Hezbollah is just another agent of Iran. Whether it would be directly involved in implementing nuclear weaponry is immaterial. They do what they're trained to do.

A declared war is not a word game. The question is how to react. You're right that bombing the military sites has limited benefit.


Then no deal is possible, since Iran won't recognize Israel's right to exist. And no deal is better than removing sanctions.

At some point, through sanctions and defense, Iran may realize that its quest to eliminate Israel isn't worth the cost.

But through appeasement, they've learned a different behavior - as they're exhibiting today. Hence the increased activity in the Golan Heights, the increased rhetoric, and the new military agreements with Russia.

The Russians and Chinese all but stated that they would drop sanctions if there was no deal. Most assume that Germany, France, and UK would do the same fairly quickly. At that point our sanctions don't mean much of anything and we're back to the state of things during the Bush years, and your options are bluffing through tough talk or war.

If you have some plan to keep sanctions in place after failed peace talks, how would that work?

I think you're forgetting that we've actually done more than what you laid out. Let's not forget the US and Israel tried cyberwarfare to increase the time needed for Iran to build a bomb (which succeeded for a time), along with (supposed) Israeli assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. I think it's arguable that outside of open warfare, options even beyond what would be considered reasonable and legal have been attempted to prevent or slow down Iranian efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon. And none of it has appeared to have lasting success.

I don't think the deal we signed is ideal. It's disappointing Iran won't be forced to recognize Israel. It's disappointing they will receive funds from their frozen assets to support terrorism along with additional funds from the removal of sanctions (though that last part was arguably happening anyway). I think we got the best deal we could have though and the deal accomplishes something despite the howling from the detractors. Aside from the specifics in the deal related to reduced centrifuges / material and inspections, it also provides support for what happens if they try to go outside the framework of the deal. If we catch them cheating in any way, it will be a lot easier to muster public support behind action that I would assume most Americans would prefer to avoid if possible but are resigned to do if it's the last resort.

That's more indicative of the loss of respect Obama brings to the international table.

We don't deal with terrorists. Obama has, and the message of appeasement has consequences throughout the world.

What you do is help your friends. Which happened in the past with the virus that took down Iran's labs. Which happened in the past when the US reliably blocked the crap that comes out of the UN on a daily basis.

The world sees how Obama treats his friends and tries to appease his enemies and the world reacts.

We need a new president. I'm not sure we have one in any of the 21 current candidates, but this deal isn't worth the cyberspace they used to store it.

History would say otherwise. This isn't even the first time we've dealt with Iran.

i get your legitimate concerns and criticism, but common on... Iran Contra

meh, the Contra's were fighting a repressive socialist government in the Cold War. Not exactly what I would call your modern extremist terrorist group. Unless, you root for socialism, of course. ;)

I'm sure there are technicalities, some we'd be uncomfortable with. But this is a government that is rather open about its goals through terrorism, open about sponsorship and training and also open about its feelings toward us, should it ever gain enough power. This is several orders of magnitude greater than shadowy stuff that may or may not be effective.

There are few truly bad actors in the world. Iran is one of them.

Mujaheddin
Taliban
Syria
Saddam Hussein
Palestinians
Iran
Saudi royal family
Muslim brotherhood

And that's just off the top of my head. When we think it will advance our interests we're more than willing to deal with terrorists.

We have negotiated treaties (excuse me, non-treaties) with all those groups? Interesting. I thought we just sent arms or other support when there was a political goal.

This is orders of magnitude different. If Obama doesn't see the difference, it's just more evidence he has no idea what he's doing.

You are moving the goal posts. Despite what the words in the treaty said, you say there were secret deals. Despite what was being said by the authors, you said it was all lies and spin. Despite saying us doesn't deal with terrorist, you now say us doesn't negotiate treaties.

I feel your argue,went would have been more persuasive if you just said, "my guts tells me this is a bad and dangerous deal."

Deal as in make a deal with a standing government.

Many people have referred to the secret side-deals with this non-treaty treaty. Including the leadership of one of the countries involved (they just released another movie trailer of bombing American ships, in case people don't know who Obama is dealing with here). Obama himself has acknowledged that the deal does not cover what he initially promised.

My guts don't say anything. Iranian leadership is very clear about what it wants, and what it will do with all the money Obama just freed up for them.

Are you talking about the Chinese video?

No. An official one from Iran's leadership.

If any war happens... - YouTube

This is who they are.

