Barack might be right

21

My point, with the “wait and see” comment is that, with Pres. Obama’s foreign affairs policies, I will wait and see.

Consider:

  1. He has no foreign affairs experience and relies of Joe Biden for his advice (how scary is that!).
  2. he has, publicly stated, many times, that Afganistan is worth fighting, but is now drawing away from those comments and is ignoring the General over there.
  3. He is, so far, following the same tack that Jimmy Carter took, diplomacy at the expense of action (or even the threat of action).
  4. At least Mr. Bush listened to his Generals and finally found one (Patraius) who couldm and did, do the job. Kinda like Lincoln and Grant, when he finally fired McClellen.
  5. All in all, Mr. Bush has (so far, to be fair) a WAY better track record than Mr. Obama. No more terrorist attacks. Things going well in Iraq. Things going well in Pakistan. But it is now Mr. Obama’s problem and we will see.
  6. I AM NOT wishing or hoping that Mr. Obama does bad. That would be a REAL problem for our country, but, given his lack of experience and ego and his actions, so far, I am not surprised that he is, at present, doing so poorly.

Hope this helps;

22

Obviously we are on opposites sides of the political spectrum & we can agree to disagree.

And I did misunderstand your wait & see comment. I agree - we all will wait & see. But I prefer diplomacy over war any day as I am sure you do as well knowing your daughter is serving.

23

I am not saying that this is the same in any manner, What I am saying that you, me and the news does not have all the facts. I do not like most of Obama’s Policies either but we should not judge his policies until we have all the facts. The just released that they knew about the second nuclear facility. We talked to Germany many times and gave them many concessions before we entered the war, this may have just been a way to stall while we prepared. We stayed out of as long as we could to develop, the industrial strength that actually helped win the win the war. It is a known fact NOW that Europe was given military equipment (Lend Lease) that made it possible for them to continue fighting. We only went into the was after Pearl Harbor, because we had no choice. We were more prepared than we would have been a couple of years earlier. Just making the Liberty ships made it possible to move the material to Europe.

24

Hope this helps. :wink:

25

You are a sick man to even suggest that GW caused 9/11.:frowning:

26

Where do you read that? Will stated GW had a better record so far. There have been no terror attacks in the US in the same amount of time that Obama has been in office. Take your meds Mike.

27

You would judge the effectiveness of our president on this single metric?:roll::roll:

28

Look. I refuse to argue with people who have no clue, don’t keep up on current events (except for what they hear from CNN) and are not students of history.

Appeasment is always a bad thing.

Bush was hated by foreign governments (like France, Russia, China, etc) because America was the preeminant world power. He was not a puppet, but if it makes you feel all superior to think that, there is nothing I can say to disuaid you.

When America wins, others lose.

I predict, here and now, that time will tell. Geopolitics is not a game and not for the ill-informed.

Read about Lincoln’s failures before he was elected President. Read about George McClellen and how he kept holding back from attacking. Lincoln finally found Grant (who also brought forth Sherman) and then the war turned.

And, my daughter does serve. And, my youngest has decided to go into the Marines (enlisted).

Seems like the girls have the right idea. Kick *** and take names. Don’t appease and don’t let talk, talk, talk preceed war. If there is going to be a fight, throw the first punch.

BTW: If you have read hisory, you will notice that we have, in actuality, been at war with Iran (the Mullahs, Republican Guards and the Al-Qudf’s force, not the common people) for at least 20 years. They supply the Iraq and Afgan fighters, as well as own Hezbollah in Lebanon. War by proxy.

I am waiting for a leader that will call it like it is and start a fight with the people behind the proxy.

Nuff Said.

29

Nope, but then you and I don’t agree on anything so it wouldn’t matter what I said. My response was in regards to Will’s post.

30

and in my opinion that applies to every President regardless of the party.

31

Funny, I thought the same of Bush during his term. Looks like the shoe is on the other foot.

32

Keep your friends close…and
your enemies closer…Thats why you
talk to Iran.

33

With regards to Pres. Obama and Afganastan, couldn’t have said it better myself.

Charles Krauthammer:

"It isn’t as if Afghanistan sprung up on [Obama] a week ago. It has been around for eight years. He has been running for president for two years on a promise to resource the war adequately, to look at it seriously, and to win it. That’s what the Democrats had proposed.

So it has been a serious issue for over two years. He says in March – he announces on March 27 – “there is a new comprehensive strategy,” so he has been thinking about this. And then he added, which is not often remembered, “this comes at the conclusion of a review.”

Then he goes through all the people he consulted with [in that review]: the commanders on the ground, allies, NGOs and the governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan and members of Congress. It was a serious review in March.

He appoints his own general later and then he says two months ago it is a war of necessity. You would think he has thought it through.

And now all of a sudden he is rethinking it. It is because of the political pressure. The public opinion polls are going negative on him. He has gotten [resistance from] his left in the party, and it is all about the politics. It is not about the strategy.

You have the best generals in the world – McChrystal on counterterrorism and Petraeus on counterinsurgency – the best in the world who know exactly how this is done and who conclude you cannot do a counterterrorism strategy, only counterinsurgency.

And all of a sudden he is relying on Biden, Rahm Emanuel, and himself to go against the advice of these experts? Hard to believe."

About sums up my thoughts.

34

A WAY better track record? Let’s see, 234 days into the Bush administration… hmm what happened… hmmm… oh yeah, 9/11

I notice a lot of folks on the right seem to have forgotten this. The lack of national security at this point in time allowed this to happen. Who was responsible for that security? I believe that would be Bush.
G

35

What allowed it to happen is the fact the moronic Clintonistas - Jamie Gorelick, in particular - established a policy that forbid intelligence agencies - CIA, NSA and FBI - from talking to one another. Had that idiotic policy not been in place, the plot would have been discovered and averted.

Thanks to dopey liberals we now have to submit to absurd “security” checks at airports.

36

And let’s not forget how the CIA was deliberately decimated and their up and close and personal intelligence resources nearly destroyed by liberal administrations.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”](http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/20/11545.shtml)

Carter decimated the CIA stations](http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080130/OPINION/801300554/-1/RSS08)
Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 1:41 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 1:41 a.m.

             Due to President Jimmy Carter's decimation of the CIA under his administration in the years between 1977 and l981, the only dependable intelligence available to the United States was from our friends and allies throughout the world. Carter had gotten rid of the station masters who might have been responsible to gather that information.

             We analysed and trusted the information we obtained from the British, the French and others to fill in the vacuum at the CIA.
37

Will Decker… You are the most right here we have been at war by proxy for too many years. Time to sh$t or get off the pot.

38

Agreed. Then, during the Bush Administration, the Dems demamanded that that Ms. Gorelick be on the panel. knowing that she could not, therefore, be compelled to testify.

39

Look up tha Church Amendment, if you are interested.

40

War, by proxy, keeps us away from a clash between the “big powers”. That is what the cold war was all about. It did keep us from a world shattering nuclear war. which is a good thing.

Now, the key is to keep Israel and Iran from a nuclear war. if it does occur, the “big powers” will be drawn into it. Do not forget that Russia, China, Pakistan, India and France are all nuclear powers.

Look at history and check out how often little countries have had spats that have lead to major world wars (i.e., WW I).

Hope this helps;