McCain's VP:

@Cycloptichorn,

CycloTroll is on a Roll Laughing

What a turd!

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, pre-emption has been regarded as a national security option since 2002, and it was the rationale for the Iraq war. Sorry to disappoint you, but Bush advocated pre-emptive strikes against anyone who might have WMD that threatened the United States. That's why we invaded Iraq. Al Qaeda had no significant presence in Iraq prior to the war. The primary rationale for the war was the alleged WMD, and that justified the pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

Since you want a reputable source, how about the White House? Do you trust them?

Straight from the horse's mouth

Quote:

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction" and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/nss5.html

The above is from The National Security Strategy
September 2002

Note, the threat does not even have to be imminent to justify the pre-emptive action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the subject of Palin, and her interview with Gibson, I was genuinely disappointed in her replies last night. I had really expected her to be somewhat more knowledgable. She apparently has never thought about anything that goes beyond the bounds of Alaska.

She had obviously been drilled in how to answer questions on particular topics, and she regurgitated the answers, often repetitivly, even though her answers did not really fit the questions. Gibson asked her about national security, and she began talking about energy. He repeated the question, saying energy was only peripherally related, and she still talked about energy--as it pertained to Alaska. And oh, yes, she mentioned you can see Russia from Alaska. She doesn't even seem to understand the range of energy issues--except she wants drilling in Alaska.

I honestly felt sorry for this woman last night. She is so out of her depth at the moment it is pathetic. She has been cloistered in the parochial world of Alaskan politics and has been seemingly isolated from, and unaware of, the national and international issues facing the rest of the country. She really can't relate to anything beyond Alaska. She seems less thoughtful, and less knowledgable, about both national and international issues, than the average poster at A2K. Doesn't she read the leading newspapers in the U.S.? Doesn't she follow events outside of Alaska at all?

When Gibson asked her if she felt ready to be the president, if necessary, she promptly answered, "Yes" but could not say what qualified her or why she had no hesitation about accepting the nomination, except to say that she was up to "the mission". "The mission"? What "mission"? I don't think this woman really has a clue about what's involved in being either the VP or the president. That's both sad and frightening. I don't wonder that Gibson used the word "hubris" regarding her self-confidence in being up to the task of possibly running the country. She clearly is not up to the job.

McCain popped up on "The View" this morning. He kept asserting he had Palin on the ticket because she is "a reformer". Barbara Walters kept pressing him about, "What is she going to reform?" He didn't really have an answer, but he finally said only, "Washington" and then laughed. He should have laughed, her candidacy is really a joke. If the future of our country wasn't at stake, it might actually be funny.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, on the other hand, you have no evidence whatsoever, so what does that say about your case?

Like I said - you've been embarrassed lately on more then one occasion, when the facts didn't match your rhetoric. Much like your candidate. There's no reason your word should be taken at face value by anyone, though I'm quite sure I don't need to point that out to anyone on A2k

Cycloptichorn

I'm not the one lying so I see no need to provide evidence. You on the other hand, have been accused of being a liar and so far the facts support that claim.

You can attempt to change the topic now, liar, but the fact remains that you are lying. And your "evidence" is crap. Time magazine said so, I mean come on. Why not use Salon.com (who said "There's no evidence that Rove has a formal role with the McCain campaign.") or an article from commondreams.org? Or hell, I am sure you could find some blogger on KOS to back you up. Laughing

Nice try for a liar, but that's as far as it goes.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, on the other hand, you have no evidence whatsoever, so what does that say about your case?

Like I said - you've been embarrassed lately on more then one occasion, when the facts didn't match your rhetoric. Much like your candidate. There's no reason your word should be taken at face value by anyone, though I'm quite sure I don't need to point that out to anyone on A2k

Cycloptichorn

I'm not the one lying so I see no need to provide evidence. You on the other hand, have been accused of being a liar and so far the facts support that claim.

You can attempt to change the topic now, liar, but the fact remains that you are lying. And your "evidence" is crap. Time magazine said so, I mean come on. Why not use Salon.com (who said "There's no evidence that Rove has a formal role with the McCain campaign.") or an article from commondreams.org? Or hell, I am sure you could find some blogger on KOS to back you up.

Nice try for a liar, but that's as far as it goes.

You can't just assert that 'I'm not the one lying.' It's not a valid defense of your position. A child would understand this, but apparently you do not.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You can't just assert that 'I'm not the one lying.' It's not a valid defense of your position. A child would understand this, but apparently you do not.

Cycloptichorn

Tell you what, I'm willing to forgive your lies in so far that Rove probably talks to people who work on the McCain campaign (though if that's the case, a huge portion of America are also informal advisors of the McCain campaign) if you apologize for lying when you said McCain sold his soul when he hired Rove.

