About rev Wright: "The man of whom Barack Obama says, "He was never my quote-unquote spiritual adviser," although he served on the Obama campaign's quote-unquote spiritual advisory committee."
O'REILLY-CLINTON INTERVIEW SHOWS DEM FLAW By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN Bill O'Reilly asked Hillary Clinton the key question about the war in Iraq: What happens if we pull out and the Iranians move in? She talked around the issue, but never gave a convincing answer to O'Reilly's question. She said she would replace force with diplomacy. But, as Frederick the Great said, âDiplomacy without force is like music without instruments.â If our troops are long gone from Iraq, the Iranians will snub our diplomacy and laugh at our entireties. They will add Iraq to their other trophies in the region: Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. Hillary's inability to answer O'Reilly's question reveals a larger flaw in the Democratic arguments as the election approaches. Obama will be the Democratic nominee (take that to the bank). How will the Iraq War play in the race? On the surface, it would appear to be a disaster for the Republicans. With American deaths now over the 4,000 mark and the seriously wounded at around 15,000, we are sick and tired of this war. It has destroyed George W. Bush and could well do the same to John McCain. But maybe not. McCain's position is simple: win in Iraq. The experience and the success of the past year indicate that it may be quite possible to do so. But, whatever you may think of it, his is a simple solution. What do the Democrats propose? Obama and Hillary both want to pull out as soon as technically feasible. OK. But what happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq? And what if Al Qaeda takes advantage of the American absence and sets up a permanent base and sanctuary in Iraq, beyond our reach â a situation akin to the Taliban in Afghanistan where they could develop the capacity to hit us on 9-11 in their privileged, protected home territory? And what if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who used to work with us start to be killed as happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? And what if the Iraqi oil falls into Iranian hands, sending the price even higher? And what if ⦠The list goes on. Obama really has no answer for these questions. Once he pulls out of Iraq, it will be politically impossible to go back in. Iran and Al Qaeda both realize this just as North Vietnam knew it when they negotiated an end to American troop presence in the South. In the context of an election debate, Obama is going to look weak and confused and without a clue as he tries to address these âwhat ifs.â Americans will sense the uncertain hand on the helm and will begin to second guess their decisions and move toward McCain. If, by some chance, Hillary is the nominee, then the same problem will land in her lap and she showed in trying to parry O'Reilly's thrust, that she won't be any better at answering the doubts than Obama would be. The truth is that the Democrats are cashing in on a mindless impatience with Iraq and an unwillingness to think through the consequences of pulling out. They are capitalizing on an emotional ânoâ in reaction to the war. But when the alternatives are carefully explained and examined, as they will be in a presidential debate, they are not going to embrace the answers Obama or Hillary will have to the âwhat ifs.â They will see the Democratic position as extremist and unworkable and will come to see the Democratic candidate who is pushing them as unprepared and unrealistic. If the candidate is Obama, their concerns will resonate with their perception that he is inexperienced and doesn't know his way around foreign policy. This will raise more and more doubts about his ability to lead us in a time of crisis. This unholy mess in Iraq, which has almost destroyed the Republican party and has destroyed the Bush presidency, may yet rebound and work against the Democrats in the election this year.
If America had stayed and built a military base in Viet Nam instead of abandoning them, millions of lives would have been saved and Viet Nam would have turned into a thriving democracy. This is the history of American war. John McCain's 100 years comment was referring to a well proven policy of building military bases in conquered and ally's nations - Japan, Germany, S. Korea, Kuwait, etc. These and a dozen or more other countries with American bases are all stable allies even though many were at one time enemies or at risk of be conquered enemies. Some have had American bases for over fifty years and will certainly still have them in fifty more years. It is a proven investment policy that pays large dividends with a more stable and productive world. But if Barack Obama pulls American troops out of Iraq it will most certainly become an even worse tragedy than Viet Nam - for the Iraqi people, the region, and the world.
So what really did the trick was bases. Maybe in a world where these former foes turned allies were defenseless and had an expansionist power like the Soviet Union neighboring them this makes sense but less so in the current world. As for your comment regarding Vietnam, if having 200000 US soldiers there cannot be considered having a base there then I don't know what to say.
So you feel al Qaeda and Iran would just leave Iraq alone if America pulled out? What planet are you from exactly? The Democrat congress cut off all financing and support for S. Viet Nam, leaving them as easy pickings for the North. They want to do the same with Iraq and the result will be the same - millions will die. But even worse, it will destabilize the entire region. Barack Obama is a pandering fool who says things like he will pull out of Iraq in 16 months to placate the Netroots nuts in the Democrat party like you. But he has already flip flopped on that pledge a couple of times, as has been documented in this thread. Hillary has flip flopped on troop withdrawal as well. You Netroots nuts may as well beam back up to the mothership, because your mission has failed.
Here's Barack Obama's good buddy and fellow traveler William Ayers back in the news again. Too bad he's white - or he could attend Obama's church. Obamaâs Buddy, Bill Ayers Stomping the American Flag http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-s...ama-s-buddy-bill-ayers-stomping-american-flag
Obama must be in a cold sweat that someone has a photo or vid of him yukking it up with that little shit Ayers. The media libs have all convinced each other that it is desperately unfair to let his friends, pastor, wife, etc taint Obama. At some point however, don't voters wake up and ask themselves why Obama seems so drawn to people with such radical views of the country? One oddball maybe you can overlook, but this has become a pattern.
Another IMAO Groaner "There are Democrat primaries in Indiana and North Carolina tonight and Hillary Clinton campaign sent out this statement: 'Our own polling shows that Senator Clinton is down by 100% in both states, and because of Senator Obama's negative campaigning, it will be amazing if Senator Clinton gets even one vote. Were she to get four or five votes, that would be an amazing victory for Senator Clinton to beat expectations by that much. Were she to get more than that -- well that's just foolish speculations of such an amazingly fantastic outcome that I don't even think we should bother commenting on it. We're just hoping that Senator Clinton get perhaps eight votes total between the two races, though we'll be quite happy with six.' I don't know; do you think they're strategically trying to lower expectations so they can better claim a huge victory tonight?"
Senators don't get elected the highest office in the land. Ike was last US Senator to be elected. This year will be different and it will go down in the textbooks as such. We're gonna be fucked with each and every outcome.