This is a very dangerous man. If he becomes president he will effectively begin to disarm America, thereby leaving us pretty much defenseless against our enemies. Enemies that want America and American's dead. Should these enemies attain nuclear weapons they will use them against us. I think that Barack Obama is taking his cue from former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a super liberal that openly said, and voted the same way, and that was to cut military spending and do away with that which would keep us safe....especially now in the war on terror.
Listen:
It is ignorant, it is risky, it is arrogant. Obama has it in his head that if we, America, endeavor to disarm ourselves that the rest of the world will follow suit. Get real Barack....do you honestly believe that Russia will disarm themselves? They'll just laugh at us and the smaller countries that depend on us to come to their defense will cower in fear because they too will effectively become defenseless.
Again....this is a dangerous man, and super naive as well. This also falls back to his 20 year association with Trinity United Church. He's now cut ties with the place and as he explains this in a speech, it just sounds like he's saying, "hey....I had 20 years of poor judgment, give me 4 more as your president!" His "Change We Can Believe In" is a misguided change and he should know it'll never fly. Disarming America....another poor choice from Barack Hussein Obama.
Clearly you didn't just see the same video I watched.
That's not destroying America's defence. It's ensuring money get's spent wisely. It's ensuring accountability. It's certainly ensuring that the Conservative policy of 'take over half the World, based on a lie' doesn't continue.
I hope, for the benefit of the World, this man becomes President.
Next you'll be telling me (like other ridiculously right winged American religious nuts) that he's trying to turn America, Muslim.
I'm well aware of who my current president is. And I also know that through all of his faults at least he understands the urgent need to be vigilant in this war on terror and what it takes to keep this country as safe as possible in this current climate.It's obvious that liberal Democrats don't understand this. Saving money by cutting back on defense spending and doing away with weaponry that we depend on to be able to defend ourselves is essentially disarming us.
You'll spin it any way you want and that's fine because I've come to expect that from uber-liberals. Not only am I reading between the lines on this one, but I'm also regarding his naive notion that we can open up any kind of dialog with our enemies...people whose only mission is to kill us, to see us all dead!. You simply cannot talk to, nor deal with terrorists, why is this so hard for liberals to understand??
"Conservative policy of 'take over half the World, based on a lie' doesn't continue."
Though you're about 7 years old on that one, you're not remembering that that "lie" as you call it was agreed upon by your heroes the likes of Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and most other leading Democrats at the time. Oh...with the exception of Barack Obama who continues to play that up and is really meaningless.
Barack Obama is dangerous...and supremely naive! He is in no way qualified to run this country, and they're are two types: The super far left liberals who think just like he does and want the same kind of irresponsible change that he yaps about....and then they're are the super clueless that know nothing about politics, know nothing about any of the candidates, they just know that Obama speaks eloquently and he's good looking. Some basis to cast a vote eh?
I find it endlessly amusing that people like you think that continuing to do the same kinds of things (no diplomacy, military threats, yada yada) is going to somehow give different results. I find astounding that you think we're safer now in the world than we were before the Bush administration took our stature in the world to its lowest levels ever. I feel LESS safe now than I ever had and it's entirely because Bush's group has painted a giant target on our country and its citizens and yelled "Bring it on!"
Oh...with the exception of Barack Obama who continues to play that up and is really meaningless.
If it's so meaningless, why do you use those who didn't show that kind of foresight and good judgement to support your argument? That makes no sense.
"President Barack Obama". Oh, I like the sounds of that just fine. Yes indeed. Imagine: a US President with good judgement and communication skills. What a concept...
"I find astounding that you think we're safer now in the world than we were before the Bush administration took our stature in the world to its lowest levels ever."
Safety and stature are two completely different things. You think you feel LESS safe now under Bush, but you'll feel even LESS safe with the likes of Obama in the White House because of his ridiculously naive ideas about where we should go both militarily and politically. You've yet to address this absurd notion that we can have meaningful dialog with our enemies and you think we have a giant target painted on our backs?
