missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
Leo (not verified) says:
Byron, are you serious? You are tired about hearing someone remind the public that there is a choice between a candidate who repeatedly exercised sound judgment on matters of foreign policy versus one who routinely showed poor judgment? It isn't just THAT he got it right and she got it wrong (though that ought to be worth a lot to someone worried about the future), it is HOW he got it right, and HOW she got it wrong.
Obama had ambitions for national office and was about to embark on a statewide campaign, but refused to bow to pressure and voiced opposition to a war that even you say was supported by 4 of 5 people. Then, he explained WHY he opposed it, saying what removing Sadddam would mean in terms of Iraqi and regional stability and the long term distraction this would be from the fight in Afghanistan.
Contrast that to Hillary, who decided that she knew enough about the subject to reject the suggestion by the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committe to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (a man who based his own opposition to the war on the information in that NIE).
She voted to send troops into a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 without reading the intelligence report. Do you get that? That's called gross negligence, and in a corporate environment it would be grounds for termination; not a promotion....
It isn't about the past (though her past actions disqualify her in my mind), it is about how these people are likely to act in the future. EVERYTHING about Hillary's past would lead this voter to conclude that she will exercise the same poor judgment on foreign policy going forward as she has in the past. Her embrace of Bush's Iran resolution and Bush's stance towards talking to "enemies" is all the more reason to think she would not represent change on foreign policy matters.
Use your head, dude, it isn't just about the past....
Byron, are you serious? You are tired about hearing someone remind the public that there is a choice between a candidate who repeatedly exercised sound judgment on matters of foreign policy versus one who routinely showed poor judgment? It isn't just THAT he got it right and she got it wrong (though that ought to be worth a lot to someone worried about the future), it is HOW he got it right, and HOW she got it wrong.
Obama had ambitions for national office and was about to embark on a statewide campaign, but refused to bow to pressure and voiced opposition to a war that even you say was supported by 4 of 5 people. Then, he explained WHY he opposed it, saying what removing Sadddam would mean in terms of Iraqi and regional stability and the long term distraction this would be from the fight in Afghanistan.
Contrast that to Hillary, who decided that she knew enough about the subject to reject the suggestion by the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committe to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (a man who based his own opposition to the war on the information in that NIE).
She voted to send troops into a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 without reading the intelligence report. Do you get that? That's called gross negligence, and in a corporate environment it would be grounds for termination; not a promotion....
It isn't about the past (though her past actions disqualify her in my mind), it is about how these people are likely to act in the future. EVERYTHING about Hillary's past would lead this voter to conclude that she will exercise the same poor judgment on foreign policy going forward as she has in the past. Her embrace of Bush's Iran resolution and Bush's stance towards talking to "enemies" is all the more reason to think she would not represent change on foreign policy matters.
Use your head, dude, it isn't just about the past....