BTW, Rove has also given the Obama campaign advice so take that for what it's worth. He is an intelligent man and he knows politics.

0 Replies

Palin desperately trying to defend her support of the Bridge to Nowhere:

Quote:

GIBSON: You have said continually, since he chose you as his vice-presidential nominee, that I said to Congress, thanks but not thanks. If we're going to build that bridge, we'll build it ourselves.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: But it's now pretty clearly documented. You supported that bridge before you opposed it. You were wearing a t-shirt in the 2006 campaign, showed your support for the bridge to nowhere.

PALIN: I was wearing a t-shirt with the zip code of the community that was asking for that bridge. Not all the people in that community even were asking for a $400 million or $300 million bridge.

GIBSON: But you turned against it after Congress had basically pulled the plug on it; after it became apparent that the state was going to have to pay for it, not the Congress; and after it became a national embarrassment to the state of Alaska. So do you want to revise and extend your remarks.

PALIN: It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the ear form -- earmark process has been accepted in Congress. And that's what John McCain has fought. And that's what I joined him in fighting. It's been an embarrassment, not just Alaska's projects. But McCain gives example after example after example. I mean, every state has their embarrassment.

GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time...

PALIN: I was...

GIBSON: ... until Congress pulled the plug.

PALIN: I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure.

GIBSON: Right.

PALIN: What I supported was the link between a community and its airport. And we have found that link now.

Palin would not admit that she was lying. And even worse, she seems to state that it's right for states to work for pork-barrell spending. McCain says it's wrong and specifically has called out some of HER earmark requests in the past. Will they be called on their bullshit?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

When Gibson asked her if she felt ready to be the president, if necessary, she promptly answered, "Yes" but could not say what qualified her or why she had no hesitation about accepting the nomination, except to say that she was up to "the mission". "The mission"? What "mission"?

Thank you, firefly, for your post.

I wonder about "the mission" too--perhaps she believes she's on a mission from God.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I think the problem is that Palin's not really against earmarks. Earmarks have been good for Alaska, and federal funds make up a big part of Alaska'a budget.
As I said in my previous post, I do not think Palin can think beyond the bounds of Alaska. When she returned to Alaska this week, she told the crowd that the current presidential campaign is great because people are getting to know ABOUT ALASKA. I think she's mainly running for VP (from her perspective) to get more offshore drilling IN ALASKA.

The anti-earmarks position was likely foisted on her by McCain. I doubt that she's really against earmarks, at least not wholeheartedly. McCain probably didn't realize the Bridge to Nowhere would become such an issue for her, and it wouldn't be an issue for her if she didn't have to push McCain's position. She likes taking federal money. So, now she's caught in the position of having to rationalize or awkwardly spin her alleged turnaround.

As lies go, I really don't think this is such a whopper, only because I don't think she would have tried to present herself as an anti-earmark person if left to her own devices. But McCain stupidly put her in this position. I think it reflects more on him than it does on her.

McCain really wants to promote Palin as a "reformer", which she legitimately is, but mainly in terms of her rooting out political corruption, and mainly within the Republican party IN ALASKA. She had no interest in corruption in Washington, or whether the earmarked funds she greedily scooped up with her grubby hands IN ALASKA contributed to a significant national problem of fiscal irresponsibility. Palin's method of reform in Alaska essentially involved taking on the Republican establishment, getting elected as governor, and then firing some of the people that were deeply involved in the cronyism type of corruption that had blossomed in Alaska for ages. For that she does deserve credit. But she's not a general ethical crusader. That seemed to be her one politically "ethical" stance. Absolutely nothing else about her record suggests she is overly concerned with government ethics. And that might explain why she is now being investigated for possible abuse of her powers as governor. Or why she billed for per diem expenses for nights she spent in her own home.

Even Palin's methods of "reform" would not work in Washington, unless one believes she could blow into town and fire everyone she didn't like, and that would solve all the problems in the Capitol. What works for Alaska would not work for Washington. McCain knows that too. That's why the "reformer" image, when used to promote her as VP, is such a sham. Sarah Palin is not Ralph Nader. The reformer image is a device to try to bolster her skimpy background and experience for VP, and also to enhance her standing as a sidekick to McCain's alleged Maverick image. Together it makes them the dynamic duo. Rolling Eyes

How cute. How fake.