So we're back to where we started. If negotiations are out, what outside of war will slow or stop the Iranian nuclear program? What's your alternative?

Rather than repeating the same sequence again, just go back a page or so. Probably time to stop. Obama certainly has demonstrated what not to do in the Middle East.

Six months ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqIMF-eOL1U

Too bad they didn't listen to their own advice.

So it's your opinion that if we could go back to 2008 and get a do over, that the choices made by McCain would have significantly altered our course?

If that's true, what course of action would he have undertaken?

I've thought about it, and it all comes back to a repeat of Iraq. All on our own. Or quite possibly letting the Israelis loose to conduct airstrikes against Iran.

Looking back at that time, imagine putting the strain of another conflict on the economy heading into the great recession. The Israel concept is interesting, since it was pulled off once before, but I have a feeling that the end results would have been much different. I don't see the international community giving Israel that much leeway anymore. Feelings toward much of their actions have hurt them over the years.

It's just too simple to say that Obama screwed it all up and that any other choice would have been the correct one. The other choices available don't make the US any safer than the path that we've gone down now.

I don't think anyone is out there touting the stability and friendliness of Pakistan. They went nuclear 17 years ago and caught the world by surprise. The proliferation of nuclear weapons has certainly slowed down in the late 20th and 21st centuries, but I think we are at the point globally where if a country has that as a goal, they are going to achieve it, given enough time.

All Obama has done is take the military option off of the table and give Iran access to $150 billion.

That seems worse than any other action anyone could have taken.

Go back to 2003, not 2008. Congress should have asked Bush what his end-game was with this Iraq nonsense. That destabilized the region and gave Iran a lot of power. Then Obama enacted the appeasement policy, which led to more destabilization and the power vacuum in Iraq. So now we have two major and very different sources of terror - neither of which is all that related to Al Qaeda.

Israel is powerless to stop that. Israel is too small and too many countries deny it has a right to exist. They don't want to bomb Iran any more than we do. The best they can do is try and handle the non-nuclear stuff from Iran's proxies on their borders.

Maybe all of this doesn't matter. Maybe the pressures of overpopulation mean war is constant and nuclear war is inevitable. But you don't make it easier without getting anything in return.

You're great at saying Obama did everything wrong, but you still haven't proposed a viable alternative other than tough talk or war. The idea that we should wait for the perfect agreement isn't living in the real world. There's no negotiating possible under your conditions, so what would you do?

I don't want to keep repeating myself, because I've answered that question. But no deal is better than a bad deal - Hillary and Kerry got that much right... until they didn't.

Yes, I get that. What I want to know is what to do after no deal. How would you stop the Iranians from developing a nuke? If you won't negotiate, or have conditions that will keep the Iranians from negotiating, what do you do?

Sucks to say it, but somebody has to be prepared to have a conventional war with them.

Bottom line:

Iran wants to be the first Islamic nation to detonate a nuke in Tel Aviv to secure their place in history.

While I obviously think that's a poor choice, I at least respect you owning that. It seems to me you have three basic choices, negotiate, talk tough but do little, or use the military. What's frustrating is the position that if we were just tough enough the Iranians would agree to all our wishes. I just don't see how that could happen in the real world.

I don't agree with your choices or your characterization of my choices.

Obviously, we're very limited right now by Bush's cowboy behavior and Obama's wishy-washy appeasement. No one trusts us, and building consensus for action would be difficult.

I think the key is in intelligence, and yes, Iran has to believe that if they make moves, we'll know about them and move before they can do damage. But you can't be omniscient. Neither can you start a ground war without risking a lot more because Russia's in there and China's too close not to care. It wouldn't be nearly as easy as Iraq was.

But first, you don't make a deal. Now a hard situation is much, much harder because we've taken so many options off the table.

I think we have to start thinking about what it would take to remove Hezbollah and Hamas from the equation. Iran is a sovereign nation, but Hezbollah and Hamas are just terrorist groups Iran controls. We also have to think twice about any action involving ISIS because Russia and Iran are opposed to ISIS.

I don't see much difference in the rhetoric of Netanyahu and Iran. I think the legitimate inability to empathize with the enemy (as macamera put it) prevents many (perhaps you) to see this as just good vs evil.

Huh, what? Do you really think Netanyahu wants to hurt anyone in Tehran? This seems the height of false equivalencies.

None of that would keep Iran from developing nukes. If you are mostly worried about Iran's influence as a regional power these ideas might work. But if you're mostly concerned about Iran getting a nuke, they'd still be free to do so.

