this one myself. But my inclination is to be very careful & mindful of doing anything to make our relations with China less "cooperative" moving forward.

I mean, I am of the opinion that we could ultimately "win" (however you want to try & define that) a trade war of sorts as I think it would spark pullback of outsourcing to China as we get their currency to a more legitimate state. Plus the vast majority of world's wealth will align itself to be favorable to the US if things got really ugly. But I'm not sure the world economy could withstand the chaos of the transition (assuming China plays hardball in such disputes).

IDK...a very complex issue with a lot of moving parts to it. I think we need to be very careful how we presume to tell countries like China what they should be doing with their currency when we are fortunate enough to still be the reserve currency.

A Tale of Two Presidents

...and democrats would still call him the great Satan

Oh it's not baseless assertions day?

So wait I thought the Obama administration said we weren't directly involved in the Libya mess? Is there a third war or not?

Yes, because Democrats have a history of not praising GOP President foreign policy victories. So when Bush 1 had a 91% approval rating after Desert Storm, I guess there must've only been 9% Dems in this country.

Or fourth -- as per Uganda.

I've been pleasantly surprised by Obama's foreign policy. This was one of his big question marks. And he's given the republican candidates zero ammo in this area.

Yay!

Obama announces full American troop withdrawal from Iraq | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

+1, glad he is sticking to the timelines on this, would have liked it sooner, but at least the end is in sight.

You are right Molson, foreign policy is one area he has been consistently good in. Hopefully getting troops home, besides saving shitloads of money, will have a postive effect on the markets. Could go either way if there is panic about a relapse into greater instability in the ME.

Knowing the cost in money and lives, how many people that supported the war initially still think it was beneficial to the U.S. in hindsight? As much as I disagree with the way the Libya "war" originated, the outcome was far better than Iraq.

Cool. The Federal Govt. continues to pay a lot of taxpayer funds for so little return. Shall we encourage them to continue to do more of this?

I know its unpopular to say it for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is sensitivity to people who did lose their lives in it...but I still believe the dethroning of Saddam was perhaps one of the most long-term beneficial things for the world (and the US). Impossible to say what might have become (either way) but the Middle East will become a different place without such a man leading one of its countries...and I think for the better.

I'd say the same for Libya as well. The entire conversation is different when you no longer have crazy tyrants accepted as "normal" in international affairs.

I won't quite say that yet, but I do believe we really need to evaluate what the Middle East looks like in 10-20 years. If these events somehow bring something that hasn't been there before in the majority of countries over there and progress is somehow made in a variety of ways then maybe history will judge this period very differently.

I don't think you'll find a lot of people right now complaining about removing either of them. Maybe in 30 years we might feel different if someone just as bad or worse is ruling, but that could happen anywhere. But, really, let's look at the costs.

But it's not as if we've rid the world of crazy tyrants. The world still looks like a rogues gallery from a bad James Bond movie. Two words for you: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Kim Jong-Il is still kicking. Fidel handed off to Raul but anyone think he's not crazy? Hugo Chavez would fit nicely as the main character in Tropico. I think Vladimir Putin actually was the villain in one of the Timothy Dalton Bond movies, not that anyone would know. And it's good thing Robert Mugabe is still in power because otherwise we'd have to have a runoff for biggest genocidal maniac in Africa.

That said, at what price? Libya seems fairly easy math: Tens of thousands in genocide saved in exchange for a fraction of that in rebel lives, 0 American lives, and about $1B. Seems like a pretty good deal.

Iraq is lot messier: How many thousands of American lives? How many tens of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives in a civil war? How many hundred of billions of dollars? Could Saddam even have killed that many people if we had left him alone for 10 years? That one isn't so easy. Afghanistan is no better to try and do the math and justification.

SI

Depends on whether this Iraq remains a counterweight to Iran, IMO. We basically gave up our military bases in the region outside of whatever we end up with in Afghanistan for this regime change.

I think there are 2 things here:

1) Its always easy to forget how much worse than just a "zany crackpot" Saddam was. This guy was the scourge of the Middle East (and the world ftm). Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad (so far), and everybody else combined (with the exception of Lil' Kim) didn't directly lead to half as many deaths as Saddam. Easily one of the most sinister bastards to ever walk the earth. This wasn't some run of the mill "bad guy".

2) Did we execute the post-war competently? Absolutely not. We had far too many deaths, spent far too much money, and had far too much general chaos in Iraq for too many years after the dethroning. So poorly managed to the point that I can definitely understand people not thinking it to have been worthwhile. And of course, nothing is ever worthwhile if your son,daughter, nephew, cousin, etc. lost their life in it...but I believe historians will look back & see that as a very bright moment (i.e. deposing of Saddam) in the history of the Middle East.