Sarah Palin did not actively seek the VP nomination, and it probably never seriously crossed her mind until she got that phone call from McCain. She wasn't walking around Alaska spouting anti-earmark rhetoric, nor was she pushing a maverick image once she got elected and fired the people she didn't like. This woman couldn't turn the VP nomination down when it was offered--she's too ambitious to do that. It offered her a great opportunity, as a career move, and she didn't have to work to get it, it was a gift, and she took it. After all, it might be good FOR ALASKA.

In front of cheering crowds of the Republican faithful she can be a big hit. She's the celebrity of the moment. But, as a serious candidate for VP, she is woefully out of her depth. On the national scene, in continuing media interviews, she really runs the risk of sounding like a parrot, simply regurgitating the campaign and position points that have been hastily drilled into her, or, even worse, sounding shallow and making a fool of herself. If her other interviews, and the upcoming debate, don't show some better grasp of the complexity of the issues, and some ability to think for herself, this campaign will dissolve into a farce.

McCain may have picked her because he felt he had nothing to lose by doing so, since he appeared to be on a losing trajectory in terms of the election. And he figured she'd give him a boost with the religious right. But, she is so manifestly not ready to be VP, the one thing he may lose is people's faith in his ability to make rational judgments and any respect they had left for him.

If she can't really prove herself to be qualified, the media will rip her apart. The Obama camp won't have to do a thing. And it's not really her fault. McCain is feeding her to the lions.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Debra Law. The thought that it was a "mission from God" also crossed my mind. Do you remember when Bush, most unfortunately, referred to the Iraq war as a "crusade"?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Palin also doesn't seem to know much about American history either

Quote:

Q: Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?
A: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Source: Eagle Forum 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire Jul 31, 2006

Someone should break the news to Palin that the Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with the founding fathers. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian Socialist, and the cousin of Socialist Utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898). The words "under God" were not inserted into the Pledge until 1954.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

okie, pre-emption has been regarded as a national security option since 2002, and it was the rationale for the Iraq war. Sorry to disappoint you, but Bush advocated pre-emptive strikes against anyone who might have WMD that threatened the United States. That's why we invaded Iraq. Al Qaeda had no significant presence in Iraq prior to the war. The primary rationale for the war was the alleged WMD, and that justified the pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

Since you want a reputable source, how about the White House? Do you trust them?

Straight from the horse's mouth

Quote:
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction" and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/nss5.html

The above is from The National Security Strategy
September 2002

Note, the threat does not even have to be imminent to justify the pre-emptive action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess I was wrong about pre-emption, but that is not the impression I had of what the Bush Doctrine was. But hasn't pre-emption always been an option, not just since 2002? I first became aware of what people referred to as the Bush Doctrine following his speech September 21, 2001, 10 days after 911, wherein he said:
"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans."

That statement in my view embodies the Bush Doctrine, and it does not mention pre-emption, it only mentions defense following hostile actions. Nations that support terrorists are simply using surrogates to conduct their fighting for them, because they know they cannot win a conventional war. Thus any action against a nation that supports terrorists can be characterized as defensive, not a pre-emptive action.

The Bush Doctrine is not written down somewhere, and labeled as such. There are all kinds of interpretations, and Bush has given several speeches from which people have tried to frame what the Bush Doctrine is. Again, what some people call pre-emption is always an option, but is it a practice? I don't think so, but sadly in this world that we live in, it is probably wise to let your enemies know that so-called pre-emption is an option, something on the table. I don't like the idea of pre-emption, and I don't think Bush does either. I frankly think it is a mistake to use that term freely, and I don't think our war on terror should be characterized as pre-emption, because I don't think it is. We are reacting to a war already declared, which doesn't fit the description of pre-emptively attacking someone for no reason. Hostilities have already been declared by terrorists and the nations that support them.

In the case of Afghanistan, I don't think it was pre-emption, and in the case of Iraq, I think there is an argument both ways, because Hussein had already engaged in hostilities, old business, that had not been cleaned up by the U.N.. We could argue about Iraq all day, but besides that, Bush has not used pre-emption as an active policy, only as an option to be used in the most dire of circumstances.

So, I give you that, and cyclops, that what some people call pre-emption is a national security option, I concede to a point, but whether it is part and parcel of the Bush Doctrine, I'm not sure. I think pre-emption probably has been available as an option ever since time began, and in the war on terror, I don't think that word is particularly wise to use, because I don't think it accurately describes what is going on.

2 Replies

@okie,

Oh, it has also come to my attention that there are as many opinions about what the Bush Doctrine is, as there are people almost. Krauthammer agrees with me that Gibson made a bigger fool of himself than Palin, at least she didn't claim to know what the Doctrine was, while Gibson did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Debra Law has a personal grudge against Palin. I'm guessing it's because of some sort of insecurity about Palin being better looking then her. (you know how women are.)

