Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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!

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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?

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

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?

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.

I could have told you that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US Mainland in 1998.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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?

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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?

[molson]

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)

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by molson

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?

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

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.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ace1914

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?

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.

Originally Posted by ace1914

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

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?

[JPhillips]

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.

[Swaggs]

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?)?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

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.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

We will not know how successful the Bush presidency is for at least 5 years.

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.

[Buccaneer]

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.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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

[Buccaneer]

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

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

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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

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

Originally Posted by Warhammer

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.

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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

[ace1914]

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

We're increasingly isolated and placed in an antagonistic stance with a lot of people who should either be our allies or sympathetic neutrals.

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

[DaddyTorgo]

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).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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).

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

you're such a cynic

And you were only a teenager throughout his presidency.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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.

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".

[Raiders Army]

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.

[Dutch]

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).

Follwed by...

I've always been a politically astute, politically involved, intelligent person.

heh...teenagers.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Follwed by...



heh...teenagers.

huh? what's your point?

[SirFozzie]

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..

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

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..

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

huh? what's your point?

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.

[sabotai]

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

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.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by sabotai

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

Yeah, I'm curious about that claim.

If so, that's awesome

SI

[Tigercat]

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

[SFL Cat]

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?

[JPhillips]

Maybe the same guy that designed this:

[SFL Cat]

heh...your tax dollars at work...

[Greyroofoo]

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

Originally Posted by Bob Barr's Web Site;

August 27, 2008 5:23 pm EST

Atlanta, GA - Bob Barr is slated to be the only presidential candidate on the ballot in Texas after Republicans and Democrats missed the Aug. 26 deadline to file in the state.

"Unless the state of Texas violates its own election laws, Congressman Barr will be the only presidential candidate on the ballot," says Russell Verney, campaign manager for the Barr Campaign and the former campaign manager for Ross Perot. "Texas law makes no exceptions for missing deadlines."

The Texas Secretary of State Web site shows only Bob Barr as the official candidate for president in Texas.

"We know all about deadlines," says Verney. "We are up against them constantly in our fight to get on the ballot across the nation. When we miss deadlines, we get no second chances. This is a great example of how unreasonable deadlines chill democracy."

"Republicans and Democrats make certain that third party candidates are held to ballot access laws, no matter how absurd or unreasonable," says Verney. "Therefore, Republicans and Democrats should be held to the same standards."

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

Barr Only Presidential Candidate on Texas Ballot — Bob Barr 2008

[SFL Cat]

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.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

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

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