Did anyone catch Obama’s Libya speech? I just watched it. He spent the first third tidying up on political points. Then he made his single valid point – that allowing Gadhafi to regain control of the country with outright military force against the citizens would have prescribed to all the other dictators losing power what to do.

Then he made a bogus comparison between this non-war-war-making and the invasion of Iraq, in an attempt to show that this is different from Iraq, specifically because the goal of the Iraq invasion was (naughty word) regiem change. Bill O’Reilly agreed with him on that point. I think they’re both full of shit…

The problem with the Iraq invasion wasn’t the goal of regime change, or the actual change. It was that the goal was reach far easier than we expected and were ready for. The damn country collapsed in on itself and insurgents pored in from every America-hatting hole in the world. From there fear and complacency came over the Iraqi people, waiting for the US to fix it.

Libya is a totally different situation. The Libyan people are a different kind of people. They formed an army out of their neighborhoods – and without social networking. FFS, the rebels have already set up a new national bank and are trying to sell oil from fields they recently captured. WTF?!?!? How smooth would Iraq have gone if a couple a couple dozen of these guys lived there??? They sure can’t fight for shit, and shoot way too much ammo into the air – but they’re industrious.

Like I said, we should have let the Enterprise savage Gadhafi’s aircraft that first day when he unleashed them on the rebels. Without Gadhafi’s fire power, the rebel’s momentum would have continued, and anyone sane would have dropped loyalty to Moe Crazy.

Of course that was never a possibility. We can’t have anything that politically looks like our unilateral Iraq expedition. But if the goal of all this business doesn’t include regime change, I don’t know what the hell is going on, and I doubt the sanity and/or honesty of everyone involved. What scenario worth our military intervention could possibly include Gadhafi still ruling Libya???

Oh shit, I’ve got to change a fuse in the bull-shit detector again…

That’s odd. This story coming out has been one of the most damaging things to Obama. The comments weren’t bad. But the article did show that – or represent that – the experts on the subject think Obama and his band of wet-eared-twits are incompetent fools. And it’s not a political thing. Mc Crystal voted for Obama – I’ve heard. Hell, out of all the people feeling like jackasses for voting for Obama, Mc Crystal is in the top ten.

But seriously, who could blame any warrior for bitching about this administration’s attempt at administrating war? The whole group was dead-set against the surge in Iraq. They wanted to leave!!! That’s how Obama got off the ground politically. Before that he was giving pessimistic idealistic cheap-shot shit to Petraeus in senate hearings.

And Biden – good Lord… He’s still against the surge in Afghanistan. His idea was to leave and strike at terrorists with the Navy via missiles and drones. Holy-horseshit Biden, even with soldiers on the ground peaking in windows we’re struggling not to kill civilians and make more terrorists – when we kill terrorists with missiles and drones.

Sometimes democracy produces some seriously stupid events. Unless we plan to stay in Afghanistan for the next couple decades, as apposed to starting withdraws according to Obama’s Lefty time-table, I’m not sure how we’ll pull this thing off. Canning guys like Mc Crystal for this kind of crap isn’t going to help.

Do you get the feeling, when Obama has to step outside and partake in the job of actual leadership, that he feels he’s getting sidetracked? I think Obama saw the President as the guy who get’s to say where we pull over to eat and when, but didn’t realize 99% of the time he’d have to be driving this damn country and not pushing his big fancy agenda.

And that’s what half this thing is about. Obama has his nifty time-line and is still openly planning to start withdraws next July, even though we are currently stuck up to the axles. Everyone with a brain has been screaming and crying about why announcing time-lines to Al Qaeda and the Taliban is extremelyunwise, illogical, and insane – sort of like telling them how you, or that you have, extracted intelligence from one of their failed suiciders.

Obama hits his old problem here: ideology trumping logic. If his Left suspected his Afghanistan commitment was open ended – and some do – they’d turn on his hopy-changey ass. But he’s stuck! He already used 2007-2008 pleasant Afghanistan to hammer on Bush and the, then difficult, efforts in Iraq – calling Afghanistan necessary and not optional and a bunch of other words that would commit even a slimy politician to the effort – at least for a while, until some logical-sounding reason can be found to leave.

