Barack Obama....

[rn79870]

Mr. Obama, what is your platform?

"hope"

Er, ah care to elaborate a bit?

"the audacity of hope"

mmmkay

He's bringing change, not hope.

[themadscientist]

Hitler brought change.

Stalin brought change.

most importantly my liberal friends who have such a hard on for a guy who's entire platform is an ambiguous adverb

George W Bush brought "change"

Think about it,,,,,,,,,wait, liberals by design are incapable of rational thought, never mind. They would probably have a neuron misfire in the attempt and **** their pants.

[rn79870]

If that's true then Ronald Regan brought change. Bush #1 brought change. Clinton brought change.

You know "hope" has no place in American politics.

[MoldyOldy240]

I'm voting for McCain, but I've been on the that wagon ever since he announced he was running.

I'm not going to lie, Obama's pastor enraged me, especially after I heard before statements from Obama and After statements. Apparently he is very big into church and followed his pastor's teaching closely; then the video hit of his pastors hate speech from one sermon; and he releases a statement stating the exact opposite. It just doesn't sit well with me.

[AZhitman]

That issue can't be scrutinized enough, IMO.

If my Pastor says something outlandish, I'm outta there. Right in the middle of the sermon.

This didn't happen. For decades. To say he didn't know this guy (his spiritual leader) was a hate-filled nutjob, is a lot like saying he didn't inhale.

On that note, anyone notice no one's made much of his admitted cocaine use? On the plus side, he copped to it openly. On the down side, have we gotten to a point in society where we expect our leaders to have THAT little self-control and integrity?

I can honestly say I've never tried anything stronger then THC. Why can't we expect the same from the person who's about to command the most powerful military on Earth?

[Loki]

Hitler brought change.

Stalin brought change.

most importantly my liberal friends who have such a hard on for a guy who's entire platform is an ambiguous adverb

George W Bush brought "change"

Think about it,,,,,,,,,wait, liberals by design are incapable of rational thought, never mind. They would probably have a neuron misfire in the attempt and **** their pants.

And only douchebags bring up Hitler in their arguments to get a point across...

[AZhitman]

Why is that? Below the belt?

It's a valid point, you have to admit....

[Loki]

Mostly because it's terribly played out, and while valid, can be used for nearly any argument. The point of it isn't even to get an argument across, it's to remind the reader of something terrible, associate it with the opposite argument and be more sympathetic towards the your side. Maybe it's just a personal pet peeve, but I've always hated people jumping on Nazi/Hitler/Fascist in their arguments.

[AZhitman]

I don't disagree.

I always want to bitchslap people who refer to a Moderator as a "Nazi" because they edit/delete a post.

[sensibleS13driver]

Bush's changes were: surveillance without a warrant, creating the "enemy combatant" a total legal ****hole, detainment without charges or counsel, seeking an anti gay marriage amendment.

I thought republicans were civil libertarians and isolationists? OH NEVERMIND HE SENT ME 300 DOLLARS IN THE MAIL, THANKS GW, CARRY ON!

Obama isn't gonna change us socialist in 4 years whether he wants to or not. But he was a professor of constitutional law, and can reverse the SNAFU created by the free-reigning DOJ and unaccountable, opportunist OLC lawyers who have really been running our wars.
Modified by sensibleS13driver at 9:00 AM 6/5/2008

[AZhitman]

Bush's changes were: surveillance without a warrant, creating the "enemy combatant" a total legal ****hole, detainment without charges or counsel, seeking an anti gay marriage amendment.

Presidents are like baseball managers and basketball coaches, they get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when they don't. US Presidents have very very very little influence on things related to the economy. Free market factors are too numerous to pin a nations economy on one person, good or bad.

Something no one talks about or knows because the media doesn't think it sells ... Bush will have done more for the whole of Africa than any president has ever aided any other continent. The aid and assistance poured into this forgotten land alone should (but won't) keep W in good standing in the history books.