Because military strikes are always limited to specific targets and never have collateral damage, either in terms of infrastructure or human lives.

I'm not following you, Sack. Are you saying that Netanyahu, because Israel uses force to defend itself from rocket attacks, must feel that he wants to kill every man, woman and child in Iran?

Because the promise from Iran, combined with their unprovoked attacks and military buildup in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza, seems fairly clear.

I don't know how you stop Iran from getting the bomb at this point. The money will bring them closer, as will the new weaponry from Russia that Obama has allowed. Bombing raids might delay it, but at a cost. Sabotage is a possibility. Trusting them to wait ten years when they say inspections are forbidden seems like a bad idea.

Liberals and staunch ultra-right wing Iranians are such bizarre bed-fellows.

Another one for the history books on legacy.

I think Obama has just lost Dems the military vote for the foreseeable future (or I guess it doesn't matter as the military go GOP anyway). It'll be interesting to see how the GOP candidates react to this and gays in the military.

Obama nominates openly gay man to lead Army - CNNPolitics.com

I think you answered your own question there - anyone in the military who is offended enough by this to never vote Democrat again wasn't voting Democrat in the first place.

I also seem to recall the surveys they did when they were planning DADT showed most armed forces members were either in favor or didn't care, so I'm guessing the effect isn't as overwhelming as you think.

There does seem to be a significant shift in attitude under Obama's shift.

AMERICA'S MILITARY: A conservative institution's uneasy cultural evolution

{shrug} Part of the decline of the U.S. military that's been going on for years. Various policy decisions have been driving good soldiers out for going on three decades that I can think of. That the military would reflect that overall decline in society isn't really much of a surprise, they don't exist entirely in a vacuum.

The pope is coming to the US. Interestingly the President has invited gay rights and abortion activists to the event in Washington. Huckabee doesn't like it I guess:

Huckabee rips Obama as 'most anti-Christian' president ever | TheHill

It looks as if Russia wants to get more involved to prop up Assad and to fight ISIS.

I'm actually okay with this since it doesn't seem that we want to get more involved and our policies/strategy so far has been non-effective and/or disastrous. Let's give someone else a shot at it.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/middle...dup/index.html

I tend to agree, and I wouldn't be surprised if behind the scenes and the public condemnation we are quite happy with this, as horrible as it might be for the Syrian people. I just can't see a moderate solution to Syria no matter how hard we look.

Since it is in their backyard, relatively speaking, I'm more than okay with Russia stepping up to combat ISIS.

American terrorists ready to act on Iran nuclear deal?

Activist Vows to Arrest Democratic Lawmaker ‘Under Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution’ | TheBlaze.com

Boehner is leaving Congress at the end of October.

Boehner to resign in October | TheHill

Holy crap. That's huge. The fight for his successor is going to be ugly.

I wonder if this was the price for getting the budget passed on time.

If the Republicans oust him and put a far right no-deals social conservative in his place, they may as well just kiss their House majority goodbye in 2016.

I don't know. Very few GOP districts have swing possibility. Most of them are so safe that a conservative primary opponent is a bigger worry than a moderate general election opponent.

edit: But it certainly won't help the Presidential or Senate elections.

edit2: Since Cruz seems to be pulling the strings for the far right House members, why not make him the Speaker. The Speaker doesn't have to be a member of the House after all.

Boehner had decided a few weeks back that he was not going to re-run for his Congressional seat. I think this current budget fight, the continuing intra-party discontent, and quite honestly the personal load of visibility all conspired to move him to just parachute more or less immediately.

It kind of makes me a bit sad, because I always felt that Boehner never felt all this shutdown and debt ceiling stuff was worth fighting about, but the right wingers in the House kept pushing him to do it and kept making noises about replacing him if he didn't.

Had to be exhausting.

Yeah. Nobody can blame him for throwing up his hands and saying, "Fuck these guys."

Apparently Boehner wanted to step down as Speaker last year, but Cantor's primary loss deep sixed that idea:

House Speaker John Boehner to resign at end of October - The Washington Post

Agreed. I've always seen him as a really good guy who was playing the role, but really didn't want to do so.

thank god, not that whomever replaces him will be able to change anything...

I hope the Republicans will be able to perform effectively without a Boehner.

Pretty much this.

It's nice to see the last of him (until he joins up with a left-leaning activist group or decides to head up the Neville Chamberlian Appreciation Society) but I don't have any confidence that his replacement will be any meaningful improvement.