At least with Afghanistan some of the criticism is right. You guys know, I’ve always had faith in Iraq. When former Iraqi’s were saying Iraqis aren’t capable of talk, they’ll just hit each other with shoes, I remembered a photo taken just after the fall of Baghdad: Smoke was rising from the city and US troops where holding up traffic going in. The photographer was behind an old pickup FILLED with ripe tomatoes. They had to get those tomatoes to market or they’d rot! I felt then these people had what it would take to build a society without a dictator keeping them inline. I don’t have this faith in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is HUGE, primitive, corrupt, CRAZY, desperate, and just plain generally not-smart. But like McCain said over and over: It’s not troop presence that people are against, it’s casualties. That’s one more thing McCain said that’s proven true. Can anyone think of anything Obama or Biden said that has proven true?  POSERS!!!

Well then, stop using characterizations. I’d like to think I have something to learn from Liberal thinkers, but all they do, as you’ve done today, is state general needs and characterizations along with the ever present Bush bash:

I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger. If the bank CEOs had been under tighter control, the world wouldn’t be in an economic down turn. His policies reflect his ideals.

I can’t really blame you at this point though. All Obama has proven to be is a symbol – a mascot to be carted around and make fancy vague sunshine speeches while Nancy and Reid force through the most god-awful legislative concoctions man kind will likely ever know.

I don’t know how to learn anything from any of this. That’s why I keep telling you to explain the policies you support. You read a British magazine. You like it. So you let them do your economic thinking because they’re smarter than you? Seriously? Your admitting that my insulting accusation was true – you believe something without understanding it because you like believing in it. You have a “very British” perspective… That’s lame Dr. Dove – totally lame. I hate believing half the conclusions I’ve come to.

And I’m not getting emotional about a political side – ffs. Thanks for assuming I could actually care though. What annoys me is when anyone makes illogical or useless arguments, or simply states things generally without explanation to refute something I’ve carefully explained.

That’s why it’s exhausting you know. When you have an idea that you can’t explain, nothing is more exhausting than having it challenged. That’s why I said before: if you can’t explain something just say so. But don’t pull out comfortable Liberal falsities you choose to believe then be surprised when I call bullshit. And when I call bullshit don’t call me partisan – or ranting Noisy Dove – just because the bullshit is on the left today.

Give me a logical reason to support one of your ideas. If you do I’ll support it. Until then I’m going to assume that, if we have 10 chickens that each lay one egg every other day we will get 5 eggs per day. And if we slaughter one chicken, yes, we will have a great deal of much needed meat that we can use to proudly and historically feed people with, I’ll agree with that. But I won’t believe we will continue to have 5 eggs per day. And I won’t believe that we have increased our overall protein intake. It has nothing to do with ideology. It’s just logical.

Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps

Hey now. There’s no need to get offensive. You were ranting. You love ranting.

I get really exhausted having these conversations. My personal beliefs on politics and economics are distinctly British. Its probably because I’ve been getting my news from the Economist since medical school. I let them think for me on this kind of stuff. They know more than me. The magazine is socially liberal and economically conservative. Oddly, they think Bush was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

American liberal political philosophy is no more illogical than American conservative political philosophy. Whenever I read something that says Bush was nobly defending our nation, and that Obama has a secret ulterior motive, I can’t help but to put on a liberal American hat and start fighting for their ideology. I just can’t help it.

I hate strong political views, because they’re dangerous, and almost across the board based on a simplified version of reality that jives with some kind of flawed political ideology. Look at the current healthcare reform bill. It is a total disaster, and the price tag is like a trillion dollars. I can almost guarantee it will make healthcare worse for everyone. Look at the war in Iraq. The American people were led to support it based on a lie. Its cost us at least a trillion dollars, and we still may loose the damned thing. On top of that, it has cost the U.S credibility throughout the world.

My point is that I don’t think we should have such strong emotional ties to political ideas. Good doesn’t come from it. They can devolve into the kind of nonsense conversations that noisydove and drdove get into.

I suppose my point is that our political conversations would be a lot more informative if they weren’t filled with characterizations of the opposing side. I have something to learn from American conservatism. You all have something to learn from American liberalism.

If the housing act – whatever the name of that was – the thing that make Fannie and Freddie – such overregulation – the world wouldn’t be in this mess…

Did you ever take even one economics class Dr. Dove? And seriously, I understand your point. It’s the point made by every other Liberal. We need to do this to help these. This isn’t fair. I think reducing the income of the rich is worth helping the poor. I don’t need to hear any more of that. I’d like to know HOW your programs are supposed to work, scientifically, fundamentally, philosophically, specifically – because they never have.

Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps:

Obama’s health reform won’t be helpful to the 40 million uninsured because it’s not health reform. If you can tell me how it WILL help the uninsured I’ll sure as shit support it.

The economic stimulus did nothing for any ‘little guy’ unless that ‘little guy’ runs an asphalt business or works in government.

Obama is already shrinking the gap between the poor and rich. The fact he got elected did that. The Dem policies continue the trend. Business is scared shitless of expansion. Most are tapering down – fearing over capacity, higher taxes, higher energy costs, and higher employment costs. That means entrepreneurs are struggling or hesitating to start or expand the industries that will feed and cloth us in the coming decade – due to lack of investment. You know, like solar panels and stuff, ironically.

And this monetization – this making of dollars out of this air, that’s reducing the gap more than anything. Once this downturn is over, and the pent up cash hits the market, what do you think will happen to the value of the dollar now that these hundreds of billions were magically produced? Inflation. Inflation is basically a tax on anyone who owns dollars.

This was adorable:

I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger.

So tell me then Dr. Dove, because Glenn and I would like to know. How will any of these policies help or better

represent the poor. I know that is your camp’s image: The guys out to fight evil business and help the poor poor. But all I see are ideas that harm business, the thing that actually does help the poor. All I see is a legacy of trapping the poor in housing projects and spreading a sense of entitlement.

And are you trying to say Obama think making everyone poor will make the country stronger? Or are you saying his

policies will somehow make poor people richer? I’d like to know how. If you don’t understand how just say so – because that’s what I think. I think you have no grasp of economic principle but like the feeling of compassion – so you buy into this illogical garbage.

For Noisy Dove: Ok, that was a beautiful Noisy Dove political rant, but you’re missing my point. I’ll try to explain.

For Professor Dove: My belief that Obama is trying to merge to two Americas is based on his background and political actions. Apart from a few token consessions, nothing he’s done has been for those with power and money. That’s basically the opposite of GWB. Obama’s pushing this current healthcare reform, which will be harmful to everyone except the 40 million uninsured Americans. The democratic goody-bag (aka economic stimulus) did little for businesses, and much more for “the little guy.”  And as to your comment:

“It does, however, appear that Obama is trying something drastic to help the poor.  But capitalism doesn’t exist without the poor.  It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how America will look in 15 years as far as the inner city world, the well-off world, and how the overall economy will function.”

I have no idea how things will look. I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger. If the bank CEOs had been under tighter control, the world wouldn’t be in an economic down turn. His policies reflect his ideals.

? The war in Iraq was a success. Maybe you were too little to remember Dr. Dove, but it was the lack of an immediate victory strategy that got us into trouble. No one predicted Iraq would fold up like a paper bag and we had ‘control’ of the place before we were ready – which allowed the insurgency and made for hasty arrogant decisions.

I don’t want to talk about your odd idea that Bush had economic gain in mind for the war. That’s about as logical as Bush planning 9-11 or the outsourcing with cheaper foreign CEO idea.

The argument that Bush went in so as to stake a sizable military presence in the area – that’s logical. That’s what I figured would at least be the bonus affect of the war from its beginning. We need a presence there badly. The alternative was to keep two carrier groups in range indefinitely.

Regan did exactly what needed to be done. He stimulated business and we quickly emerged from the recession. He did the opposite of what Carter was doing, which was keeping us in the recession, AND IS WHAT OBAMA IS DOING NOW BUT WITH EXTRA ZERROS.

And I appreciate your compassion. But if you truly care about your fellow man test what you’re going to inoculatehim with first. This whole Liberal idea of pumping money into second America is the reason there still is a second America. As the standard of living in America grew, more people moved out of industrial areas – like Detroit – and many factories shut down and went elsewhere – probably due to union concerns.

The Lefties like Obama have the idea that “They’re going to hurt people with money, and they’re going to try to help those without it.” Now shit, if that actually worked, or if we didn’t know if it worked, I’d say give it a go. BUT IT DOESN’T FUCKING WORK, WE KNOW THAT. Trickling welfare into the ghettos is the reason we have ghettos and weird housing projects. When you give someone money you teach them not to try, especially when you give them just enough to keep living a miserable life right where they’re at – only able to afford the bare necessities and develop animosity. This same thing happens in small country towns. If they want more money the options are: Have a baby or commit crime.