Not pointing this out as a GWB "fan", but just a counterpoint to the bandwagoners who only regurgitate what Fox News and MTV feeds them.

[rn79870]

But he was a professor of constitutional law, and can reverse the SNAFU created by the free-reigning DOJ and unaccountable, opportunist OLC lawyers who have really been running our wars.

DOJ and OCL lawyers running wars? I'm mot sure I understand where that came from? Why not elaborate.

[sensibleS13driver]

Those two quotes aren't mutually exclusive. The baseball manager analogy is really good, but we voted for him, and he's taken a back seat and handed the war over to appointees with no accountability. He's not entirely detached, it comes with the territory.

Google David Addington (hint: his predecessor was sentenced to 30 months for obstruction of justice.)And John Yoo, watching his back for crimes against humanity and currently being sued by an American citizen who was held for 3 years without charges or a lawyer as a "material witness".

Bush handed these guys the reins and they RAN. A cracker jack MBA isn't what we need in the White House when this stuff is going down. At least that's the basis for my vote.

This is also what irks me about claims of Obama's inexperience. He knows better than any candidate the legal restraints of war. Bush appointed guys who knew they'd never be held accountable and ridded the administration of LOTS of hindrances using essentially made-up opportune law - fact.
Modified by sensibleS13driver at 2:10 PM 6/5/2008

[themadscientist]

Mostly because it's terribly played out, and while valid, can be used for nearly any argument. The point of it isn't even to get an argument across, it's to remind the reader of something terrible, associate it with the opposite argument and be more sympathetic towards the your side. Maybe it's just a personal pet peeve, but I've always hated people jumping on Nazi/Hitler/Fascist in their arguments.

so calling me a douche is a more sophisticated argument, hmmmm? I make a valid reference, one you agree is valid but one you don't personally like and your retort is a personal attack. I would cut you down for it but I would have trouble making you look any sillier than you did all by yourself.

Think more before speaking, it will reduce embarrassment. The point of my argument was to get my point across and I did that. The point of your argument was to make yourself look immature apparently, mission accomplished.

[AZhitman]

This is also what irks me about claims of Obama's inexperience. He knows better than any candidate the legal restraints of war. Bush appointed guys who knew they'd never be held accountable and ridded the administration of LOTS of hindrances using essentially made-up opportune law - fact.

I don't disagree with that - But I also don't think that was borne of a lack of academic understanding of the legal restraints of war.

Sometimes (and I'm at a loss for the right words here), the opposite of a bad thing is not always a good thing.

Does that make sense? Grrr, I'm sleep-deprived and low on caffeine right now.

[Cold_Zero]

Bush handed these guys the reins and they RAN. A cracker jack MBA isn't what we need in the White House when this stuff is going down. At least that's the basis for my vote.

I thought the complaint about how the war (in Iraq) was run/mismanaged/failing strategy was because of the infighting between Condie Rice/Colin Powel and Donald Rumsfeld/d!ck Cheney. Not sure how the DOJ somehow trumps the DOD and the Unified Commander of CENTCOM (who in a time of war is the highest ranking officer in the theather.

I seem to remember a few times in the Clinton Administration where Sudan was trying to give the United States Bin Laden and the 'Lawyers' didnt think we had grounds to detain him. So the 'Lawyers' trup National Security. Another time we had Bin Laden in our sights and again the lawyers stepped in and didnt think that we had the authority to kill a national leader.... So maybe its a product of our day in age? The President doesnt do ANYTHING without White House Counsel?

[sensibleS13driver]

Totally, we're in an unknown situation and there aren't academics or rules to lean on in lots of places. That would be a bewildering place for any president.

We took two big miscalculated steps forward into these wars based on shaky politically motivated legal recommendations and a president who didn't know any better. And it's looking increasingly likely that we're gonna have to take one or two (equally crucial) steps back.

I just want to see not so much restraint as precalculation, and the commander has to be able to make his own educated judgement. That's the ability that I think Obama has above other candidates and that GW lacks.

