I guess its true, that americans actually LOVE war. You are the most war-faring nation on earth, Your history proves it-the spanish conflict, WW!, and 2, the phillipino intervention,and the largesse of the pragmatic, but still nasty support for the weirmacht, over your british counterparts, until it was to late to make a difference. Golly, did someone mention a civil war, in there, at some point? Even if they live in hawaii. Oops, i pointed out facts. Suck my balls, at any rate, you apoligist slime.
Get real. India has been IN the fray with Pakistan, for well over half a century (see timeline). http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/default.stm Honestly, which of these has a greater potential to incite India?: (This is an open book quiz, see links below) A) Obama's statement B) Bush's proposal for funding an upgrade of Pakistani jet fighters http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSN24410608 http://www.newsweek.com/id/149257 In fact, it looks like Obama's statement has helped inspire some necessary scrutiny: http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=55246 P.S. I haven't come across any credible source that quotes Obama as saying 'Pakistan is using terrorist aid funds from the U.S. 'to pay for more nukes'. Please provide that. Otherwise, people might (rightly) accuse you of dramatic embellishment.
Given that terrorism is up massively under the Republicans with their "creative" solutions which McCain supported, perhaps it's time to try someone else. First off, mayors are in charge of budgets in Chicago. Secondly, Governors are in charge of budgets in Illinois, which is where Obama was a Senator. You may as well attribute the poor state of Arizona to Obama -- it makes as little sense. Okay, except that Palin left her tiny town $20 million in debt. How is that fiscally responsible?
Your bullshit is getting old Dave. I think I know just a tad more about the political situation in Chicago than you do. You mention the Mayor? His campaigns are run by the same guy running Obama's Presidential campaign. You mention the Governor? He too is funded so heavy by Rezko that it was his campaign that resulted in Rezko's conviction. You could mention the outgoing inept Illinois Senate leader also. He was the one who mentored Obama on his U.S. Senate run. Obama is their boy. He did NOTHING to rock their little world. A Chicago Democrat who doesn't carry water for Daley is done. No workers on the street, no David Axelrod, no speech at the DNC as a Jr. Senator. Whereas McCain has opposed Bush on KEY issues Obama was nothing more than the errand boy in Springfield for the Chicago Machine. Obama is a weak puppet. Not his own man. He nods obediently and agreeably whether it's to Mayor Daley, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko or Bill O'Reilly. And I'm amused about Palin. Please tell us how she left her town 20mil in debt. Oh because they floated a bond issue for a much needed recreational center? That's not a "debt." That shows up as an Asset: 20 mil, Debt: 20 mil. It's a wash. It's a de facto mortgage.
you post so much tangential bull shit opnion as fact it's no wonder you can't win a low-level political selection. Who is going to buy that po-dunk "recreational" center? it is essentially worth ZERO. It's like you purchasing a new gym on a credit card and then bullshitting on your mortgage application you have zero debt. "because it balances out". Not to mention there is a ongoing lawsuit against the "recreational center" because palin built it on private land. Illegally. yeah, so what's new with the bitch. Yes, palin left her small po-dunk suburb in debt. Someone has to pay off those bonds. That's a fact.
Not bullshit, she left the town $20 million in debt, or about $3000 per resident. On top of that she increased her town's public expenditures by 33% and increased taxes 38%. Here's an article about it: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html And yet, you can't seem to understand that a state senator doesn't run a city budget. Wow, that's... not damning at all. Quite a few Democrat politicians hire Axelrod (who's Jewish, which you will be excited to hear, and therefore part of the gigantic cabel of bankers that no doubt inhabit your head.) Wow, so you're saying that Rezko's conviction was under a Democrat governor? And they indicted him along with his Republican buddy Stuart Levine? Huh. That's... well, it's not damning, in fact that's kind of a recommendation. Hell even Republicans are mentioning Obama during their senate runs right now. Have you seen some of the local Republican ads? Oddly, they don't seem to mention "the Republicans." Not sure why when they've had so much success recently. You mean of the one hundred and twelve crime related bills he sponsored, not one caused any problems for Rezko and his Republican friend? Huh. Yes, that's what a town with unpaved roads and no sewage treatment plant needs -- a $15 million dollar recreation center on a piece of property the town didn't have clear title to which was still in litigation seven years later. She increased her town's public expenditures by 33% and increased taxes 38%. Oh, and the debt. After Bush, I can see why you like her. She's incompetent.
Yeah, us Americans just LOVE war so much....clearly, the US of A is united 100% about the Iraq and Afghan wars. Please, acro, normally there's a trace of logic and intelligence scattered amidst the ad hominem that constitutes most of your posts, but I've noticed recently that you've only been capable of ad hominem. In any case, yes, the US has waged war. Some of them involved fighting against countries bent on global domination, or was Hitler set up by Karl Rove, too? And BTW, what does a civil war prove about a country's moral base, anyway? Lick my ass, you pacifist nutbag.
Back to the Bush Doctrine... Saturday, September 13, 2008 Charlie Gibson's Gaffee by Charles Krauthammer "Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of `anticipatory self-defense.'" -- New York Times, Sept. 12 Informed her? Rubbish. The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?" Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense." Wrong. I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush Doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden ... to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points. If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about Bush's grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda. Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption. Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days. Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration. Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents. Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine. Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.