“If that means greater government control of business, and less individual freedom, I think that’s sacrifice he’s willing to make.” What if the history of the last century isn’t all fables and analogies? Dr. Dove, the way to help the second America isn’t to taper down the success of successful people and trickle a bare subsistence onto the poor. It’s giving the poor reasonable jobs. And the way you give them jobs is to stop scaring the shit out of everyone trying to make something out of American.

Anything is better than this cycle of poverty Liberals love to create with their compassionate hearts. Even allowing people to become millionaires and hire away Democratic electorate.

Oh let me – let me.

Cap and trade will chase numerous factories out of the country, causing further flight from small towns and urban areas to commercial suburbs – creating new poor people and stranding them next to their closed former employer.

The new taxes will function similarly. Few millionaires will feel comfortable expanding their businesses and hiring people, which will keep the level of unemployment high. We will eventually see the two Americas merge in the sense that more and more Americans fall out of the job market and demand government aid, which causes government to increase taxes to supply the aid, which further harms productivity, and forces more people out of their jobs, and eventually out of the job market all together, where they are forces to demand government aid.

You might think the cycle would become obvious and politicians would stop the tax and make game, but they won’t, because they haven’t yet, not on the left anyway. The poor people who have no hope of finding work in the newly merged American continue electing whoever promises the biggest prizes.

We continue taking the millionaire’s millions and giving the poor their hundreds. Obama sees not everyone isgetting enough eggs, so he wants to slaughter some chickens to feed them (since some farmers have more chickens than they need anyway) – and assumes we’ll have the same or more eggs later.

The analogy is valid. Over taxing an evil millionaire takes away his ability to reinvest into his operations. This means – of course – less investment and less growth – less new jobs and fewer old jobs. Better to let the millionaire build his ideas and aspirations – which involves hiring people and training them with valuable skills. And if you want to help the dirt poor folks, lower the minimum wage. Stop cutting unskilled people out of the job market – which is what min-wage does. Get some operations near those poor areas to take advantage of the labor. The poor can finally start working their way out of those miserable ghettos, projects, and dead towns.

In other words, let the farmers keep more chickens than they need. What they’ll do is convert some of their egg production into making new chickens. Eggs will get cheaper and in greater supply. Then we’ll all have eggs.

It you want eggs stop killing the fucking chickens!!!!!

I think a better question to ask Dr. Dove is: How, using economic science, will these policies of Obama actually help anyone? Because even if wealth were a constant, and we took ALL the rich people’s money, there wouldn’t be enough to welfare the poor into middle class. So redistribution won’t work, even without counting the fact that it destroys the source of what it’s distributing.

OK, so I’ve finally gotten a free minute to think about something other than cancer. I’m back in the conversation.

…the main difference between Bush and Obama is thusly:  I truly believe that Bush sought additional governmental power for the soul sake of protecting us.  I once believed Obama would fall in that same category, but based on my observations, I believe he seeks government power to control us and industry.  Maybe that is too far.  I never once thought that Bush had an underlying political agenda other than to protect us, strengthen our military, and support long-term economic growth.  Obama, to me, has an underlying political motive that scares me, mainly because I am not sure what it is.  I can only guess.  My guess is less power for the people.

I appreciate Professor Dove’s sincerity. It makes having a thoughtful conversation with someone with a differing opinion much easier. Bush and Obama are both guilty of having an underlying political agenda. Bush’s was taking control (for our economic gain, of course) of one of the most oil rich countries in the world. He pretended like we needed to take over Iraq because they had WMDs. That wasn’t true, and the intelligence was cooked. If lying about your motivations for attacking a sovereign nation doesn’t count as having an underlying political agenda, I don’t know what does.

Regarding Obama:
There are two Americas. We all belong to the first. We’re part of a group that has a decent chance of gaining economic stability. Even though our high school wasn’t the best, it at least gave us the bare bones we needed to get into and through college. Health insurance is relatively easy for us to come by, because we either have jobs or have the intelligience to find alternate ways to get it. None of us has been shot at, our parents weren’t single and 17 years old when they had us, and our experience tells us that selling crack and basketball aren’t the only two ways to escape hell, and get money and respect. That’s the second America. The inner city is large, and millions of people live there. They have no hope, because they’re ignorant (schools are horrible…I went to college with a few for a couple weeks…not pretty…ill prepared for anything but 6th grade), poor, and desparate.