I've been critical of Boehner and don't think he did a good job nor was effective. But it's true that the next speaker will likely fail too. There is this internal strife with the extremists that hasn't worked itself out yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politi...tle/index.html

Looks like it.

No shutdown is nice.

Russia trying to extend its influence to Syria and now Iraq & Iran. Russia and Iran both want Assad to stay in power and both want to isolate US more. I can't blame Iraq for getting all the help they can.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/middle...eal/index.html

So the only possible win from going in to Iraq was a partnership with the new Iraq....but it looks as if we are squandering that away as well. The Russians can possibly turn this into a big win politically and economically.

It's remarkable that at this point in history our greatest hopes for Congress are merely that they don't destroy the country.

Fine with me. More than happy to see Russia & China suffer the slings and arrows of foreign entanglements as much as we have.


Or, more realistically, they can get just as bogged down with "foreign advisers", military aid and infrastructure spending, and since the barrel of oil doesn't look set to rise dramatically anytime soon, they still won't see a big profit from their involvement.

We are making assumptions either way.

The previous head of the IDF has a realistic view of the Iran deal.

The Donald and I agree on Russia in Syria. That's a surprise, I may have to give him a look.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politi...mon/index.html

Trump neatly encapsulates the complexity inherent in the situation while given no indication whatsoever that he understands it. :D

Alabama decided to close some DMV offices to save money. They also have a Voter ID law.

So this...

Hey, Donny is now 1 for about 850,000 for correct statements!

Of course that omits the fact that every single office that closed was a "satellite office" rather than a full-time one. And that the state recently added online renewal as an option, with some 40,000 renewals in the first two months alone. And most importantly, it leaves out that the 21 (of 31) satellite offices closed happen to be in the 25 smallest counties in the state.
This seems like seeing correlation but assuming causation.

We saw the same thing here in Georgia years ago, the end of a lot of traditional "one-day-a-week" satellite locations. Many of those that were closed were heavily white counties. I grew up in one of those, which is why it comes to mind.

edit to add: The reason I stopped at 21/31 is because I grew tired & bored with matching up the lists once the obvious pattern emerged.

You don't pound the drum for military strikes above all else and try to sabotage any attempt at diplomacy as being clearly an effort to sell you down the river if you're a cuddly peace-loving sort.

Netanyahu is many things. There is nothing in his political history to suggest to me that he is conflict-averse, and I'm not just speaking about Iran, here.

The problem as I see it is that Netanyahu's stance is that anything which isn't pre-emptive military strikes is de facto an anti-Israel position.

it's really hard for me to reconcile that with "do you really think he wants to hurt anyone in Tehran?" I believe he wants a war, and I believe he's wanted one for some time. The specific motives behind that desire are a matter for another discussion, and I'm not going to impute good or ill will to those motives here. But wars have costs, particularly civilian costs.


Iran is trying to establish themselves as a power player in the Middle East with the fall of Iraq creating a vacuum. They have the opportunity now they couldn't create in the 1980s, and they think Israel is the best focus for getting the rest of the region to rally around them.

But, look: it's been an...I don't know if "open secret" is the right word, but I don't think there are many people in the world who honestly believe that Israel are not themselves possessed of nuclear weapons. I think Iran, revolutionary True Believers or not, know that. To the extent they want the Bomb, it's because they think once they have it, it will protect them from Israeli nukes. That doesn't mean there is no scenario under which Iran would USE that weapon. It means I don't think they're stupid enough to build and drop *a* bomb knowing that Israel would wipe their country from the face of the map if they were stupid enough to try and nuke Tel Aviv.


They haven't said inspections are forbidden. They've said inspectors must come from countries with diplomatic relations with Iran.

Which...I guess you can look at that from both sides, depending on how cynical you want to be. If Iran is being cynical, they're levying that restriction because they don't trust countries without diplomatic ties not to stack the deck against them. Americans being cynical see that, of course, as a sign that Iran plans only to allow inspectors who either share their anti-Israeli views, or can be suitably seduced by oil money so as to turn their heads the other way. When you have that level of distrust, that almost presupposes war, doesn't it? If you can't trust other allies to be as rigorous in their inspections as you yourself would be, then why are you even at the table?

I do agree with the rest of what you said, in that if Iran really wants a nuclear weapon, they can get one, but I think that's true with or without this deal, with or without pre-emptive facility strikes. What you're talking about isn't if they get one, but when. A year from now? Five? Ten? Twenty? Is the goal to push it so far back that by the time they get one, the True Believers will have died off?

