OT: Obama is Conservative

[Arraya]

Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.

I would help if the US did not sponsor it.

http://www.www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=aearly80madrassas

July 3, 1979: President Carter Approves Covert Aid to Anti-Soviet Forces in Afghanistan
President Carter authorizes covert aid for opponents of the Communist government in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser, will state in 1998, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujaheddin began… after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan… But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.… We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” [LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR (PARIS), 1/15/1998] After Brzezinski’s confession, other US officials who denied US involvement prior to the Soviet invasion will change their story as well. For instance, Charles Cogan, who is head of the CIA covert aid program to Afghanistan at this time, will call Carter’s approval on this day a “very modest beginning to US involvement.” [COOLEY, 2002, PP. 10] In fact, even this is not correct because the CIA had been aiding the rebels since at least the year before (see 1978 and 1973-1979). The Soviets invade Afghanistan by the end of 1979 (see December 8, 1979).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

The Afghan Mujahedeen of the 1980s have been alleged to be the inspiration for terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia.[64] According to Russian sources, the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 allegedly used a manual allegedly written by the CIA for the Mujihadeen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives.[65]

The United Kingdom politician Robin Cook, who served as the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons described Al-Qaeda as meaning “the database” and a product of western miscalculation. Cook wrote:
Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[30]

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.

I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.

surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.

As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.

What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.

As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.

Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.

Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.

Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.

Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.[/quote]

Here is the you tube clip of Obama and his bomb on pearl harbor.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jBMv-GfFwAE

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.

I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.

surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.

As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.

What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.

As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.

Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.

Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.

Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.

Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.[/quote]

Here is the you tube clip of Obama and his bomb on pearl harbor.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jBMv-GfFwAE

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.

I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.

surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.

As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.

What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.

As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.

Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.

Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.

Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.

Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.[/quote]

Here is the you tube clip of Obama and his bomb on pearl harbor.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jBMv-GfFwAE

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.

I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.

surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.

As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.

What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.

As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.

Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.

Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.

Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.

Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.[/quote]

Here is the you tube clip of Obama and his bomb on pearl harbor.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jBMv-GfFwAE

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]casca, that’s dumb. Goebbels was Nazi propoganda minister. This is a civic discussion of politics in a free democracy. What a dumb comment.

I challenge you to rebut: Obama is a realist who is taking conservative foreign policy positions. So we can be clear on what ‘conservative’ means, building nation states in the Middle East is not CONSERVATIVE. Nor does it seem to be working out too well.

surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.

As for the ‘surge’, it hasn’t worked. The purpose of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. That hasn’t happened. We did our part, they didn’t do theirs. This was predicted and has occurred.

What is our mission in Iraq, exactly? Is our goal is to have a permanent military presence and be the police force for the state of Iraq? It isn’t feasible nor is it strategically desirable.

As for the facts on the ground in Iraq, I find it hard to believe an extra 30,000 troops has made a good deal of difference. It is more likely due to changes that have resulted from Petraus’ command, changes in our tactics, additional emphasis on non-military aspects, re-alignment of internal Iraqi politics, paying off the tribes to lay low (for the time being), separating ethnic factions with security barriers, etc.

Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.

Our chief enemy remains Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as East Africa, with support from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Zarqawi? Resurgent Taliban. More troops killed in Afghanistan than Iraq last month. Until this fundamental problem with our larger Middle East policy is addressed, the whole Iraq debate is of little consequence.

Obama is a foreign policy realist and a conservative compared to Bush/McCain. I suspect we would make more actual progress in terms of American interests.

Thanks for the comments. Open to more discussion and debate.[/quote]

Here is the you tube clip of Obama and his bomb on pearl harbor.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jBMv-GfFwAE

[gandalf]

Allan, I had trouble with Zakaria’s labels as well.

I think the larger point is correct though, Bush/McCain and the new Republican party is ideological and interventionist, while Obama’s positions are more in line with conservatism and even approach realpolitik at times. I think he’s closer to Bush 41 and Eisenhower.

And I agree, BTW, that the main driver with AQ is religious extremism.

My counter question would be, do you really truly honestly believe Obama is that ignorant?

Consider Obama’s background:

Columbia University, BA in Political Science, Thesis on Soviet Disarmament

Harvard Law, magna cum laude, President Law Review

Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law at University Chicago

Senator, elected by the majority of the state of Illinois (not House of Representative districts), sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee with access to intelligence

The whole notion that he’s dumb or ignorant or naive? I just don’t buy it. Who on this board has this kind of career or credentials? surveyor??

[gandalf]

Allan, I had trouble with Zakaria’s labels as well.

I think the larger point is correct though, Bush/McCain and the new Republican party is ideological and interventionist, while Obama’s positions are more in line with conservatism and even approach realpolitik at times. I think he’s closer to Bush 41 and Eisenhower.

And I agree, BTW, that the main driver with AQ is religious extremism.

My counter question would be, do you really truly honestly believe Obama is that ignorant?

Consider Obama’s background:

Columbia University, BA in Political Science, Thesis on Soviet Disarmament

Harvard Law, magna cum laude, President Law Review

Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law at University Chicago

Senator, elected by the majority of the state of Illinois (not House of Representative districts), sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee with access to intelligence

The whole notion that he’s dumb or ignorant or naive? I just don’t buy it. Who on this board has this kind of career or credentials? surveyor??

[gandalf]

Allan, I had trouble with Zakaria’s labels as well.

I think the larger point is correct though, Bush/McCain and the new Republican party is ideological and interventionist, while Obama’s positions are more in line with conservatism and even approach realpolitik at times. I think he’s closer to Bush 41 and Eisenhower.

And I agree, BTW, that the main driver with AQ is religious extremism.

My counter question would be, do you really truly honestly believe Obama is that ignorant?

Consider Obama’s background:

Columbia University, BA in Political Science, Thesis on Soviet Disarmament

Harvard Law, magna cum laude, President Law Review

Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law at University Chicago

Senator, elected by the majority of the state of Illinois (not House of Representative districts), sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee with access to intelligence

The whole notion that he’s dumb or ignorant or naive? I just don’t buy it. Who on this board has this kind of career or credentials? surveyor??

[gandalf]

Allan, I had trouble with Zakaria’s labels as well.

I think the larger point is correct though, Bush/McCain and the new Republican party is ideological and interventionist, while Obama’s positions are more in line with conservatism and even approach realpolitik at times. I think he’s closer to Bush 41 and Eisenhower.

And I agree, BTW, that the main driver with AQ is religious extremism.

My counter question would be, do you really truly honestly believe Obama is that ignorant?

Consider Obama’s background:

Columbia University, BA in Political Science, Thesis on Soviet Disarmament

Harvard Law, magna cum laude, President Law Review

Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law at University Chicago

Senator, elected by the majority of the state of Illinois (not House of Representative districts), sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee with access to intelligence

The whole notion that he’s dumb or ignorant or naive? I just don’t buy it. Who on this board has this kind of career or credentials? surveyor??

[gandalf]

Allan, I had trouble with Zakaria’s labels as well.

I think the larger point is correct though, Bush/McCain and the new Republican party is ideological and interventionist, while Obama’s positions are more in line with conservatism and even approach realpolitik at times. I think he’s closer to Bush 41 and Eisenhower.

And I agree, BTW, that the main driver with AQ is religious extremism.

My counter question would be, do you really truly honestly believe Obama is that ignorant?

Consider Obama’s background:

Columbia University, BA in Political Science, Thesis on Soviet Disarmament

Harvard Law, magna cum laude, President Law Review

Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law at University Chicago

Senator, elected by the majority of the state of Illinois (not House of Representative districts), sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee with access to intelligence

The whole notion that he’s dumb or ignorant or naive? I just don’t buy it. Who on this board has this kind of career or credentials? surveyor??

[surveyor]

facts

[quote=gandalf]surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.[/quote]

Gandalf, I apologize in advance if the facts are inconvenient to your dogma.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/16/ino.01.html

Throughout our history, America’s confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

(emphasis by me)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained “special groups” that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is — of course — too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

And here’s a surprise:

[quote=gandalf]Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.[/quote]

While the surge is not the end all be all of the foreign policy objectives, I do agree that the war on terrorism is currently being short-sighted. The war actually goes beyond the Taliban, Bin Laden, Zarqawi (you do know he’s dead, right?), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa. The core of the war should concentrate on the ideology of islamofacism and attack based on those principles. Unfortunately neither candidate, McCain or Obama, has an inkling that this should be the preferred approach. Obama is just more obvious in his cluelessness.

[surveyor]

facts

[quote=gandalf]surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.[/quote]

Gandalf, I apologize in advance if the facts are inconvenient to your dogma.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/16/ino.01.html

Throughout our history, America’s confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

(emphasis by me)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained “special groups” that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is — of course — too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

And here’s a surprise:

[quote=gandalf]Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.[/quote]

While the surge is not the end all be all of the foreign policy objectives, I do agree that the war on terrorism is currently being short-sighted. The war actually goes beyond the Taliban, Bin Laden, Zarqawi (you do know he’s dead, right?), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa. The core of the war should concentrate on the ideology of islamofacism and attack based on those principles. Unfortunately neither candidate, McCain or Obama, has an inkling that this should be the preferred approach. Obama is just more obvious in his cluelessness.

[surveyor]

facts

[quote=gandalf]surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.[/quote]

Gandalf, I apologize in advance if the facts are inconvenient to your dogma.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/16/ino.01.html

Throughout our history, America’s confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

(emphasis by me)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained “special groups” that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is — of course — too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

And here’s a surprise:

[quote=gandalf]Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.[/quote]

While the surge is not the end all be all of the foreign policy objectives, I do agree that the war on terrorism is currently being short-sighted. The war actually goes beyond the Taliban, Bin Laden, Zarqawi (you do know he’s dead, right?), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa. The core of the war should concentrate on the ideology of islamofacism and attack based on those principles. Unfortunately neither candidate, McCain or Obama, has an inkling that this should be the preferred approach. Obama is just more obvious in his cluelessness.

[surveyor]

facts

[quote=gandalf]surveyor, I don’t know about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. I find it really hard to believe a graduate of Columbia (I am one), and Harvard Law (cum laude) as well as US Constitional Law professor doesn’t know the history of Pearl Harbor. Sounds to me like you’re making shit up.[/quote]

Gandalf, I apologize in advance if the facts are inconvenient to your dogma.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/16/ino.01.html

Throughout our history, America’s confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

(emphasis by me)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained “special groups” that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is — of course — too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

And here’s a surprise:

[quote=gandalf]Larger point: hanging the direction of our overall Middle East foreign policy on the outcome of something as tactical and targeted as “The Surge” misses the forest for the trees.[/quote]

While the surge is not the end all be all of the foreign policy objectives, I do agree that the war on terrorism is currently being short-sighted. The war actually goes beyond the Taliban, Bin Laden, Zarqawi (you do know he’s dead, right?), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa. The core of the war should concentrate on the ideology of islamofacism and attack based on those principles. Unfortunately neither candidate, McCain or Obama, has an inkling that this should be the preferred approach. Obama is just more obvious in his cluelessness.

[Author]

Posts