Isn't It Romantic?

BEN wrote:

I believe if Obama were to become president that terrorists would see that the country had become weak and continually attack us.
----------------------------------
Ummmm, terrorists attacked when we had tough man Cheney at the wheel. They tried/failed a 9-11 during the Clinton administration (remember the garage bomb of the World Trade Ctr. which was supposed to bring down the towers).

Attacking has nothing to do with weakness it has to do with POLICY! FOREIGN RELATIONS! CRAZY RELIGION! Geez, go to school and learn something.

Oh, and I supported Hillary.

Looks like they are riding close herds on these blogs to try to engineer a switch, to shake off the Hillary/Obama fight that continues. Makes no difference to me, the fight is still on. These current two candidates are a joke, whether you condemn the war or not.
=======================================
Hillary/Your Choice 2008 Write-In
========================================

Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | Jun 9, 2008 10:22:48 PM

_______________________________________
I have noticed that too. So West coast we will be in our ballot box in Nov marking it with GO McCain! I can wait. meanwhile the hell with the blah, blah,blah!

What a moron!!! And this is from the guy that NEVER served on the front lines. He suddenly disappeared whe it was time to go to Vietnam. What to hell does he know about sacrificing the lives of friends, and living off c rations in a hole somewhere. He is a real joke...

Dose anyone here remember 9-11? It was so frightening and unexpected. I believe if Obama were to become president that terrorists would see that the country had become weak and continually attack us. Although I have been a democrat my entire life, I cannot vote for someone who had only served in the senate for 100 and some odd days before running for president.

We need a true leader for this great nation. ANYONE BUT OBAMA!

I love this country. Where else can we as common citizens call a politician a moron and not get shot?
Where else can citizens be dumb enough to elect a moron, then turn around 4 years later and do it again? (they also retain the right to vote in the future) Where else can a candidate vow to be against abortion yet be a poster child for forced sterilization, all in the same breath.

It only happens in America, folks.

Only a fool or a fraud embraces the lies and war crimes of another fool and fraud.

oops just figuring out the page...

Bush has said man impertinent things in his two terms, but this stood up there: comparing war with a sporting event. Ne can ONLY be envious.

Neal

seashell eyes

i was on the protest lines pre invasion we were getting spit on and called traitors. at that time somewhere in the range of 18% of Americans were against the war. so that means that the large majority of the posters on these sites favored the war at the time of the invasion or were playing it safe. it is easy to criticize after the fact. where were you guys when we were going toe to toe getting spit on and having to hold our protest signs like shields to avoid incoming debris, spit, rocks, insults and urine. now everyone is a critic?

Yes, Senator McCain has more military and foreign policy experience than Senator Obama. But, so did Rumsfeld and Cheney. Yes, McCain differed with his fellow Republicans on the strategy of employing the military in Iraq, but that makes a fundamental assumption that Senator Obama and his followers rejects. The assumption that military force was necessary in Iraq in the first place and military force will give us the solution to the problems we now face in Iraq. As a military retiree, I had this rejection from the beginning and am surprised so few other recognized the same thing.

I was taught the military force was the LAST option. Diplomacy should always be used to its fullest extent first. Even with all the supposed evidence for the need to go to war, I felt it was unnecessarily rushed. But then, I saw the signs in the first month of 2001, when the new administration made it obvious they had no use for any diplomacy.

Almost all diplomatic efforts from the previous administration were summarily stopped. Colin Powell should have know he was going to be marginalized when he was made Sec. of State because hard line conservatives made it well known for many years they had complete disdain for the State Department and the idea of diplomacy all together. Powell was practically setup as a scapegoat.

Has no one else noticed that this administration seemed to start to show diplomatic interests only during its lame duck years.

The administration immediately rejected the Baker diplomatic initiative. They had the belief that military force was the solution to the problems in Iraq.

Senator McCain has foreign policy experience but it seems to be funneled to military options. The purpose of the Surge was not just the reduction of violence in Iraq, but it was supposed to provide the Iraqi leaders a space to start proceeding with the political changes they promised. Sen. McCain seems to want to downplay that fact.

