It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

page: 29
12
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   
With the lessons of Vietnam still in our national memory, I'm still amazed that REpublican strategists can stomach this move. They have to know how damning this will be at the polls in November. Is this cowardice? Or, is it elitist aloofness?




posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Is this cowardice?


The only cowardice was that to few people spoke out against bad policy and the ones that did were labelled anti American and/or traitors .



Or, is it elitist aloofness?


That all depends on who you class as an elitist. If you class Bush advisor's who were a part of the New Project for the American 21st Century as being a part of the elite then elitist cooked up the war to begin with. It has been discussed many time how the US corporate elite has profited while the rest of Iraq went to hell in a hand basket.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


With the lessons of Vietnam still in our national memory, I'm still amazed that Republican strategists can stomach this move [halting withdrawals]. They have to know how damning this will be at the polls . .


Vietnam. I watched the Chicago Police Grant Park Riot on tv in 1968. We who saw it feared (and correctly so) that Mayor Richard Daley the First had just given the November election to Richard Nixon. Nixon polled 31.7 million votes to Humphrey’s 31.2 million. Alabama’s governor George Wallace polled 9 million votes. I believe it can be argued reasonably that but for the Chicago Grant Park Riot, the Dems would have won.

Richard Nixon campaigned on a promise that “he had a plan” for the Vietnam War. He allowed the pundits to infer from that, that he, Nixon, meant to END the war. I am convinced that was the understanding of the public when it voted for Nixon who was otherwise not a well liked politician. He polled 43.4% to HHH’s 42.7% and GW’s 13.5%.

For me, the irony of 1968 was the candidate who promised to end the war meant to continue it and the candidate (Humphrey) who looked to continue the war would have ended it.

Nixon won of course, but in the campaign he had fallen under the spell of that evil half-Nazi Henry “the K” Kissinger. No Michaevelli he, but more like an Ivan the Terrible. In an interview broadcast a few years back, Kissinger admitted neither he nor Nixon had a plan to end the war. They had played the GRAND DECEPTION on the American people! Which would bring me to Bush43 and 2008 but for the following I want to add.

Above all else Humphrey was loyal to the man who made him his vice president. LBJ. Until he was his own man - elected president - he would not criticize or reject policies he had at least consented to by his silence. That sense of loyalty cost him the election. I am satisfied based on his personality and his humane reputation, that HHH would have ended the Vietnam War in 1969. Which is what the voters authorized Nixon to do.

Instead for reasons that confound logic, Nixon persisted for 6 more years in a LOST CAUSE, incurring 22,000 KIA on our side and inflicting a half million KIA on the other side. Thanks to the “wisdom” of Henry the K and the duplicity of RMN.

The Bush43 SURGE was meant to get Bush43 past the high risk exposure he had should Congress have been able to call him to task in 2007. The public - and many in Congress - were willing to give Bush43 a bye and allow time to see if this LAST STRAW would work were all else had failed. Coincidentally the level of violence - not violence but we are now so jaded that we talk favorably of the LEVEL of violence - Sweet Jesus - was reduced which allowed Bush43 to boast of his SUCCESS! Well, now that the Brits have left Basra to the Militias and PM Maliki got a shot of testosterone instead of the steroids we had ordered, and he blew it wide open! We are back to square one.

L E G A C Y!
But Bush43 is the winner! He does not give a rat’s *** about anything now but handing over the MESS to his successor next year. If it ends well, Bush43 will say “I told you so!” If it ends badly, Bush43 will say, “I was right all along!” The bigger the mess and the worsening condition of our own armed forces, he cares not a whit! He sees himself as falling into a bucket of **** and coming out smelling like a rose! No stranger to death, him of 154 death warrants. A record unequaled in the Western World! Hallelujah! Thine the Glory! Say Amen.

[edit on 4/12/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
In recent days, Senator Barack Obama made disparaging remarks about small town voters. He did so in a closed door fundraiser attended by middle class donors. Somebody with a cell phone recorded his words.

He said:


“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”


My Source

In recent weeks, the Senator from Illinois has been making quite a few rookie mistakes. This would be another one of them. We all know and understand that people of education and money do have an elitist bias. It's considered bad form in American culture to openly air that bias.