And the Sexist of the Day award goes to ...

0 Replies

Polls reflect and overwhelming acceptance of Palin as VP.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Polls reflect and overwhelming acceptance of Palin as VP.

Sometimes American voters make huge mistakes that later come back to haunt them. The 2004 re-election of George Bush case in point.

1 Reply

@revel,

Yeah, look at the mistake liberals just made choosing Obama.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

No mistake on my part even if by some weird quirk of Politics McCain/Palin wins. Which at this point, I don't concede in any way. Right now Palin has revived the McCain campaign and they are riding a "wild ride." Hopefully with no more than fluff on Palin's side (as opposed to Obama) and a guy who has dropped every single maverick notion he has ever had and what's more shows signs of loosing it, maybe we will lucky and voters will not be fooled. But perhaps not; in any case I will not regret my choice at all.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, I don't know if you are just being stubborn, don't like to admit when you are wrong, or just can't understand the facts--or a combination of all three.
The most reliable source on the Bush Doctrine is the White House, and I posted that link for you which indicates the change in policy that occured in 2002 to include pre-emptive strikes. Here is another link to the 2006 policy, which, again, reiterates the pre-emptive strike strategy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html

From the 2006 policy:

Quote:

The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction " and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.

If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize

It was the long standing policy of the United States, prior to 9/11, not to launch pre-emptive attacks. We defended ourselves after we were attacked--i.e. the bombing of Pearl Harbor. We responded only to clear and imminent threats--i.e The Cuban Missile Crisis (where photographs clearly showed Russian missiles capable of striking the United States). During the Cold War we used deterrents, the build-up of our own nuclear weapons, as a primary strategy of defense.
Bush's policy, or doctrine, departed from that position by stating we would now make pre-emptive attacks on other countries if we felt threatened by WMD. And, furthermore, the threat did not have to be imminent, it could just be a future threat. That was the rationale for the Iraq war--Saddam allegedly had WMD, and he might put them in the hands of our terrorist enemies. In the 2006 National Security Strategy, Bush refers to the Iraq war, he admits it was a pre-emptive military attack, and further admits the intelligence was wrong and there were no WMD.

Again, here is the link--from the White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html

Bush made pre-emption a policy, and he then put it into practice with the invasion of Iraq. Even if WMD had been found, the threat to the U.S. was not imminent. We had not been attacked or directly threatened by Iraq--we acted pre-emptively. That was the big change from previous U.S. policy, and that was the Bush Doctrine--in practice.

And we didn't attack Iraq just to remove WMD, we attacked with the intention of overthrowing the government.

Iraq was not an imminent threat to the U.S., even if WMD had been found. Even Bush never said the threat was imminent. Therefore, other options, rather than a military invasion, could have been tried, particularly because evidence of WMD was not clear (as it had been with the Cuban Missile crisis). That was what the whole argument was about prior to the war. That's why so many other people in the world became hostile toward the U.S. for launching the invasion--it was a pre-emptive strike, which many other people regarded as premature and unjustified.

Quote:

Bush has not used pre-emption as an active policy, only as an option to be used in the most dire of circumstances.

Absolutely not true in the case of our invasion of Iraq. The circumstances were not dire--far from it. There was time to pursue other, non-military, strategies.

In the case of Afghanistan we went directly after the people who had attacked us on 9/11. Their training sites and some bases of operation were in Afghanistan. This was not a pre-emptive action. We had already been attacked--not only on 9/11, but prior to that time with the bombing of the U.S. S. Cole. We were responding in our self defense.

Pre-emption is part of the Bush policy/doctrine. You can trust his own words on the White House Web site. And it is part of the future thinking of people like McCain, when he talks about Iran and WMD. Pre-emption primarily refers to WMD--and not to terrorism.
Terrorists lurk in many countries (including our own), and pre-emptive military action against all of those countries is not really a rational option, nor has Bush advocated that. We did not attack Iraq because terrorists were being harbored there, and there was no link between Saddam and bin Laden/Al Qaeda (the two didn't even like each other), and there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11.

The pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was all about those non-existent WMD, and the White House makes that clear in the 2006 statement on National Security Strategy.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, the point is, if I know what Bush's Doctrine is regarding pre-emptive military strikes, which was the basis for our invasion of Iraq, Sarah Palin running for VP should darn well know it--particularly because her running mate gives every indication that he will continue to engage in similar pre-emptive military actions.

okie, Charles Krauthammer is desparately trying to bail Palin out with his column--and the explanation he offers is ludicrous. We did not invade Iraq to spread democracy--that would have been an invalid excuse for invading a country, by anyone's definition. That's "nation building" and not self defense. It is also not Bush's Doctrine, as Gibson defined it for Palin. Gibson told her he was referring to the policy of pre-emptive strikes.