SI, would you say the exhorbant math and deaths of WW2 was justified?

Shouldn't we also be asking the same questions of the government in non-military matters as well?

Ya, there's a huge difference between "was this worth it" and "is the end result great for the world"......I mean, who knows, what would have happened without the war. Iraq always maintained a much stronger and more well-paid military than Libya or Egypt, so it's unlikely there would have ever been a successful people's revolt there while Saddam was in power, but Saddam might have settled into a quiet irrelevance until his death, and then the people may have taken power then.

The cost was huge, and probably was too much - but hey, here we are, and things are looking up in the middle east, and Iraq is a big part of that. Maybe we don't even have Egypt and Libya revolutions without the Iraq war.

I would say Vietnam's 58,000+ casualties was a huge cost.

Yeah, you could add the space shuttle missions to the list of things that aren't worth the human and financial tolls when they cause more deaths than expected (in relation to the tangible lives that are saved). Certainly there are relative scales to that expectation (such as, we expect 0 casualties from a given SS mission whereas an invasion has a certain amount of anticipated casualties that number in the thousands).

But I don't think you point to the f-ups that occur as reasons for it not being worthwhile.

I guess thats where I was going. I don't think you have the environment for what we have been seeing if not for deposing Saddam. So, out of a gigantic clusterfuck of an operation came an environment that could produce an awakening in the Arab mainstreet. Certainly not the only reason, but 1 of the bigger reasons for the environment to be where it needed to be.

To the first question, it seems like a kneejerk "yes" but if you've got the number of causalities caused by Hitler, Mussolini, Stain, etc, the number killed in the war, and the cost in 2010 dollars at your fingertips, I'd be curious to see if it's just an "easy" answer because the textbooks say it is.

The second question is even easier. The answer is, of course, "yes". We should always be holding our government accountable. But you're going to find war way down on my list of things I'd prefer the government spend money on and if I'm going to have them "waste" it, I'd much rather it be in scientific or educational pursuit or for the betterment of the people.

To that point, I love all the consternation and hand wringing over a bunch of the energy grants and loan guarantees. Considering the number of IPOs and young companies that fail in the private sector, I fully expect a lot of our taxpayer money to be "wasted". But I realize that is also the cost of trying to do this sort of support where the government is the only loaner or insurer large enough to take the risks necessary to spawn a new industry or type or products. And I damn sure would rather see us trying to spend money on engineering than war.

SI

It may go to hell after the pullout but agree with it ... we've given them better than even odds to do this themselves. I think it would be optimal to wait for right after the next presidential election but there will always be reasons to stay ... time to really focus on Pakistan (and Iran).

Obama is right to stick to withdrawal in Iraq - PostPartisan - The Washington Post

It seems as if the Obama administration has an "aggressive" foreign policy in regards to "war on terror" ... see below bolded. Normally I would have said talk is cheap but Obama has shown he is willing to follow through.

I don't know the Pakistani political calculus. It would seem to me they would want to negotiate a massive economic aid deal, real long-term security partnership, guarantee from India etc. -- all of which the US would do if Pakistan really embraced the fight against their extremists.

Sure some Pakistanis may think they will become a US surrogate etc. but they could ask for alot and get it.

washingtonpost.com

You know, I have this theory about Presidents (and perhaps all people in general).

They tend to make better decisions about topics they can admit to themselves (and others) that they are not the expert on. Its when they believe they already have the answer that they make poor decisions.

Foreign policy & military operations are things I think Obama is fully willing to have a completely open mind on and evaluate on their merits...because he does not believe himself to be an expert or authority on it so he fully engages & absorbs the information brought to him.

I think the opposite is why he does not make the best analysis on domestic policy, namely regarding financial conditions & legislative policy. I think he believes himself smarter than the others in the room on such subjects, and feels it is something they should conclude in a way that satisfies his presumptions.

We didn't have a choice in WW2 given that Japan and Germany declared war first. A war of defense is much different than a war of choice.

Not educated enough to really say if good or not but interesting that this is one that Republicans support and "nearly three-fourths of House Democrats voted against the trade measures".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44989775...s-white_house/

Semantics though. We all know the US was supporting UK with lend lease. If someone did that for the Taliban/AQ et al in Afghanistan and Pakistan you can bet that's a declaration of war.

Yes, huge cost.

It stopped/reduced the "domino effect" throughout the region, see below wiki has for/against the argument. I tend to believe there is alot of truth to it.

Domino theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia