The Trouble with Cowboy Presidents

[randy]

We already are raiding into Pakistan.  Go complain to Bush.  It's an oxymoron to say "I will not telegraph my punches," and Obama rightly countered the whole "advertising" thing by pointing out that McCain has also done "advertising", e.g., "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran," etc.  At the strategic level, the new President is going to have to deal with a Pakistan that is in an economically precarious situation--and hungry masses of citizens make violent upheavals.  It's obvious that Obama is a more diplomatic presidential hopeful--that, in fact, is what he's being criticized for except in this case.  But this case is already a policy fact of the Bush Administration and the tactical approach by the military in Afganistan.  The Maverick just made a cheap criticism which is in fact inconsistent with his own style, not Obama's.  And he got caught doing it as well. 

McCain also noted that was one of those filtered clips when he was joking to some fellow veterans, that was a cheap shot.  But Iran is the largest financial sponsor to terrorist and lets do not forget Hamas and training terrorist to go into Iraq to kill US and Iraq soldiers.

[Beel]

He was giving a speech to "fellow veterans."  He made it sound like it was some private conversation, but it wasn't.  He's the one weaseling out on the quote, and there are plenty of others.  McCain is hardly known for his circumspection, and his lecture to Obama about the "big stick" thing is sophomoric and patronizing. (So was the "that one" reference last night, plus there was a tinge of racism in it.)

[randy]

Obama is a attorney, they go to school and are trained to make people believe their side of the story rather it's true or not.  It's what they do.

[Silk_Hope]

So they are trained to lie.

[RJLeeb]

We already are raiding into Pakistan.  Go complain to Bush.  It's an oxymoron to say "I will not telegraph my punches," and Obama rightly countered the whole "advertising" thing by pointing out that McCain has also done "advertising", e.g., "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran," etc.  At the strategic level, the new President is going to have to deal with a Pakistan that is in an economically precarious situation--and hungry masses of citizens make violent upheavals.  It's obvious that Obama is a more diplomatic presidential hopeful--that, in fact, is what he's being criticized for except in this case.  But this case is already a policy fact of the Bush Administration and the tactical approach by the military in Afganistan.  The Maverick just made a cheap criticism which is in fact inconsistent with his own style, not Obama's.  And he got caught doing it as well. 

I see, so Obama is going to invade Pakistan in a more "diplomatic" fashion.  Conducting raids in Pakistan is a far cry from "ordering U.S. troops into that country unilaterally" or as the article says "shift the military's focus to threats" in Pakistan.

Wonderful spin you've got there.

[Beel]

Seems like crossing the border of Pakistan is exactly ordering our troops into Pakistan.  What Obama said last night was that if bin Laden was in his sights, he'd pull the trigger.  Exactly what Clinton did in '98 with the missile strikes into Afganistan.  The trick to any of these efforts at "getting bin Laden" is collateral damage.  My reading of Obama is that he would be more genuinely concerned with "collateral damage" than would McCain.

We'll certainly see if Obama is elected, because he's going to, without a doubt, have to think about collateral damage arguments as part of any decision he makes to use the military.  This, in fact, is a significant objection to not only McCain, but Obama, by the seriously anti-war component of our citizenry, and it's a good point too.  (If you want to read that argument against Obama, just google Arthur Silber--he has written prolifically and with great eloquence on why the Democrats are just as much war-mongerers and American exceptionalists as the Republicans.)  Given the choice at hand, my position is that McCain is rather obviously more reckless, as his whole record indicates, and as he himself affirms in his embrace of the appellation "maverick."  (Then he goes one step too far with Palin's "team of mavericks.")

[WolfpackFan]

We have contributed to the situation in Pakistan through our cowboy policies.  Whether we can fix Pakistan I have no idea, but I doubt that a new cowboy will have any abilities in that regard.  Mr. McCain, as he says, is a maverick--a person who goes his own way as opposed to a leader. 

Which cowboy policy do you think contributed the most to the situation in Pakistan?

[snowcamper]

12 million illegal immigrants believe in American exceptionalism, are you telling me they're all wrong?  How racist of you.

[randy]

Seems like crossing the border of Pakistan is exactly ordering our troops into Pakistan.  What Obama said last night was that if bin Laden was in his sights, he'd pull the trigger.  Exactly what Clinton did in '98 with the missile strikes into Afganistan.  The trick to any of these efforts at "getting bin Laden" is collateral damage.  My reading of Obama is that he would be more genuinely concerned with "collateral damage" than would McCain.

We'll certainly see if Obama is elected, because he's going to, without a doubt, have to think about collateral damage arguments as part of any decision he makes to use the military.  This, in fact, is a significant objection to not only McCain, but Obama, by the seriously anti-war component of our citizenry, and it's a good point too.  (If you want to read that argument against Obama, just google Arthur Silber--he has written prolifically and with great eloquence on why the Democrats are just as much war-mongerers and American exceptionalists as the Republicans.)  Given the choice at hand, my position is that McCain is rather obviously more reckless, as his whole record indicates, and as he himself affirms in his embrace of the appellation "maverick."  (Then he goes one step too far with Palin's "team of mavericks.")

to bad  bin Laden was warned just prior to that Clinton missle attack, hmm?

[Claude Bowles]

Too bad we had to drop everything and invade Iraq when we could have nailed his raggedy butt in Tora Bora.

[randy]

Too bad we had to drop everything and invade Iraq when we could have nailed his raggedy butt in Tora Bora.

?

[RJLeeb]

This may be what the poster Claude Bowles was referring to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/60minutes/main4494937.shtml

[randy]

This may be what the poster Claude Bowles was referring to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/60minutes/main4494937.shtml

Excellent video story by 60 minutes and to the Commander of Delta Force.  It sad that someone up that political ladder didn't let the Delta force carry through with "all" their planning, especially land mining that pass.  I guess the old story, leave it to a politician to screw up a plan that would work rings out true in justice.  You could see it in that solders eye's that he was still hurting inside that his mission failed, I hope he will stop taking it so personally for his sake.  What a patriot.

[Claude Bowles]

This may be what the poster Claude Bowles was referring to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/60minutes/main4494937.shtml

That mission and the follow up that never happened.

[randy]

This may be what the poster Claude Bowles was referring to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/60minutes/main4494937.shtml

That mission and the follow up that never happened.

I missed that or didn't get it.  what follow up?

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else