Not sure that's a realistic hope.

If only you had this sort of determined resolve with regard to Iranian leadership...

The only requirement Netanyahu has is that other countries must recognize Israel's right to exist.

Not sure that's a realistic hope.

But Israel does need leadership willing to defend the country from constant attacks. Iran has made its position crystal clear. Both in word and in action. Why aren't people listening?

I watched the speech on closed caption TV during lunch. I thought it was a good speech. His point was Iran has singled out Israel for destruction, you guys have given them the keys to get the bomb, and now you pat yourselves on the back? What are we supposed to do?

In Netanyahu's own words, Iran has been 3-5 years away from an atomic bomb for the past 20 years.

https://theintercept.com/2015/03/02/...-nuclear-bomb/

And? Iran has been actively trying to get the bomb for years. They have proclaimed that they intend to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, what is Israel supposed to do?

Which is a thing the PLO did in 1993. We're talking over 20 years ago, and yet Netanyahu continues to promote additional Israeli settlement in the West Bank. That sounds more like a suggestion than a requirement. Didn't he just run for re-election with "I will never recognize a two-state solution" as the linchpin of his candidacy?


Netanyahu: Not sure that's a realistic hope. That is a beautiful campaign slogan for his political opposition the next time he tries to run for something.


Again, you're talking about a nation trying to establish itself as both a political and religious leader in the region. They're trying to grab the leashes for about ten different majority-Muslim countries and say "okay, boys, heel." Do they have legitimate (as opposed to for-show) antipathy towards Israel? Almost certainly. Is it realistic to think that they're going to pick a fight the second they get The Bomb? I don't think so. Israel's been widely assumed to have nuclear armaments for 40 years or more. If Iran nukes Tel Aviv (or pick your Israeli city if you like), Israel turns Iran into a glass parking lot. Iran knows that. Israel knows that. What Israel cannot countenance is the loss of face that comes from one of their antagonists successfully spiting them. To the extent you think Israel's security is threatened, the foundation of that security right now is predicated on a) having kicked butts up one side and down the other in 1967 and b) American backing.

That's partly why I think Netanyahu wants a war. He wants to move the timeline up 50 years from 1967, so that the security will be predicated on a much more recently victorious war and American backing. Maybe the issue can be resolved through diplomacy (and I think it can), but I think he thinks if he picks a fight with Iran now and wins that it'll be 40 years before another of their antagonists stirs shit up, and he'll go down in the history books as the Israeli Winston Churchill.

Never mind. Not worth it.

Hmmm, I don't think you can fairly say Iran isn't trying to go to war and in the same breath say Israel is. It's your right, but if you can make that leap, then logically, you simply have to respect the far more realistic possibility that Iran--with all their efforts ($100B-$500B of sunk costs so far in their nuclear ambitions), their extremist views, their support of killing Jews, and their tons and tons of rhetoric--might actually and actively be trying to get into a position to go to nuclear war.

I'm not saying Iran isn't interested in a war with Israel. I'm saying that, realistically, Iran knows the score. They want to be a regional hegemon, and that doesn't happen if they escalate a nuclear conflict, because Israel won't hold back.

And if you're sufficiently concerned about Iran that you're worried about the prospect of them trying to nuke Israel, then you probably need to concede that there are other political realities in play:

1) Russia and Iran are allies, and have been for some time.
2) Russia has plenty of nukes, and their former Soviet satellites may have some as well.
3) In any of those countries, all it takes is one person in a position of oversight being weak to bribes, and Iran has their hands on such a weapon, either as a how-to on how to build their own, or a for-real live weapon. They could have one now. How would you know?
4) If Iran is or has been a state sponsor of terror, and if there was genuine concern about the possibility of al-Qaeda developing suitcase nukes, then no matter how effective the inspections are or aren't, they're going to have at least one other avenue towards a nuclear attack on Israel, and possibly one that gives them plausible deniability.

Short answer: if you're worried about Iran getting their hands on nuclear weapons to use against Israel, there is no answer I or anybody else can give, short of regime change (and it's never backfired on the US when we've enforced regime change in that country) and long-term occupation, that's going to ease your minds on that front.

I mean, that's literally where this road leads. You don't believe diplomacy can be successful. I don't believe that pre-emptive strikes are going to convince Iran that, aw, shucks, maybe we shouldn't continue to pursue nuclear ambitions. All that does is hit the snooze button.

