Presidents don't pick federal judges - the ranking member of the congressional delegation in his party makes the call. All the President does is sign the appointment and maybe do a photo shoot if he has family. So blame your ranking Dem senator if pedophiles get the right to marry dogs or whatever the fk else it is you're worried about .
Could Obama do worse then Bush ? Make the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history by Starting a unjustified war that killed over 4,000 American troops,injure over 20,000 American troops,and killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians,many of them mothers and children Allow the worse Terrorist attack in US history to happen under his presidency Allow the value of the American dollar to fall by almost half would obama allow the prices of gas increase like oil man bush and Chaney did.what was the price of gas when Clinton left office ? around 1.20 a gallon.today gas is over 4.00 a gallon would obama take away more civil liberty's then any other US president in history like Bush did ? Would obama make the US hated around the world more then it has every been like bush did ? How much has the national debt increased under Bush ?i forgot but it is also more then any other US president The list could go on but you should get the point i don't see Obama being worse then bush,i mean obama would have to do worse then a combination of all of the above to be worse then bush I can see McCain being worse then Bush though.i can see another country pissing off Mad Man McCain and him staring wars that will start another draft, kill millions,bankrupt the US,and even destroy the US .It is very possible under McCain All words from McCain's mouth "Theres going to be more wars" "bomb,bomb,bomb Iran" "Were going to be in Iraq for the rest of this century" "I'm sorry to tell you we are going to be in farther wars" "We might be in Iraq a 100 years,its fine with me i hope its fine with you" "We are in 2 wars today fighting and there are other places we may have too" To The people in this crowd,I'm going to be asking you to serve" "Theres going to be more wars,theres going to be more wars" <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MEc2ot3QGB4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MEc2ot3QGB4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
People said the same about Clinton before he got elected. He then picked a few good advisors and left office with one of the highest opinion ratings of any president, with an uninterrupted record of economic growth. Remember, Obama is very young by political standards. There is a fair possibility he will 'learn on the job' and jettison his more radical past opinions - both for pragmatic and intellectual reasons (they would get him voted out after 1 term, and they are indefensible/stupid anyway). Just as Clinton eventually became more right-wing economically than most Republican presidents, Obama may well turn out to have a more effective foreign AND economic policy than Bush (it wouldn't exactly be hard). He could turn out to be a dyed in the wool socialist, like half the members of Congress right now. But I suspect he is a much more pragmatic politician than that. He does not strike me as an ideologue at all, rather as a smart, ambitious pragmatist. If he thinks a dose of some free market economics would get him re-elected (which it would), he will go for it as far as his voter base will allow. Just like Clinton did. Any right-wingers who think Obama is a monolithic statist are just deluded IMO. The same political dinosaurs thought that about Clinton in the early 90s, Tony Blair, Lula in Brazil. They then got massacred at the ballot box for their naivety. Lesson #1 in conflict - never underestimate the opposition.
But the object of invading Iraq wasn't to attack and weaken Al Queda. It was to find and destroy Saddam's WMD capability (which turned out not to exist). Al Queda was already being fought and beaten in Afghanistan, over a year before the Iraq invasion took place. If Iraq had not been invaded, the US would have had massively more resources to devote to destroying Al Queda in Afghanistan and the Pakistan borders. The terrorist group would probably have been wiped out by now, if not for the Iraq war which gave them temporary refuge, a new theatre of conflict, and backing from Iran and Syria. Iraq if anything prolonged Al Queda's survival. Also, what are these claims that "we won" as if it is any surprise? Anyone with a brain knew Al Queda was toast as soon as 9/11 happened. The notion that a rag-tag of terrorists can seriously take on the world's sole superpower by a *direct attack on its soil* is and always was ludicrous. Terrorists can persuade politicians and electorates to leave peripheral areas they have little conviction in defending. They cannot win when they are trying to *actually defeat* the state they oppose. A terrorist group could get the US to leave Lebanon. A 3rd world army could get the US to abandon Vietnam. Even the combined military forces of Russia, China, and the EU combined cannot get the US to convert to Islam and become part of a global caliphate. Al Queda was always going to be squashed like a bug, after 9/11 happened. This article is extremely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
"Read this." NYpost, huh? The TKB (Terrorism Knowledge Base) says that attacks are far higher than they were before the invasion of Iraq. NYPost is good too, though. (Eye Roll)
How did Russia do in Afghanistan? The notion that the U.S. need only "turn it's attention" to places outside Iraq is naive. Iraq was important because it's in the mainstream. Baghdad is closer to NYC than is Dubai. Iraq borders EU member Turkey. Iraq funded Hamas. By comparison Afghanistan and Pakistan are isolated outposts. Like North Korea. Out of the loop. I know you're not as stupid as many of the non-profitable libs who post here but a "war" that cost only about a thoudand more lives than 9/11 and yet eliminated BOTH Saddam and Al Qaeda from a rebuilt Iraq is a VERY positive development. Obama would like to punish Pakistan for having a pourous border with Afghanistan. Just like we have with Mexico, lol.
Arnie would be hilarious as President. Imagine Osama meeting with his pals "Right, so we get the suitcase nuke smuggled by sea into Miami, then we call NBC and threaten to detonate unless the US withdraws from the Holy Lands." "But Osama, great leader - they have the Terminator as President! We have no chance!"
How did Russia do against the Wermacht is a more relevant question. You cannot compare a war where the major power and its populace doesn't really have much conviction, versus a perceived fight to the death, a fight for survival. The American populace clearly view Al Queda as a foe where all means are justified. The same is not true in Iraq. If the US had stuck to fighting with Al Queda directly (in Afghanistan etc) any means short of nuking the entire country would have been, and remains, morally acceptable to the US voter, and to a large proportion of the rest of the world. France and Germany, even now, have not raised one complaint about US conduct over there. Therefore it would have been by far the better place to stage the conflict IMO. Less resources, less moral restrictions, less risk of unintended consequences. Iraq would still have been under Saddam, but so what? By 2001-03 he was a toothless paper tiger, even if he had WMDs he would never have used them against us. For 10 years the world and Middle East got along fine with Saddam couped up in his palaces. Even if Iraq after US withdrawal becomes a peaceful, stable democracy, which IMO is a long shot, the fact still remains that a lot of lives and money were lost unnecessarily for no strategic gain. Al Queda could have been beaten without a single US soldier stepping foot on Iraqi soil, and it would most likely have happened quicker and at less cost.
Pabst: "Iraq was important because it's in the mainstream. Baghdad is closer to NYC than is Dubai. Iraq borders EU member Turkey. Iraq funded Hamas." ...and Chewbacca came from Endor. However, Ewoks ALSO came from Endor. Therefore my client is innocent. Thankyou.
the sad part is, you only have TWO choices and they are not real choices as both are controlled by war funding and Israel. This is freedom? And, have any of you seen or asked to see the Electronic Voting Machine audits and calibrations? Surely in a democracy these should be available to anyone?