Bush began talking about bringing democracy to Iraq only because the WMD argument was so flimsy, but it was not the rationale for the war--as stated in his own national security documents--it was a lame rationalization to try to make people feel better about the war--after all, we were about to attack innocent Iraqi civilians. We were told the Iraqis would welcome us as "liberators". Well, that's not what happened. The majority of the Iraqi people did not want us there. Even today, 40% of the Iraqis feel that current attacks on our troops in Iraq are justified.

Krauthammer is being disingenious in that column. He knows what the Bush Doctrine is, and he knew what Gibson was referring to. Gibson defined what he meant for Palin, and she was still unaware of Bush's policy regarding pre-emptive strikes, which was the justification of our invasion of Iraq. She does not really understand why we invaded Iraq--she thinks it had to do with Islamic extremists, which it did not. Saddam was not an Islamic extremist, nor was Iraq a hotbed for al-Qaeda. We brought al-Qaeda into Iraq after the invasion, and because of the invasion--al Qaeda was reacting to our aggression in Iraq.

Sarah Palin is clueless regarding our foreign policy, and our national security strategies, and Krauthammer's very feeble try, can't obscure that fact.
Unforunately, in last night's interview, Palin showed she is clueless about national domestic issues as well.

The woman is not qualified to even run for VP, let alone serve in that position. Her thinking is shallow, and somewhat innacurate--on basic factual information. The thought that she could become, not just VP, but president, is genuinely terrifying.

She may be a perfectly nice women. She may be a good governor for Alaska. She has a folksy, unassuming style and many people can relate to that. But we need people at the highest levels of government, not who are"just like us", but people who also understand the complexities of issues our country faces, and can deal in the best way with those issues. In that regard, they must possess some qualities and attributes beyond those of the average person. Of course we want those people to also understand the problems of average Americans--but just mirroring us in terms of folksy style, or being a hockey mom, is not enough, and it does not qualify one for the job of VP or president--we must look much deeper, and have much higher standards than that.

Voters have to begin using their brains, and evaluating Palin's qualifications rationally and not just in terms of her alleged rock-star appeal or novelty.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

No, Obama did not have a clue about what he was talking about.

Alliances between Musharaff and the Taliban, I never claimed it, are you?

You are totally clueless in regard to this entire subject of what we are doing with Pakistan, and so was Obama. He has no clue.

Bys the way, we now have a big problem with Pakistan, have had for quite a while, and it isn't going to get any better with Musharaff gone I don't think.

Oh, Obama doesn't know what he's talking about?

Obama recommends troop increases for Afghanistan; McCain and Bush oppose them; now, we are going with Obama's plan and increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.

Obama recommends a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq; McCain and Bush oppose them; the Iraqis agree with Obama, and we now have a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Obama recommends going after high-value targets, even if they are in Pakistan; Bush and McCain oppose this; now, we are going after high-value targets in Pakistan.

Obama has predicted and recommended everything that we are doing now. He has showed mastery in analyzing the situation, to the point where he has a record of calling for things for years that his stubborn political opponents have been forced to admit the wisdom of. For you to say that he doesn't know what he's talking about is belied by the fact that he obviously did, and his recommendations have become policy.

Mushie in Pakistan was in bed with the Taliban and AQ. He protected them. There was no serious effort to root them out under his leadership. It's almost certain that Bhutto was assassinated b/c she opposed his policy of protecting them. Now that Mushie is gone, we are actually sending troops in to take care of business. It appears that you have no knowledge of the political situation in Pakistan whatsoever when you make claims like the ones you have in this thread, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Obama recommends troop increases for Afghanistan; McCain and Bush oppose them; now, we are going with Obama's plan and increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.

Obama recommends a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq; McCain and Bush oppose them; the Iraqis agree with Obama, and we now have a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Obama recommends going after high-value targets, even if they are in Pakistan; Bush and McCain oppose this; now, we are going after high-value targets in Pakistan.

Your overall point that Obama has been ahead of the curve, proposing strategies on Iraq/Afghanistan that he was attacked for only for Bush to adopt them later too is fine.

But your last point here is incorrect. When Obama was proposing going after high-value targets, even if they are in Pakistan, the Bush administration was already doing so. It was hardly some new idea Obama was pioneering.

That's what made the Republican campaign attacks on him for advocating it so ridiculous. The only argument they were left with was that sure, we are already doing exactly what you advocate, you're just not supposed to say it.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know