And that brings me back to what I asked earlier - is that the end game? Hit snooze often enough that eventually the True Believers die out and things get better? Because I don't think that's a realistic endgame to push for.

Dola,

If anything, Israel's fear should be a scenario where they are forcibly divested of their putative nuclear armaments while Iran gets their hands on one somehow or other. Because THAT'S a scenario under which I can completely see Iran pushing that button.

As things stand now, even if they announced tomorrow that they have a nuke, they're 40 years or more behind Israel, and there is no way they're going to be able to build a stockpile quickly enough to make a nuclear conflict "winnable," for values of "winnable."

What having a nuke does is it maybe gets other countries in the region to fall into line if they initiate a conventional conflict with Israel, because those other countries might think "hey we can win this time."

That, at *this* point in time, is the extent to which I think a nuclear weapon threatens Israel. They're not going to be able to wipe Israel off the map with one or two or five bombs, and I don't think they're suicidal enough to try.

But unless Israel convinces the region that they'd respond to a conventional attack with WMD, the nuke might be enough of a symbol to rally support to Iran's side if they were to kick off a conventional war.

I like his theatrics with the "deafening silence". I honestly don't think Bibi is doing it right, he needs to cultivate relationships to get what he wants, not piss people off (including your biggest benefactor).

Netanyahu warns that Iran is building terrorist cells worldwide - The Washington Post

At about 3:45

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “Deafening Silence� (C-SPAN) - YouTube

Obama Administration Ends Pentagon Program to Train Syrian Rebels

what a complete failure

Who's JV now? Big win for ISIS.

In other JV news...I give you, the Russians!

Russian missiles aimed at Syria crashed in Iran: US officials - Business Insider

not sure what to believe anymore.

Claims that Russian missiles hit Iran are lies and part of psychological war, says Iranian general Musa Kamali - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

we need mandatory body cameras on all cruise missiles.

See?

In the game of politics, I agree. In the game of defeating ISIS, I dont.

The five moderate rebels still left fighting weren't going to be much good against ISIS.

Maybe one good thing that will come out of the varied disasters in the mid-east is that there really aren't armies of moderate, pro-US rebels just waiting for weapons and training. It would be nice if we faced that reality at some point.

I basically agree with that. Islam (edit: Or rather, the practice of Islam....extremism vs moderate) gets worse the closer you get to Saudi Arabia and Syria is too damn close.

I don't think he had much choice considering where things are now and what could happen in Afghanistan with the Taliban, ISIS etc. He's not going out strong in Foreign Policy.

Obama again delays Afghanistan troop drawdown - CNNPolitics.com

Well, that's one view. Would you like to expand on what you mean?

Perhaps we should think a little about this Soviet general's thoughts:

Or perhaps...(paraphrased discussion between Queen Isabella I and Columbus)...and from the movie 1492.

I'm of the opinion that Afghanistan is ungovernable, at least by Western powers, but let's say there is a way to "solve" Afghanistan. Surely you don't believe that we're willing to put the money and troops into the battle in a volume that would lead to success, do you?

Depends who's there. People hell bent on killing us? Yes, we will always need to invest money in killing the enemy. There is no escaping that reality.

Edit: And lets also not throw out the fact that the reason we went there in the first place is because Afghanistan was so easily taken over by the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. The Russians lost because, well, they are Russians and didnt know how to fight, nor did they try and learn how to fight because their empire was in the middle of an economic meltdown brought on by excessive leftist policy spending.

Some more data regarding Dems and GOP working together. If the two wings of the GOP can't work together how are the Dems supposed to fix things?

As a libertarian-leaning voter I must say the more radical the candidates from both sides the better. My guess is you read the not working together as a negative, I see less new programs and bureaucratic red tape as positive. I would much rather have Clinton as president working with the current Congress than a Republican president who green lights their crazy ideas.

Ryan to the Rescue?

Ryan willing to serve as speaker, but with conditions - CNNPolitics.com

Good luck to him. I like how he wants a work life balance but don't know really how realistic that is.

Haven't heard much press about Obamacare lately. I think Romney always knew some sort of universal/greatly inceased coverage was the right thing to do.

Romney walks back apparent compliment of Obamacare - CNNPolitics.com

Just a reminder that we're about a week from hitting the debt ceiling. Sure would be nice if the basic functions of government could be done without pushing us to the brink of crisis.

Also pretty hypocritical from a guy who has consistently voted against legislation focused on parental leave and child care.