This mistake on Obama's part isn't a campaign killer--for a Democrat--but it does serve as an ideal example of the kind of bias I'm talking about.

If a Republican had made that statement, he/she would most certainly feel it in the form of blowback from the media, and in reduced campaign contributions. If a conservative made that gaff just before a primary, they'd have their advisors telling them to expect a five point hit. They might even lose a State.

In many respects, Obama's remarks reflect the opinions of most well to do Democrats. Interestingly enough, this is just the kind of mistake that Hillary Clinton has been waiting for. It's an "error in judgement" that both she and Senator McCain can both attack with, at the same time.

You should expect this sound bite to be paired up with Obama's remarks which relate to punishing his daughters with unwanted pregnancies.

Obama is new to politics on the national scene, and these poor word choices do underscore that fact. With less than two weeks to go before the primaries heat up again, he can't afford another slip of the tongue.

Let's be clear on just one thing. Obama's boo-boos relate to social issues, which the average voter is VERY sensitive to. It's one thing for McCain to mischaracterize Al Qaeda. It's another thing for Mrs. Clinton to "mis-remember sniper fire," but...if either of these candidates had touched a social nerve in such a clumsy way...this would be a different election.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
There is a discussion concerning Obama comments about small town Pennsylvania here . I am now convinced that Obama and John Key must be some how related because Key made a gaffle concerning National stance on asset sales . Rather then say National is against asset sales he said that National wouldn't sell an assets in its first term . Aside from the policy U turn the door has been left open for Labour to exploit the unpopularity of the sale of assets to foreign ownership.

Unusually the same question applies both in NZ and the US .
Will peoples desire for change override any concerns they have with what is seen as slip ups ?

[edit on 13-4-2008 by xpert11]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I really hope Hillary Clinton goes in.

Not much to add, I mean why would I even start to get into the anology of the whole race of the lot.

Just my gut instincts that she'd run the country better, clearly. She just seems to knows whats to be done, and does it motto.

Obama I feel just does not have the experience that Hillary has.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by mind is the universe]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mind is the universe
 


I hope Hillary Clinton goes in. Not much to add . . Just my gut instincts that she'd run the country better. She just seems to knows what’s to be done, and does it motto. Obama I feel just does not have the experience that Hillary has.


A good turn of words! “ . . and does it motto.” I had not seen the word used that way before. The dictionary says “Motto: a short sentence encapsulating an ideal.” To get it done pronto! Succinct! That’s Hillary’s experience against the charisma of Obama. I started being FOR Hillary in 2000.

She has not disappointed me. Oh, I do not approve of the Iraq War vote but Congress was between a rock and a hard place. Americans love a good war. A good war is one we are winning. Americans hate a bad war. A bad war is one we are losing. It is NOT war that we are against, it is LOSING a war that we oppose. Win IN, lose OUT.

However, Obama has more. He showed presidential capacity in his March 18 speech explaining his connection to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. A great speech! Obama offers a genuine once in a lifetime chance to UNITE much of America. To finally put the albatross of RACE off our necks. He has the VISION of HOPE; he is the AGENT of CHANGE I think we need in '08. I have therefore changed to a PRO Obama person. I still love Hillary.

[edit on 4/14/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I have notd with some interest over the last 72 hours that Senator Clinton has successfully tagged Obama with an elitist label. Yesterday, she was doing shots nad beers in a blue collar bar. That was a very interesting event. Here experience in Arkansas showed. Notice that she knew how to handle the glasses? If she can just keep Bill muzzled, she may get some real traction out of Pennsylvania.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


I have noted with some interest over the last 72 hours that Senator Clinton has successfully tagged Obama with an elitist label. Yesterday, she was doing shots and beers in a blue collar bar. That was a very interesting event. Her experience in Arkansas showed. Notice that she knew how to handle the glasses? If she can just keep Bill muzzled, she may get some real traction out of Pennsylvania.


I missed the “99 bottles of beer on the wall” episode. I hope they re-run it like they do any other faux pas. Infinitely. CNN trying to out-FOX FOX. Who was that SC Congressman who said "Money talks, B******* walks?"