[Cold_Zero]

I don't disagree with that - But I also don't think that was borne of a lack of academic understanding of the legal restraints of war.

Sometimes (and I'm at a loss for the right words here), the opposite of a bad thing is not always a good thing.

Does that make sense? Grrr, I'm sleep-deprived and low on caffeine right now.

I liken the invasion of Iraq to raid on a crack dealer's house.Police kick down the door with a warrant/probable cause that the occupant is a known drugs dealer. Police cuff the occupant and but no drugs are found. Do you think that the police will just let the known drug dealer go and say "my bad?" No the police will arrest the drug dealer on another charge, tie him up in the legal system, confiscate his money, his house, his guns and the items that he uses to deal drugs…Effectively putting the drug dealer out of business and getting him off the street. Why? Because the police know said drug dealer has the capability of going right back into business and threatening his community with this product.

Was Saddam a threat to the world, to the region and to his own citizens? Yes. Had he used Chemical and Biological weapons on the Iranians, the Kurdish and the Shiite communities of Iraq? Yes. Where there WMDs found in Iraq after the war? Yes (very little).. So effectively not what the Intelligence Community indicated there was… Was he capable of getting back into developing Weapons of Mass Destruction? Yes. It is what is… I would have been fine if Bush had stood up in front of the Congress and said, “We helped create this monster during the Cold War. We are going to take him down” and then ask for a declaration of war….

[Cold_Zero]

We took two big miscalculated steps forward into these wars based on shaky politically motivated legal recommendations and a president who didn't know any better. And it's looking increasingly likely that we're gonna have to take one or two (equally crucial) steps back.

I give you Iraq... but Afghanistan? There were proven links between the Taliban and 9-11, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. I dont think this war was 'miscalculated.' When I saw the planes crash into the towers I know we did the right thing.

[AZhitman]

But remember this, Bud -

All these guys have heard for the majority of their young adult lives is that GW singlehandedly started a war for no reason and laughs with glee every time a soldier comes home in a bag because the price of oil goes up and he makes another billion dollars... and he eats kittens and rapes Girl Scouts.

It's no wonder they don't grasp that war and international affairs are so much more complicated than that.

Why are they now clamoring for us to "Free Tibet" and intervene in Darfur? What's the diff?

Damn libbies think they can have it both ways, as usual.

[sensibleS13driver]

I was over-inclusive there. *This war*, my mistake. Though one could argue that they are not mutually beneficial and that was miscalculated. But this is getting off topic, these are all separate threads/essays/books/etc, and we let too many of these threads descend into "damn libbies"

I would have been fine if Bush had stood up in front of the Congress and said, “We helped create this monster during the Cold War. We are going to take him down” and then ask for a declaration of war….

Give him a declaration of war and he has to specify a nation, easy enough. Can't interrogate POW's, uh oh, or even expose them "to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind", rough. Has to give them military tribunals, kinda. What a pain that Geneva thing is. None of that applies to an "Authorization to use necessary force" or an "unlawful combatant".
Modified by sensibleS13driver at 7:02 PM 6/5/2008

[Cold_Zero]

I got you... You were talking about the Global War on Terror.. not specifically the war in Iraq or Afghanistan...I understand now.

[stopcamping]

I liken the invasion of Iraq to raid on a crack dealer's house.

I like your analogy except for a particular flaw: it turns out the cops raided the wrong house. They were suppose to raid the neighboring house (i.e. Iran)

[ADDirishboy]

Why are they now clamoring for us to "Free Tibet" and intervene in Darfur? What's the diff?

Damn libbies think they can have it both ways, as usual.

exactly. everyone thinks war is terrible and has never solved anything.

I will agree that yes, war is a horrible thing. but, to say that it has never solved anything is just plain wrong and whoever says that is blind. lets think of things war has solved for a minute:

Tyranny, Slavery, Opression, Fascism, Communism, Naziism....

And you bring up a fantastic point Greg. everyone wants us to free tibet and help Darfur. How are we supposed to do those things without war? obviously just talking and protesting isn't having an effect....

