A Cut-and-Paste Foreign Policy
The discovery that John McCain’s remarks on Georgia were derived from Wikipedia, to put it politely, is disturbing and even depressing—but not surprising. Under the tutelage of the neoconservatives, who revealed their superficial understanding of Iraq both before and after the invasion, he favors bellicose grandstanding over strategic thinking. So why delve deeper than a quick Google search?
Worse still, neither he nor his advisers yet grasp how our misadventure in Mesopotamia has diminished American power and prestige. In fact, the Wikipedia episode—an awful embarrassment that would have devastated the presidential campaign of Barack Obama or any other Democrat—revealed an underlying weakness in Senator McCain’s vaunted grasp of foreign policy.
Still enthralled by an exhausted ideology, he seems unable to analyze how we can avoid manipulation by allies or adversaries while advancing our own real interests. Those interests include the cultivation of democracy but also the promotion of regional stability and international security. Pretending to confront Russia from a position of weakness doesn’t help.
Frankly, the Arizona Republican’s latest foray onto the world stage suggested that he is not quite ready for the responsibilities of the presidency. When he emphasized that Georgia was “one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion,” he sounded like a politician who will gladly damage our global influence merely for the sake of pandering to his partisan base.
Certainly the propagandists of Al Qaeda must have been pleased to hear an ally of President Bush confirm that the United States is engaged in a worldwide crusade, for that is how such words are interpreted by Muslims. (And since when does American policy prefer nations for adopting any “official religion,” Christian or otherwise?) This was rhetorical blundering worthy of the Bush White House.
Now, Senator McCain is not alone among politicians and pundits in exploiting the Georgian crisis to promote an exhausted ideology. Nor is he alone in ignoring the impact of Iraq on our ability to defend our allies by means of diplomacy or force. From the editorial page of The Washington Post to the Office of the Vice President, much sound and fury has emanated, signifying very little except a shared determination to ignore reality. When Dick Cheney threatens the Russians with “serious consequences,” what is he talking about? What would the Bush administration or its cheerleaders actually have done if the Russians had pushed on toward the Georgian capital?
Without any prejudice to the cause of Georgia’s sovereignty or its democratic aspirations, the true answer is not much, despite the illusions that our policy evidently encouraged among the Georgian leadership and people. Blustering aside, there was never the slightest chance that Europe or the United States would come to their assistance with military force against Russian troops. There are many reasons to avoid such a disaster, notably the enormous Russian nuclear arsenal, the European dependence on Russian energy supplies and the cataclysmic effect on the world economy.
Even if we contemplated the use of force, we scarcely have the capacity after squandering our power in Iraq. We can hardly bring effective diplomatic force to bear, either, beyond the tinny echo of White House blustering. The Russians must have laughed as they watched Georgian troops depart in haste from Iraq—and cackled when the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations accused them of seeking “regime change” in Tbilisi. Are we telling them they cannot just invade a country they dislike, without international sanction, because they feel threatened?
There can be no doubt that Vladimir Putin’s Russia poses a challenge to the West, and to the next administration. It can be argued that Russian ambitions must be checked now to discourage its bullying imperialism. It can also be argued that bringing the former Soviet republics into NATO only provokes the Russians into resisting encirclement by their cold war enemies, and that we must engage Russia to cope with existential threats like nuclear proliferation and Islamist extremism. What can no longer be sanely argued is that reflexive ideology and confrontational bluster will secure our future.
We desperately need a new foreign policy that combines idealism with realism. And a president who doesn’t lift his talking points from Wikipedia.
jconason@observer.com
Sorry Joe, Rasmussen just released a poll stating Americans would prefer, by 51/36, McCain to be in charge of such a crisis over Seantor Obama's "can't we all just get along?" style of diplomacy.
This is where real leadership counts. Unfortunately, Senator Obama has exhibited none in this matter. But, then again, he has exhibited no leadership in anything but making vapid speeches.
Except maybe calling for a marginal tax rate of 60% as we head into tough economic times. Oh yeah - that's always a winner.
Weak internationally and poor domestically - that's a winning combination.
Hey Bill08-- not one thing you said disputed one thing that Conason said. Nice try. As a Republican, of course, you have no idea how to construct a cogent argument. All you can do is bash people. This country is sick of your kind, and you'll be getting the boot in November. You know-- you can have a million opinions, but you, like me and Joe, only get one vote each.
Bill08 you are a moron. It's mindless sheep like you that got us into the mess we are in. Step aside, sit down and shut up. It's time for the adults to clean up the mess left behind at the childrens table.