Look, Hillary began her slide in the debate where she endorsed the NY driver’s license for illegals. She came back in NH with some tears. Obama has had his miscues, too. Michelle told the truth and he suffered. Then he was socked with Rev. Wright’s very strident sermons! White’s don’t like it when blacks talk among themselves and say bad things about bad whites. Of which there have always been more than enough to go around. As I wrote on another thread, such sermons are therapeutic for oppressed blacks. Hmm? Redundant? Are there any blacks that are NOT oppressed?

Obama came back in SPADES but that may be not PC? In any case it was refreshing to hear a potential president who can use a sentence longer the 5-6 words. Bush43 reminds me of nothing so much as a broken Gatling gun. “As you think, so you speak, as you speak so you think!” (I claim authorship of that one).

Yes, as smart as Bill is - and if he can make $50 m in 7 years - that’s $7 m a year - he’s got to be smart! Let’s say Bill makes 15 speeches a year. That’s a cool half mil a speech! Sweet Jesus! He’s not speaking in Watts is he? But we knew he was politically smart. But he has made 2 errors I would not have guessed he would make. I'll betcha Hillary read him the riot act on that last one. About getting OLD and losing her memory about Bosnia and the snipers.
Sweet Jesus! Come quick.

[edit on 4/15/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I don't think Pennsylvania will be decisive unless Senator Clinton LOSES. If she wins by double digits, as projected, she'll feel obliged to go on. In purest political terms, that would be the smart thing for her to do. Remember that she's trying to win a battle of perception. All she wants to do is sew just enough seeds of doubt to sway the super delegates.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Hillary goal will be to build up a healthy lead before the convention so she can convince the Superdelegates that public support is with her . IMO this is Hillary best chance at victory . Here is a thought .

Is it possible that Hillary knows that Obama has enough of the Superdelegates on his side to win the nomination but the dems are still running the race to keep the Republicans off balance ?



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

posted by Justin Oldham
I don't think Pennsylvania will be decisive unless Senator Clinton LOSES. If she wins by double digits, as projected, she'll feel obliged to go on. In purest political terms, that would be the smart thing for her to do. All she wants to do is sew just enough seeds of doubt to sway the super delegates.


This reply is posted on Wednesday, just 5 days BEFORE the PA primary vote. As a Dem I’m hoping the PA turnout will be another one of those overwhelming spellbinding hoopla turnouts the Dems enjoyed so often this year until the Great Hiatus before PA! And you must admit, MOST if not ALL of that grass-roots enthusiasm was due to the OBAMA boost!

reply to post by xpert11
 


Is it possible that Hillary knows that Obama has enough of the Superdelegates on his side to win the nomination but the Dems are still running the race to keep the Republicans off balance?


Yes! Absolutely. It would make sense. This approach guarantees all the MSN and FOX and CNN now FOX Jr, 24/7 coverage. $50 million worth of FREE air time if the Dems can play their cards just - r i g h t! Sunday talk show interviews. And etc and etc. Just look at McCain. He can hardly fill a Greyhound bus when he calls a press conference. He is totally predicable, and has not much to offer in the way of a headline. His self-aggrandizing bio tour flopped. He's riding a dead horse in Iraq. He admits he is an economic novice. Is McCain truly a THROWAWAY candidate?

I predict the Dem superdelegates will declare themselves a long time PRIOR to the August 25-28 Convention in Denver. There is TOO much DOWN-TIME between the last primary on June 3 and the convention. TOO much. 27 days in June, 31 days in July, and 24 days in August. 82 days! No way!

[edit on 4/16/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
It is possible that Hillary is looking to do out on a high note. If she wins big in Pennsylvania, she could leave the race with some pomp and grace. It would be uncharactersitic of her, but she could do it. Edwards was applauded for his poised exit from the race, and his reputation is still (generally) preserved.

I will disagree on the idea of a McCain flop. In all quarters, he's exceded expectations. I think it really makes his detractors mad that his star continues to rise. Bear in mind that he's a moderate running at a time when the old guard runs the party. The Old Guys hate to see him moving forward, building coalitions.

Let's be clear on one thing. McCain is making the best of a bad situation. As time passes, a lot of Republicans are starting to realize that. He's their candidate, whether they like him or not. The Dems may go through a similar phase, depending on who gets their party's nomination.