[ishkabibble]

exactly. everyone thinks war is terrible and has never solved anything.

I will agree that yes, war is a horrible thing. but, to say that it has never solved anything is just plain wrong and whoever says that is blind. lets think of things war has solved for a minute:

Tyranny, Slavery, Opression, Fascism, Communism, Naziism....

And you bring up a fantastic point Greg. everyone wants us to free tibet and help Darfur. How are we supposed to do those things without war? obviously just talking and protesting isn't having an effect....

Can someone please direct me to where the entirety of the "damn libbies" are saying that war is always bad? I swear, it seems like that generalization just appeared out of thin air in this thread.

[Cold_Zero]

I like your analogy except for a particular flaw: it turns out the cops raided the wrong house. They were suppose to raid the neighboring house (i.e. Iran)

While you have a good point, your logic presumes that Saddam was totally innocent. Did Saddam have an active weapons program prior to the Gulf War? Had Saddam deployed WMD weapons on civilian and military targets in his country and in Iran? Did Saddam have the will and capability to pick up his weapons programs later in the future?

I tell you what, Saddam will not cause the Iraqis, the Middle East nor the world any problems now. Saddam was a monster and that is pretty well documented. The sweet justice was that last thing he heard or will remember in his life are the Shiite chants that were sung to him while his next snapped.

[Jager]

well to be rather blunt Saddam had WMDs cause the united states sold him the stuff in the 80s while he was fighting the "dirty" war with Iran where they were both gassing the hell out of each other.

so the question wasnt did he have WMD, but how far did he advance the stuff we gave him, and where did he store it, and lets not be coy, while the UN said there wasnt anything, the Iraqis had enough time to move everything to syria anytime the UN got close. The mobile labs we found pieces and a few whole ones of showed exactly what they were doing.

[Cold_Zero]

Back on topic...I was watching one of the Political Shows this morning and Gov Kane from Virginia made mention that the people of the United States of America want 'change.' I seem to remember the message of the Nov 2006 elections was all about 'change.' People flocked to the polls to send GW a message and elected a Democratic Congress to pull us (USA) out of Iraq. What the 'people' got was a Democratic Congress that approves GW's war budgets and can't muster enough support in their party to force the President to withdraw troops. A Congress that has a lower approval rating than the President. So my question is this.. If Obama gets elected on the platform of change... What happens when there is no change? The people who wanted to send GW a message of change have conveniently forgot the Nov 2006 election. To be honest, I don't buy into this hype.

[Cold_Zero]

well to be rather blunt Saddam had WMDs cause the united states sold him the stuff in the 80s while he was fighting the "dirty" war with Iran where they were both gassing the hell out of each other.

so the question wasnt did he have WMD, but how far did he advance the stuff we gave him, and where did he store it, and lets not be coy, while the UN said there wasnt anything, the Iraqis had enough time to move everything to syria anytime the UN got close. The mobile labs we found pieces and a few whole ones of showed exactly what they were doing.

I would have been fine if Bush had stood up in front of the Congress and said, “We helped create this monster during the Cold War. We are going to take him down” and then ask for a declaration of war….

My quote insinuates that we helped create his program. Also, Saddam was on CIA payroll for a while (just like Noreiga) and when Saddam gassed the Kurds and Shiites we gleaned information of dispersal of the chemical weapons to help us build better weaponized chemical weapons.

But you raise an interesting point, can you provide sources for Iran's Chemical or Biological use during the Iran/Iraq war? To be honest, I remember that war to be totally one sided until the Iranians created their Basij death squads to march over the border and advance on the Iraq positions at any cost (similar to the WWII Russian penal battalions).

[sensibleS13driver]

I think our current executive and legislative are a combination for total gridlock. We have a legislature without an overriding majority and sunsetting GW who vetoes just to make a point.A more conservative legislature might have some restraint to make slimmer more concentrated law, and a more liberal non-sitting duck executive might actually sign it.