Republican leaders for Obama...former Iowa Rep. Jim Leach, former White House intelligence adviser Rita Hauser and former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee endorsed Obama.
Obama’s GOP supporters’ criticisms of McCain are familiar ones — that he’d represent four more years of Bush-Cheney policies, particularly in foreign affairs. Hauser complained that McCain’s statement on Georgia was “bellicose” in threatening to kick Russia out of the Group of Eight industrialized nations, and that Obama’s statement was much more appropriately internationalist.
Any Dems switching over to McCain ...other than prune face joe.
We american have had enough of graduates 4th from the bottom..Its time to get sane back,we are going to try smart this time..
Listen! all your pot-smoking Liberals - if you really believe that this Obama guy can actually spell International Affairs - then you are just buried within the Liberal dust that has clouded this great nation for many years. Because of you and the Liberal policies of Washington, we are becoming a third rate nation.
Obama is definetly not ready to lead this country...it would be a deja' vu period of another Liberal idiot, Jimmy Carter who, by the way, is being fed millions $$$ by the Saudis and some of our enemies so that he can rebel about the present policies in Iraq.
I don't want a repeat of that ugly period in America...we need someone who will stand up and let our enemies know we mean business. So, get off your high horses and be sensible - you know damn well - in your heart - that Obama is not the guy to lead us in these troubled times...so, stop smoking that funny weed and do what's right for this Great Country.
Then I guess Joe is really upset that John Kennedy lifted his "Ask not what your country" speech almost verbatim from John Greenleaf Whittier, the mayor of Haverhill, Massachusetts.
Or is outraged that Robert Kennedy lifted his, "Most men look at things" speech directly from George Bernard Shaw.
Actually, I thought no attribution was needed. I thought they were great speeches. Guess I missed Joe's columns on those.
And please - I wasn't one of the Americans polled who favors Senator McCain's addressing of the Georgian invasion by a 51/36 margin. Go complain to them.
But before you do, please bring something to the table that Senator Obama has done other than being a community organizer and voting "present" thirty times on controversial legislation when he was an Illinois state senator.
Or wanting to raise the marginal income tax rate to 60%. Or wanting to increase capital gains taxes, knowing that every time they are raised, revenues go down and that every time they are lowered, revenues go up.
Or wanting to unilaterally surrender in Iraq.
As Gertrude Stein said about her old home in Oakland, "There is no there there." Ditto for Senator Obama. A total lightweight, devoid of any adult accomplishment. Or perhaps being a community organizer constitutes "accomplishment" to you?
Please.
You liberals must all be the product of a recent public education. Surely intellectual rigor is not your forte.
To all conservatives, pot-smoking or otherwise, how's about enough of this "show the world we mean business" tripe, OK?
Far from a WMD threat, we got into Iraq as the perfect opportunity to get tough and show the Middle East we meant business. Well, what a slow-bleed cluster that's become.
Few care, respect or even worry about the US anymore because the current administration has turned us into nothing more substantial than a nation of entitled, loud frat-boy drunks with bad attitudes, picking fights to prove ourselves.
The only thing we're going to prove to our enemies and friends alike is our short-sightedness and impotence, as China, Russia and India become the new powers with whom to work.
Wake up, conservative nitwits, and see how it works.
To MartinHullswitt:
FYI - we did not pick the fights, they did!
I lost a friend of mine at the World Trade Center - it still hurts, he had everything going for him - worked very hard in school and his community. He was highly elevated in his field at his yooung age and.... BOOOM! he died the worst death ever immagined. You want someone to lead us so that he can talk and get along with these murders? Carter tried...Clinton didn't try and guess what? They tried and killed over 3,000 innocent Americans in a matter of twenty minutes.
So now, you tell me, who picked the fight?
Bill08 , the majority of Americans also supported the Iraq war- that turned out AWESOME.
So Bill08, you and your fellow kool-aid drinkers think that the USA is becoming a third-world nation...well so do I. Just look at some of the characteristics of such nations...a weak government except for the military; a business environment with little regulation or oversight, as well as low taxes; environmental concerns given a backseat as long as there is money to be made; the perversion of justice by the ruling class, often done to promote the always amorphic "national security"; appeals to the citizenry's nationalism, while stoking their fears both real and imaginary, in order to promote the ruling classes' self interests. In short, most third-world countries represent, to paraphrase Jefferson, Government of the elites, for the elites, by the elites....gee, sounds and awful lot like the Republican party platform, doesn't it.