With an Obama in office we'd have the front door wide open for Osama bin-Laden and his murderous ilk. Here....here's the latest from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tell me if you think that he's someone you could get through to, from the Associated Press today:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted that Muslims would uproot “satanic powers” and reaffirmed his prediction that the Jewish state will soon be wiped off the map, the Agence France-Presse news agency reported Monday.
"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," Ahmadinejad said.
"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started," the hard-line president said.
The White House immediately dismissed Ahmadinejad's latest attack on Israel and accused him of "total disregard" for the Iranian people's needs and beliefs.
The Iranian president is a devotee of the Mahdi, who Shiites believe disappeared more than a thousand years ago and will return to bring a new era of peace and harmony, the AFP reported.
Ahmadinejad has been forecasting the disappearance of Israel since taking office in 2005.
So....this is the guy that Obama thinks he can reason with? Please....give me....a FREAKIN' BREAK!!!!!
And many others in that region echo the same things that he says. This belief and thought system was in place long before we ever thought about getting involved in Iraq. You'd hate to admit to that because it would deflect some of the anti-Bush rhetoric that is so prevalent today.
You say you're astounded by some of the things I say...what's more astounding is the liberals blindness to the realities of what we're up against today. You just don't seem to think that terrorism is serious business and our desperate need to stay vigilant in our fight against terrorism needs to remain one of our top priorities!
I guess if Barack Obama doesn't think so then why should you....but this is the liberal mindset.
"President Barack Obama". Oh, I like the sounds of that just fine. Yes indeed. Imagine: a US President with good judgement and communication skills. What a concept...
Good judgment? Like I said before..." hey...I had 20 years of poor judgment, give me 4 more as your president!"
A man is judged by the company he keeps, and we've seen all too clearly the kind of company that Obama has kept over the years. Now you can spin it anyway you want but Barack Obama has clearly kept some pretty questionable, no, some really bad folks around him, causing the appearance of very poor judgment on his part. It's clear to us that this would be carried on into the White House should he be so fortunate to carry the title of "President Barack Obama."
I might get my head bitten off for saying this, but I seriously doubt if he will put us in a position where we are defenseless. I don't think anyone will go for us disarming ourselves.I do believe that, if we focus our attention more on fixing our country and less on policing others, we'd come out the better for it.
I can only imagine how much stronger the economy would be if we had taken the money that we sunk into Iraq and applied it to helping those living beneath the poverty level here in the U.S or applied it towards helping people that are losing their homes in the mortgage crisis.
I do agree with that message on one point. I firmly believe that there should be accountability and less waste. I've been reading where contractors are bilking the system for billions of dollars. No one can account for how the money was spent or what was received in return for all that dough.
...you'll feel even LESS safe with the likes of Obama in the White House...
You are quite wrong about that, my friend. Speaking for myself, I will feel more safe.
You seem to have a very limited idea about what diplomacy means and the many faces it has. Take a look at the diplomacy that took place in the Balkans when Slobadan Milosevik was "cleansing" his enemies. He was an absolutely evil man but strong diplomatic efforts, backed by military threats, resolved the situation. This idea you have that diplomacy means coddling is ridiculous. I might point out to you that the lack of diplomacy carried out by the Bush administration has NOT resulted in less rhetoric from Ahmadinejad. These are things he's saying NOW. How, exactly, can you say that the current program is working???
You just don't seem to think that terrorism is serious business and our desperate need to stay vigilant in our fight against terrorism needs to remain one of our top priorities!
You are completely and 100% wrong about what I think. We differ only in what the best path forward is. You say "more of the same" even though what we're doing now clearly isn't working. I say "time for a new, more rational approach".
And you might want to be careful with that whole "company he keeps" stuff. McCain's got a whole laundry list of lobbyists, misogynists, racists and nutjobs around him. Politics, as they say, make very strange bedfellows.
At the end of the day, I care about what the candidates themselves believe, not what their pastors and other associates believe. Seems like a much more intelligent approach to choosing our leaders to me.
Slayer....no one could disagree with you on where some of the billions that Congress allocates in a fiscal year should go. If they would refrain from adding so much pork to the bills they try to push thru, and take that money and allocate it to the less fortunate it would be great. Sadly....you hear our Democratic Congress talking about these things yet no action. This may be why they're at a 13% approval rating right now...lower than the presidents.