Lastly, let's not forget that Obama's short resume will be stacked up against McCain's long resume. Say what you will about the timber of their character, the fact remains that both men will be judged on this criteria. Obama is riding the young vote to the convention, but when the old folks turn out at the general election...



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


I will disagree on the idea of a McCain flop. In all quarters, he has exceeded expectations. I think it makes his detractors mad that his star continues to rise. McCain is making the best of a bad situation. As time passes, a lot of Republicans are starting to realize that. He's their candidate, whether they like him or not.


I’m no fan of John McCain. But everyone here knows that. I am more distressed by the public’s weird notion that serving in the Armed Forces somehow qualifies a person to be president. That by wearing the uniform he or she has a BETTER knowledge and BETTER understanding of both foreign affairs and the use of our military. What a misconception of the military service. How can you reach a good decision based on false premises?

The best performance in both spheres by any president in living memory was surely Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And unless you credit his stint as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, FDR was no soldier turned president. More recent presidents beginning with Reagan - who sometimes thought he had been in the service - was more inept that apt unless you think Granada and Nicaragua were heroic battles!

Only Bush41 can lay claim to enviable military accomplishments as president. But I assert flying a General Motors assembled TBM Avenger bomber off a carrier which he managed to get shot down while losing 2 of his crew, is not training useful in any positive way. After his legally dubious escapade in Panama - costing 100s of lives - he came off with the genuine coalition in America’s First Punitive Expedition to Iraq. We are still holding General Noriega in a basement cell in Miami. And Daniel Ortega is finally serving as the elected president of Nicaragua.

I don’t like this. McCain's grandfather and father were the first pair of father/son four-Star admirals in the United States Navy. McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958. He was a pilot in the Vietnam War. He was shot down by a missile over Vietnam in 1967. He was then a Navy Lieutenant Commander, the equal of an AF Major, pay grade O4. In 9 years, he had been first an Ensign. Then a Lt. Junior Grade. Then a full Lieutenant. Then Lieutenant Commander. A field grade officer in the ground forces. He was definitively on the FAST track. He retired from the Navy in 1981 and was elected to Congress in 1982. The Navy more than any other branch is becoming if it has not already, a family owned business. Nepotism reigns in the USN!

McCain has never had a regular job in his life. From the time he entered Annapolis at age 18 John McCain has had but ONE employer, the United States Government. He has never bought health insurance. Until 1981 he had a tax free housing allowance. Until 1981 he received a tax free “rations” allowance, i.e., a food subsidy. Until 1981 he got extra money for being married and having a child.

His father receives at least $140,000 a year in pension from the US Government. McCain himself will get at least $60,000 a year for his Navy service and perhaps $140,000 for his Congressional service. Double dipping. Plus numerous other benefits. He may have received a disability award based on his POW time. If he did, let’s say 50%, then that amount of his retirement pay from the Navy is TAX FREE. In addition that award would carry about $1,200 a month tax free payment. It ain’t all that bad!

One whole busy lifetime and never held a real job! No wonder he is weak on economics.

[edit on 4/16/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


I am in total agreement when you say military service does not carry the weight some think it does.

One has to consider what exactly that person has gotten out of that military service. I'd say the overwhelming majority of military veterans who left the service got job skills, management skills, and technocratic skills, but very little of them seem to get the education and wisdom required to be a president.

If you look at what most officers study while at the military academy or at a civilian university, the vast majority of them study business/management and engineering, and some sciences. While their service definitely meant something to them, for most, it was just part of a journey that led to bigger and better things (engineers for defense contractors, heads of major corporations, etc.). Very few officers in the U.S. military really stuck to the service and profession in any way, be it in the civilian or military world. Those who do remain in the military either have no advanced degree, or hold them in business and engineering. There is a dire lack of military people who hold degrees in the liberal arts and social sciences which, in the long run, have far more relevance to military service than business and engineering.

Veterans may point to their military service as a merit, but very few of them really got anything truly powerful out of it.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
*Justin drags out his soap box*

With all due respect, I must disagree. Military service, especialy at high rank, exposes the individual to a wide variety of problems nad solutions that the rest of us never see or hear about.

The American soldiery has traditionally been ultra-loyalist and a-political. That's "non-partisan" to you and me, which is an open minded point of view that would serve any politician well in any country.