We most assuredly did pick the fight in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq has no WMDs. There was no real reason to go there. And while forces were committed there Bin Laden got away and heroin production is at a historic peak in Afghanistan. McCain's bellicosity shows him to be stuck in a Cold War/Vietnam mind set that will get us nowhere in the 21st century. Want four more years of the same? Vote Republican.
IDIOTS - WMDs were removed from Iraq way before the UN Inspectors went in...ask the Israeli Intelligence (which is the best in the world)...even the Clintons and many other Liberals like you agreed that there were WMDs in Iraq...I told you, "Stop smoking that funny weed!"
You know, perhaps I should ask if you were around during the Carter Administration...because if you weren't, well...you're in for the biggest ride in your life time if Obama wins....perhaps you did not witness the long lines at the gas stations, nor did you witness the financial/economic situation this country was in. If you did, well - then you really must be smoking some powerful stuff for wanting Obama running the country.
Bill08, you make it very clear that you do no believe that Senator Obama is qualified to be president or Commander in Chief, and that's fine because you have a right to your opinion and right to espouse it here in The United States (a very liberal idea by the way). However, you make no case as to why Senator McCain is any more qualified. Like Senator Obama, he has never been elected to an executive post and like Senator Obama he has never held a diplomatic position. So what makes him more qualified that Senator Obama to be president? Could it be Senator McCain's military career, the one that started out with his graduating four spots from the bottom of his graduating class? Yes, he survived being a POW for over five years but how does this qualify him to be president? Could it be his political instincts that led him to commit adultery, divorce his first wife, and then to marry into a very wealthy Republican family?
Please enlighten us as to Senator McCain's superior qualifications.
As for the the tax position you are so attached to, what is your source for this little piece of information? Surely not talk radio.
As for Iraq, news-flash...WE ALREADY WON THE WAR. It is the occupation we are in danger of losing because the current administration had absolutely no post war.
Let's see what the REPUBLICANS had to say about WMD's in Iraq:
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Oh, wait - those are all DEMOCRATS. Guess they were all lying, too. Never mind.
And can someone please tell me what Senator Obama has accomplished as an adult that qualifies him to be POTUS?
Other than vague generalizations and scatalogical attacks, does any liberal have any intellectual fortitude to answer any of my questions?
Nice cut and paste of Democratic quotes from right wing websites. In the 1990s the Dems supported sanctions which were working. In the 2000s they made the mistake of believing the doctored intelligence presented by the Bush administration.
And btw how does being shot down over North Vietnam and doing propaganda broadcasts for the North Vietnamese qualify McCain to be "POTUS"?
If every time marginal rates and capital gain taxes are lowered government revenues increase, why do we have record deficits that are getting even larger? When Bush 41 agreed to raise taxes before the '92 election, it was the beginning of an era which lead to surpluses at the end of the Clinton years.
Personally, I would have much preferred a candidate like Mitt Romney (Republican governor of a liberal state, successful businessman, creator of over 6,000 jobs, took a failed Olympic attempt and made it a roaring success, etc.)
But as long as we're looking at John McCain versus Barack Obama, let's see what Senator McCain has done:
Flew 23 bombing missions before being shot down and being held prisoner of war for over five years and being subject to unspeakable torture.
Awarded Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
After return from captivity, commanding officer of the Navy's largest squadron.
Elected to House in 1982, Senate in 1986.
Member of the Armed Services Committee
Long-time Chariman of Senate Commerice Committee.
Chamption of limited federal government spending. Wanted to eliminate the kind of earmarks and giveaways - especially to the oil companies - that Senator Obama voted for.
And let's just say, for argument's sake, that the cocaine snorting on Obama's part and the infedility on McCain's part kind of cancel each other out.
Now - what has Senator Obama done of note? Oh - that's right; the community organizer stint. Probably brought Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers along on a lot of them.
Do any of you liberals have any cogent arguments at all to make, or is complaining all that you do?
Oh well...I guess Bill08 has answered your liberal questions...Thanks Bill08, well said!
Do any of your liberals have any further complaint? If not, you can go back now with your tails behind your asses and between your legs and light up another one of you famous joint and keep on dreaming about your Obama...too bad Hillary lost the nomination, we could have had some real fun with her....Oh, wait - she may be nominated at your 'circus' convention in Denver...you know those Clintons, they'll stop at nothing.
Weak internationally and poor domestically - that's a winning combination.
Isn't that what we have now? Or would the republicans do a better job at continuing the current failed polices?
Cynthia,
"Weak internationally and poor domestically"?
Really? and what country are you living in?