Rene...I completely agree with getting a hold of, and gaining accountability from our military contractors. They've been bilking the government for years because they know that over the years they've been able to get away with it. The GAO has been so very lax about this that it has gotten outta hand....imagine a $600.00 toilet seat, or a $600.00 6 x 6 piece of Plexiglas! Pretty ridiculous eh?
"You are quite wrong about that, my friend. Speaking for myself, I will feel more safe."
Well that's speaking for yourself and I respect that...obviously I don't feel that way.
"This idea you have that diplomacy means coddling is ridiculous. I might point out to you that the lack of diplomacy carried out by the Bush administration has NOT resulted in less rhetoric from Ahmadinejad. These are things he's saying NOW."
Because my views on diplomacy differ from yours when it comes to terrorism does not mean that I'm implying that diplomacy means coddling. I've seen true diplomacy in action and the values it has....I'm sure that I have more than a limited view on what diplomacy is and it's many faces. In true liberal fashion you're turning this back on me and trying to make me out to be the ignorant one. Please don't underestimate what I know and don't know.
It's laughable that you would blame Bush for the incredibly dangerous and threatening words coming from Amadinejad. This man has been spewing his hatred for the west, more to the point for America for years, even before he took the office of President of Iran. And it's still believed that he was instrumental in taking the American hostages from the embassy in Tehran back in the 70's. I just can't believe that you want to lay this guy's threats on Bush. It's not only low, it's sad.
"I say "time for a new, more rational approach"."
And what pray tell is rational about people like Amadinejad, or bin-Laden, or Syria, or Somalia, or Algeria? This is why I continue to say that liberals just do not seem to get it! Terrorism and terrorists are not rational and cannot be rationalized with. Their only mission in life is to kill us, the infidel. And killing innocent women and children and strapping bombs to themselves for their cause means nothing to them...unless you count their belief that they'll be martyrs and die and get 72 virgins.
"McCain's got a whole laundry list of lobbyists, misogynists, racists and nutjobs around him. Politics, as they say, make very strange bedfellows."
Funny how we're not hearing anything about any of this yet we're getting earfuls when it comes to Obama....hmmmm.
Indeed, and agreed, no political party can claim innocence when it comes to strange bedfellows.
This man has been spewing his hatred for the west, more to the point for America for years, even before he took the office of President of Iran. And it's still believed that he was instrumental in taking the American hostages from the embassy in Tehran back in the 70's. I just can't believe that you want to lay this guy's threats on Bush.
Oh, I'm not blaming Bush for it. I'm just saying that his "no-talk, just-threats" approach has done nothing to stop it, as you yourself pointed out.
And what pray tell is rational about people like Amadinejad, or bin-Laden, or Syria, or Somalia, or Algeria? This is why I continue to say that liberals just do not seem to get it! Terrorism and terrorists are not rational and cannot be rationalized with.
People said the same thing about Milosevic, my friend, but in the end, it was diplomacy that stopped his atrocities. Tactical, effective diplomacy takes skill but it can have profound results, particularly when it's backed up by an international coalition of like-minded countries.
Funny how we're not hearing anything about any of this yet...
Oh, you will, you will. The general election hasn't even begun yet. Once Obama secures things, there'll be plenty of this brought out. By the way, I could point you to dozens of articles that show McCain's connections to questionable people if you have any interest in reading them. And surely you've heard about him having to purge a bunch of lobbyists from his campaign recently, right? Lobbyists for Myanamar (two of them actually) even!
"Technically, Syria, Somalia and Algeria aren't people."
You're right Geo....and thanks for the visit, jump in any 'ole time. I added those countries as entities and not people. They too as countries are not rational and so far cannot be reasoned with. They are terrorist and rogue states as I'm sure you know.
Bobise....oh he means what he says. The question is can he pull it off, but with a Democrat controlled Congress he has a much better chance...he'll be in good company with the hate America, we've lost in Iraq, we need more power crowd.