As a major power, we have a major military. The people who wield that authority and force have an obligation to the nation that no politician can understand or respect, unless they've worn the uniform. Veterans tend to be much more cautious than civilians when it comes to the application of force. It's not just a political option to them. It's a last resort, which is what it should always be.

Enlisted personnel learn to be team players, and to serve something bigger than themselves. That's the very essence of public service. A core value that most of our politicians lack. Privates and Generals alike have more just a civic point of view in mind. They have experience being civic that most of us civilians never achieve.

People who have actualy served in Iraq--for example--are better qualified to speak to that situation than those of us who have never been there. that's a worldliness that we should welcome in our elected leaders. Those who have left blood and body parts on the battlefield will be less enclined to start new wars, which can only be a saving grace for any society.

John Kerry was disingenous. He was contemptuous of his own military service, and he wasn't above lying about his experiences. He was haughty and full of himself in a way that shamed those who spent time in the field with him. That indictment of his character was an important warning to the rest of us.

I can go on, but I think you get my point.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo
 


If you look at what most officers study while at the military academy or at a civilian university, the vast majority of them study business/management and engineering, and some sciences. While their service definitely meant something to them, for most, it was just part of a journey that led to bigger and better things (engineers for defense contractors, heads of major corporations, etc.). Very few officers in the U.S. military really stuck to the service and profession in any way, be it in the civilian or military world. Veterans may point to their military service as a merit, but very few of them really got anything truly powerful out of it.


Agreed in spades! Of recent vintage only Colin Powell can point to his military service as remotely preparatory for occupying the presidency. But Bush43 killed any chance he might have had for that in February, 2003.

(1) George Washington, truly a Renaissance Man.
(7) Andrew Jackson
(9) William Henry Harrison (served one month)
(12) Zachary Taylor
(18) Ulysses S. Grant
(19) Rutherford B. Hayes
(20) James A. Garfield
(22) Grover Cleveland
(23) Benjamin Harrison
(25) William McKinley
(26) Theodore Roosevelt
(33) Harry Truman
(34) Dwight Eisenhower
(35) John F. Kennedy
(36) Lyndon B. Johnson
(37) Richard M. Nixon
(39) Jimmy Carter
(41) George H. W. Bush
(43) George W. Bush

Only numbers 1, 7, 18 and 34 can claim anything they did while in the military service was of any help in running a country.

I have 2 years in the Army National Guard. I have 5 years in the active duty US Air Force and 3 years in the unorganized Reserve. I sustained a bodily injury while in service resulting in a disability award. I am in receipt of a monthly stipend for that. I believe I am as well qualified as anyone to comment on whether the military or naval services are helpful in being our president. The answer is NO.

Over my lifetime I have come to see Americans love a good war. A good war is one we are winning. A bad war is one we are losing. Winning IN, losing OUT. We don’t give a dam about the ethics or morality of any particular war. It’s all about winning.

How many Americans know we had 15,000 soldiers fighting in Russia in 1919-1921? We tried hard to unseat the new Communist government. We were joined by Great Britain and Japan. The Reds won as we all know. As usual, we were backing the White Russians - the nobility and clergy along with the capitalists. Shades of China’s Chiang Kai-Shek and South Vietnam!
www.militaryphotos.net...

How many Americans know (or care) that we fought a war against Muslim Filipinos in 1899-1902, losing 4,000 US soldiers KIA before we quit. That war is still on-going and we have soldiers there today. It’s confined to the big island of Mindanao. Or know that we occupied Haiti from 1918 until 1933? And it is still the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere! And etc.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 4/17/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


With all due respect, I must disagree. Military service, especially at high rank, exposes the individual to a wide variety of problems and solutions that the rest of us never see or hear about. The American soldiery has traditionally been ultra-loyalist and a-political. That's "non-partisan" to you and me, which is an open minded point of view that would serve any politician well in any country.


Up to this point Mr J/O, and as a general overlay of your thesis, I have no particular quarrel. Your qualifier - “especially at high rank” - provides all the wiggle room anyone would need.


As a major power, we have a major military. The people who wield that authority and force have an obligation to the nation that no politician can understand or respect, unless they've worn the uniform.