Labels, name-calling, and us-vs.-them mentality is not going to get us to where we want to be. This country is in a mess. We are technically bankrupt. Both parties got us to this point, so I won't blame "Reaganomics" or "Market Fundamentalism". After all, it was under Clinton that we got saddled with NAFTA. We are not paying for our military commitments right now. We are robbing our children, grandchildren, and generations to come, to pay for this bloody stalemate in the Middle East. Now John McCain wants to "Bomb,bomb,bomb Iran" and take on Russia too? I think we had better give him a piss-test -- and he had best study real, real hard!
Regarding McCains medals I give you David Hackworth's evaluation: In an attempt to find out exactly what the man did to earn these many hero awards, I asked his Senate office three times to provide copies of the narratives for each medal. I'm still waiting.
I next went to the Pentagon. Within a week, I received a recap of his medals and many of the narratives that give the details of what he did.
None of the awards, less the DFC, were for heroism over the battlefield where he spent no more than 20 hours. Two Naval officers described the awards as "boilerplate" and "part of an SOP medal package given to repatriated (Vietnamera) POWs."
McCain's Silver Star narrative for the period 27 October 1967 the day after he was shot down to 8 December 1968 reads: "His captors… subjected him to extreme mental and physical cruelties in an attempt to obtain military information and false confessions for propaganda purposes. Through his resistance to those brutalities, he contributed significantly towards the eventual abandonment…" of such harsh treatment by the North Vietnamese.
Yet in McCain's own words just four days after being captured, he admits he violated the U.S. Code of Conduct by telling his captors "O.K, I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."
A Vietnam vet detractor says, "He received the nation's third highest award, the Silver Star, for treason. He provided aid and comfort to the enemy!"
The rest of his valor awards issued automatically every year while he was a POW read much like the Silver Star. More boilerplate often repeating the exact same words. An example: "By his heroic endeavors, exceptional skill, and devotion to duty, he reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Naval Service and the United States Armed Forces."
Yet McCain's conduct while a POW negates these glowing comments. The facts are that he signed a confession and declared himself a "black criminal who performed deeds of an air pirate." This statement and other interviews he gave to the Communist press press were used as propaganda to fan the flames of the antiwar movement.
Accounts by McCain and other writers tell of the horror he endured: relentlessly beatings, torture, broken limbs. All inflicted during savage interrogations. Yet no other POW was a witness to these accounts.
A former POW says "No man witnessed another man during interrogations… We relied on each other to tell the truth when a man was returned to his cell."
The U.S. Navy says two eyewitnesses are required for any award of heroism. But for the valor awards McCain received, there are no eyewitnesses, less himself and his captors. And they're not talking.
Hey Bill08:
You must be an O'Reilly regular as you are extremely fact-impaired. I always find it amazing how you wingnuts blame Democrats for everything that is wrong in the US when you are obviously so inept at governing-how's that title of "worst president ever" sitting with you? You like to trot out selected quotes from Democrats about WMD in Iraq yet you are silent about the forged letter trying to link Saddam with AlQueda. The problem wasn't the reaction to the intelligence-the "intelligence" itself was bogus and the administration knew it.
The naive bluster that is the McCain campaign does nothing to inspire confidence in his leadership, especially when he lifts whole passages from Wikipedia to try to explain it. US unilateralism is a failed foreign policy from a failed president. President Obama will engage our allies to achieve strategic ends, not just rattle a sabre and wave his dick in our enemy's face. McCain's combat experience 40 years ago is irrelevant to the debate about leadership and judgemnt. McCain has precious little of either. Obama, on the other hand is as clear-headed and even-tempered politician as I have seen in my lifetime. McCain on the nuclear button is a very scary thought. His performance yesterday merely proves the point that he is an intemperate hothead unworthy of the the presidency.
Your vitriol speaks volumes about the impending implosion coming upon you and your neocon ilk in November. I will be gleefully thinking about you on November 4 as I sip champagne to toast the Obama presidency.
Joe: another laughable hit piece by a mouthpiece for the DNC masquarading as a journalist. I do not know how you are able to write so many words while simultaneously being under bill clinton's desk, servicing him. Might you also give some time to the ridiculous position of Obama. Let's talk.......oh, yeah, both parties are at fault. Kinda like the holocaust was not just the fault of the Nazi's but also the fault of the jews.
Kevin: that forged letter crap has already been debunked by the people at CIA.
You liberals are really too easy. This is such a "target rich environment" that it is hard to know where to begin. Let's have some fun on just a few of them:
Bill From Austin - Please, please continue to argue that Senator McCain was not heroic and did not sustain severe, continuous, life-threatening torture in Vietnam. Please, please continue in that vein. Republicans will govern for a thousand years.