Laurie...there are some problems with McCain to be sure. For most all Republicans he was most definitely not our first choice and we're seeing a lot more liberal in him than what we'd like. But it's the party we must stand by.
"I'm just saying that his "no-talk, just-threats" approach has done nothing to stop it, as you yourself pointed out."
I think more like "harsh language" which is probably something that people like Amahdinejad only understand. But again....I point out that terrorists like that cannot be reasoned with. I mean, my question to you is do you have some sort of formula to successfully deal with lunatics like this? Does Obama? Because if he does I'm sure we'd all love to hear what it is!
"People said the same thing about Milosevic, my friend, but in the end, it was diplomacy that stopped his atrocities."
Milosevic didn't just walk into the American Embassy and say, "hey..I give up!" He was basically captured, then died in prison while awaiting his trial for genocide and other human atrocities. I will concede this though. Then President Bill Clinton fired Gen. Wesley Clarke for his lack of diplomacy back then. But...in the end it was a super power backed by the coalition forces that ended that nightmare, it was diplomacy that followed.
"Oh, you will, you will. The general election hasn't even begun yet. Once Obama secures things, there'll be plenty of this brought out."
Oh, I know, I know, "E"! I agree completely, the fight hasn't even begun yet! I have read some of the articles you speak of...it's hard to say right now just how much impact it'll have in the general elections. Same with Obama's issues...it's just hard to say since American's are so fickle, and then you have those that are just plain ignorant to the facts.
One thing I wonder about with McCain right now is this revelation by Tom Daschle on "Meet The Press" that McCain, back in the 2000 run against Bush for president that he, (McCain), was so disgruntled by the Bush administration that he approached Daschle and some other leading, (and I might add super liberal), Democrats about possibly changing over to an Independent and caucusing for them!
Now you know as well as I that that's pretty damn scary for us conservatives!! We know that he's reached across the aisle before on questionable issues. That in and of itself is not a problem...we need a lot more of that. But his votes indicate a liberal slant. It could really hurt him in the generals or it could really help. But again...as we've both agreed upon, the fight hasn't even begun yet.
I mean, my question to you is do you have some sort of formula to successfully deal with lunatics like this?
Yes, Wes Clark's approach to dealing with Milosevic in the Balkans is a fine model: tactical diplomacy backed by a multi-country coalition military force. (A TRUE multi-country coalition, btw, not this sham of a "coalition of the willing" that the Bush administration cobbled together.)
Your statement about Clinton firing Clark for his lack of diplomacy during that time is completely inaccurate.
This description from Judith Latham at Voice of American in her review of Clark's book sums it up nicely:
In the Balkans in the 1990’s, General Clark says he had an opportunity to “combine military force with diplomacy,” especially in his dealings with former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. That came to fruition in 1995 with the negotiations for the Dayton agreement, which ended the war in Bosnia, and again during the war in Kosovo when, as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, he told Mr. Milosevic that, if he did not obey the U.N. Security Council resolution, Serbia would be bombed. General Clark says Slobodan Milosevic looked at him as someone whom he could trust, whereas he looked at the former Serbian president as a “dictator whom we couldn’t trust.” Over the course of the campaign in Kosovo, General Clark says he was able to “break his will and force his surrender by ratcheting up the military pressure while offering him a diplomatic means of escape.”
Also from the Latham essay: [In] 2000, Wesley Clark received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Clinton, who commended him for his “expertise as a strategist, soldier, and statesman.” Fired? I think not.
I highly recommend David Halberstam's book War In A Time Of Peace in which Clark's activities during the Balkan wars is fully described with both his successes and failures. A fascinating read by a spectacularly good historian (now deceased.)
Might wanna check your facts, Michael. From the WikiGods:
At times, he had a difficult relationship with Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton, which led to rumors Clark was forced into retirement, though both he and the Department of Defense said his retirement was merely standard personnel movement.
In an un-politically correct world it's called firing. When Gen. Clarke wanted to put his hat into the ring for president it came out in the news...can't be known though if this was a ploy on the Clinton's part. I have respect for the man and his accomplishments.