Here we part company. I’ve caught you off guard I know and I apologize for that. Like most of us, some are born to one trade or another. Or if you’re white collar, to one profession or another. Some are watchmakers, some are bulldozer drivers. I offer that any successful politician was mostly born that way. Outgoing. Gregarious. Quick witted. Success at politics requires a number of character traits, some more honorable than others. I would offer than ANY good politician both understands and respects the Armed Forces of the United States. AFUS in old-speak abbreviations. As contrasted with USAF for the Air Force. Digging latrines is not a requisite.


Veterans tend to be much more cautious than civilians when it comes to the application of force. It's not just a political option to them. It's a last resort, which is what it should always be.


This is more wishful thinking than any proposition that could be proven. But, I accept that the word - “tend” - is sufficiently imprecise and therefore, neigh on to impossible to quantify. I’ll give this a C-.


Enlisted personnel learn to be team players, and to serve something bigger than themselves. That's the very essence of public service. A core value that most of our politicians lack.


While I can agree with Sentence 1, but it also applies equally to junior officers. I cannot grant it’s a “core value most of our politicians LACK.” My emphasis. Anyone who misbehaves after arriving at the pinnacle of success could not have practiced that same bad habit on his way up the ladder. Almost all those we label “politicians” are successful in their sphere. Those who are not successful we are no longer aware of. A self-curing problem.


Privates and Generals alike have more just a civic point of view in mind. They have experience being civic that most of us civilians never achieve.


Wishful thinking. No need to idolize military service. They put their pants on just like any civilian, one leg at a time.

In fact the military mind set has one FRIGHTENING aspect. I call it the Nuremberg Syndrome. We heard it at Mi Lai. “I was just following orders.” Machine gunning women, children and old men already laying in a ditch. Following orders. We did that same atrocity in the Philippine Insurrection I mentioned in my prior post. It - cold blooded murder - is a HAZARD of war. On all sides.

Solders are taught to follow ALL orders from a superior NCO or officer quickly if not instantly. Added later, all "Lawful" orders. War won’t work unless generals can depend on that. Unfortunately, all too many times young men, scared of death, angry at atrocities committed on their fellows, take revenge on whatever target is handy. We mostly overlook those incidents but there have been several such cases in Iraq. And that war is not yet over.


People who have actually served in Iraq--for example--are better qualified to speak to that situation than those of us who have never been there. I can go on, but I think you get my point.


Yes. I get the point.

But "service on the ground" in Iraq makes NO one “better qualified” to speak to that SITUATION. I'd go so far as to say it may make them LESS qualified. They may not see the big picture. I think if you’d re-think the impact of that POV you might see it more my way.

If I was prez
, I’d give not a dam what the “boots on the ground” think about the war. Sure, I want the troops to have good morale. If they do their job, that will let me do my job. Beer at night, women on the weekend. Keep the troops happy and they will love you. It's only CNN and FOX who gives a whit what they think about the "war." And they just bounce from headline to headline.

Troops deserve 2 things.
A doable mission and competent leadership. But the troops do not participate in strategy. That’s the prez’ job. Unfortunately because we have REAL TIME capability, the Prez can sit in his underground bombproof shelter - the Fuhrer Bunker West - and watch any war on a half dozen 120 inch plasma screens mounted on the walls. Coupled with instant communications there is a real temptation to micro manage the battlefield. A good prez would avoid that temptation.

[edit on 4/17/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I wanted to get back here sooner, but I've been soooo busy.

The Clinton-Obama debate in Philly. What did either of them get out of that? I thought Obama was off his game, like he didn't prep for the event. O also got the impression that they were really not on good terms with each other. Tone and body language suggest that things were quite frosty on that stage.

Technical point: If Hillary does NOT stay in the race, she risks losing out on the chance to be VP. If she stays in, she can force Obama to take her as VP at the convention.

What says the rest of you?



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Technical point: If Hillary does NOT stay in the race, she risks losing out on the chance to be VP. If she stays in, she can force Obama to take her as VP at the convention.


Following your line of thinking to be the VP pick Hillary would have to convince the right people that she could bring the Latino vote to the ticket . I still maintain that Richardson is the wild card for the dems VP slot. Gee another "debate " there are so many that if a candidate performances badly in one they can make up for it future(SP?) down the track.




top topics



 
12
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join