"If every time marginal rates and capital gain taxes are lowered government revenues increase, why do we have record deficits that are getting even larger?"
ANSWER - Could it possibly be that both Republicans and Democrats caused spending to greatly outstrip the
revenues?
Bill from Austin (not verified) says:
Nice cut and paste of Democratic quotes from right wing websites. In the 1990s the Dems supported sanctions which were working. In the 2000s they made the mistake of believing the doctored intelligence presented by the Bush administration.
ANSWER - And which of those quotes, again, are incorrect? And, so you're saying that dumb ol' George Bush outwitted the smartest people in the world? Remember, they had access to the same raw data as he did.
21stCenturyBoy (not verified) says:
So Bill08, you and your fellow kool-aid drinkers think that the USA is becoming a third-world nation...well so do I. Just look at some of the characteristics of such nations
ANSWER-Please give some type of reference as to which third-world nations display the same characteristics as the U.S. and, quantitatively, what those characteristics are. For instance, what are the tax rates of the countries of which you speak, vis a vis those of the United States? Or what is the air quality of those countries versus America's? Or what percentage of the GDP of those countries is for the military as compared to the percentage of GDP in America spent on the military. A little specificity, please.
You must be a college student.
KEVIN - You call a lot of names, but please be specific. What in Senator Obama's past leads you to believe he will be one kind of leader versus another? Is it all that community organizing work? We know he's for unilateral surrender in Iraq. We know he'll raise my taxes, which means I'll have to lay people off or raise prices. We know he doesn't want to drill for oil or increase our nuclear capacity. We know he will, without precondition, sit down with Iran, Venezuela, etc. And there are fifteen or twenty other issues on which he changes his mind on a daily basis, depending on which way the political winds are blowing.
And, by the way, I blame the Republicans for our current shape more than I do the Democrats. Republicans should have known better on the stewardship of this country since 1994. Democrats are expected to be weak-minded and weak-spined, but Republicans should have known better.
Liberals believe that government should be the solution of first resort; conservatives believe that, other than keeping us safe, government should be the solution of last resort.
Freedom.
Bill08 you're riot to read.
Can you please point to the speech or paper where Senator Obama actually states that he is for a "unilaterally surrender in Iraq". And by the way what the hell is a "unilaterally surrender"? It makes absolutely no sense, either one surrenders or doesn't.
NEWSFLASH-Our military has already won the war in Iraq, shortly after it started as a matter of fact. What has happened since then is that the current administration has done a bang up job of losing the occupation by not planning for it and doing a piss poor job of trying to come up with one. Costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars along the way.
As for your impressive list of quotes by Democrats on WMDs and Saddam Hussein, what are your sources; speeches, newspaper, interviews, etc.? As you said "A little specificity, please." Or did you just happen to be present when each of these quotes were uttered. It would really help to read them in context and see what else was said that you might not be quoting? And when one actually reads these quotes you quickly realize that many of them predate the war by several years (as many as five) and most are generally just stating what a bad person Saddam is and do not directly address the presence of WMDs. On top of that, are you absolutely sure that ALL of these people saw EXACTLY what the administration saw? Or did they see just what the administration wanted them to see. Even their most ardent supports admit that this administration has taken secretiveness to a whole new level.
Why doesn't anyone look at alan greenspan as the cause of our so called depression. He is the one that constantly lowered the interest rate to create the monsterous unrealistic housing bubble. If no one figured it out by now the construction industry directly runs our GDP due to its size and the many other industries that are tied to it as well. Not to mention the increase in the demand for gas all over the world that would have happened this term no matter who was president. And let's all face it. The only reason anyone in our country cares about alternative sources of clean energy is because the price of gas is affecting there pocket book. If it was still one dollar a gallon energy debate would be no where near the top of the list for this election. So this creates a necessary catch 22 senario that actually does get us moving in the right direction off our foreign dependency on energy resources. Like many times of economic struggle during our history this may have been a blessing in disquise to show us the true areas of infrastructure we need to improve in that have left our prioritity plate for a long time.
Go nuclear. Go variety of sources. Go McCain. The only real choice in this election.
Gee, what an irony. The article debunks McCain's alleged experience. McCain the swindler who copies articles from Wikipedia for his speeches.
And what do the hate-filled right wing lemmings do to refute this article? Well, they just repeat the nonsense of radical right wing pundits hammered by them into their empty heads.
But they dare to call Obama unexperienced and clueless. How funny is that.
Yep, the right wing hate-machine is on but it is an old-fashioned gas guzzler that won't make to the end due to lack of gas.