There is debate about the causes and possible outcome of the political changes in Iraq. Many admit that the changes are not driven by the so called leaders but are occurring from the ground up and would have eventually happen anyway. Unlike what we were told by the fear mongers, there was almost no likelihood that Al Quaeda would be established in Iraq. After Israel and the USA, Al Queada was a sworn enemy of Shiites and secular Sunnis. The tribal Sunnis had started to turn on them and their fundamentalist demands even before the Surge started.

The present and future of Iraq seems to be a partitioned state whose partitioning started before the Surge and seems to be progressing at pace. Our military presence there doesn't seem to be turning that around.

So what would an Obama presidency change? Well, he took a lot of heat for saying that he is open to talking to all foreign leaders, even those we don't like. That sounds like diplomacy to me and that is something McCain strongly criticized him for. There is also evidence that our foreign allies would give more consideration to working with and supporting Obama because they would trust he wouldn't draw them into another needless conflict as was done with our current administration.

I don't believe we should be putting all our eggs in the Maliki government. There is evidence that it is highly corrupt, they are playing us for fools, and are bleeding us for aid money while pocketing much of it and their oil revenue. They are also playing Iran against us. We should be having our on talks with Iran ..., and Syria, and Saudi Arabia about our interests in shaping the outcome in Iraq.

We armed to Sunni militias and in a few years they may revolt against the fact that the Shiites are keeping all the wealth. Then we have a full blown Sunni, Shiite war proxied by those surrounding countries. That situation would be much worse that what we have now.

So the Obama/McCain choice is not just about who has the most foreign policy experience. It's philosophical choice about how to address present and future international problems. McCain sides with the current administration in the belief that military force is the solution to many problems. Even if that were true, we no longer have the forces to do much else. Obama believes much more should have, and could be done diplomatically.

anybody that actually believes that obama is going to end the war is foolish. he may as he has said many times focus more on Afghanistan and other hot zones. additionally as of late obama has been 'changing his 'diplomacy' tune on iran as well much to Israel's delight. we did not build the largest, most expensive embassy in the world just to turn around and abandon it. we are invested in the middle east and will likely have a presence their for decades to come and it matters little who we elect in november. so if you are making your voting selection based on who will end the war and you vote for obama you will be very, very, dissappointed.

re: the articles of impeachment postings. much of the gwb economic, and policy failures can be attributed the democratic senate and congress majority who voted in lock step with the pres. remember it was our own pelosi who 'took impeachment off the table' to begin with. they fooled me once, i really believed that a demo house/senate/pelosi would turn things around as they promised. so now that gwb's inevitable demise is in its final act, now the democrats become embolden to summon the articles of impeachment. great, another staged distraction to veer us off the real issues.

Who cares about impeachment. The House Speaker in Obama's state of Illinois is trying to do the same thing with the Governor-instead of doing his job. Move on, it's over. Totally agree with A 10:26:04pm.

I miss Hillary....the centrist alternative....join the write in revolution and shake them up!

JAKE,

WHERE ARE YOU GUYS ON THIS?

right now talking about how the rep. stole the 2004 election

RIGHT NOW! C-SPAN IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES.
KUCINICH READS 35 POINST OF LAW FOR BUSHES IMPEACHMENT. WHERE IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWS NOW?

jpt,

watching the 35 articles of impeachement of bush on cpan live now.

pray, pray, pray it happens.

Has McCain actually defined what he would be consider a success in Iraq such that we could withdraw? I have not heard it because I think that he was giving 'straight-talk' when he said we would be there a long time. That is a disastrous idea.

Most soldiers don't like war. They fight because they have no choice. Mr. McCain knows about war. It's unlikely he would let it continue longer than necessary. Mr. Obama is a lawyer. He is probably a very good lawyer. In matters involving legal issues he would be a good choice. In matters involving combat, Mr. McCain would probably be a better choice. Neither seems to know much about the economy. A failing common to the wealthy.