Obama’s goal is to help merge the two Americas. If that means greater government control of business, and less individual freedom, I think that’s sacrifice he’s willing to make.

Reagan couldn’t have cared less about the second America. Homelessness exploded under his economic leaderships, as did the number of individual millionaires. The Bonfire of the Vanities is a classic book abou thelater. Obama doesn’t think that’s right.

Obama’s going to lie about how his ecnomic plans will help everyone. They won’t. They’re going to hurt people with money, and they’re going to try to help those without it.

Whether or not throwing money at the problem is going to work (standard democrat logic) is a totally different question. Then again, the trickle down effect wasn’t exactly a success either. Kind of like the war in Iraq.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2791

People like to compare Obama to Lincoln for some reason. Here’s a good exercise though: How do you think – Dr. Dove especially – Obama would have handled the southern states succession and acquisition of US forts in southern territory?

He would probably have fought a war. Here’s a better question: How would Obama have handled Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11? He probably wouldn’t have done the right thing by making Iraq the top priority, while leaving Afghanistan to the dogs. Damn, he sure is a bad president.

Are you sure Dr. Dove?  I remember you commending Bush on taking the month or so he took figuring before Crippling the Taliban in Afghanistan. I remember you comparing it to the day-after Tomahawk strikes good old Billy used to pull – the type that had the crazy Muslims calling it a distraction from Monica. I doubt Obama would have even sent SF like Billy used to do.
And would Obama have pushed for something like the Patriot Act, you know, the thing that has been allowing us the intell that has stopped the post 9-11 attacks, like the Sears Tower that we know of, and the intel we didn’t use about the Fort Hood shooter?

And I agree. Obama wouldn’t have attacked Iraq. Sadam would still be jerking him around like a gullible nephew – like Iran and N Korea are. Instead of the world seeing a dictator pulled out of a rat hole for not complying with the national community, they’d see what they are seeing now, an impotent UN and a polite and likable US President they can ignore and go about their Nuclear aims. You know, like Iran is.

But what about this? What if Bush was correct? What if Iraq was as strong as it looked and a few years from having nukes? How would your man have prevented that? Or would he have? And will he with Iran or N Korea? Or does that even matter in this post-racial society where everything comes down to race – lol?

I think Bush did well to take time before going into Afghanistan. The initial attack on the Taliban was brilliant. The problem was Rumsfeld thought we only needed a handful of soldiers and CIA after the initial assault, and Bush granted him his wish. The assessment was totally wrong, and allowed Afghanistan to become the fiasco it is today.

Iraq was a horrible idea. The post-war planning was even worse. Iraq was no more of a threat than half a dozen other countries, and we didn’t go attacking them.

We took over Iraq to establish a military base in one of the most oil-rich places on earth. There is no other reason. The weapons of mass destruction fear was smoke and mirrors. The intelligence was cooked. The administration pressured the CIA to cook it.

I think your second idea is right on. There is no way a modern war could turn a profit on the short term. However, with China and India growing, they are going to need energy. Iraq is a great place to find it. I think the administration was afraid our new growing competitors would go after the resources in Iraq in a way we couldn’t (i.e becoming allies with Iraq/Saddam Hussein). Bush and Cheney saw that as bad. They needed to beat China to the punch, and saw war as the best means to do so.

I have trouble with that. Maybe it’s because I’m a hippy, and I don’t think economic gain is moral justification for taking over a sovereign country, even if the leader is an evil guy.

I just want honestly about the whole thing. We didn’t go in because of links with Al Qaeda, WMDs, or freedom fries. We went in to secure an important natural resource for ourselves. We should be discussing if that was morally right or wrong. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

I’m with Obama. An alternate energy source that we could produce here (and make jobs for our people) is a much better alternative to military action in our nascent global competition with China. There is a way. We just need to find it.

I know the Cowboy image the Left likes to propagate. And I understand the version of history you guys like to remember. But you haven’t answered any of my questions. Are you using a debate tactic and know you can’t answer any national defense questions about Obama without leaving him lacking?

Are you really trying to say Obama not only would have sent troops to Afghanistan, but he would have sent manymore than Rumsfeld thought was necessary?

Are you trying to say Obama would have listened more closely to the Generals, contrary to his current actions?

And are you really sticking to the Cooked-Books conspiracy theory??? Just in case, let’s focus on the known-knows. Assuming, as we all did in 2001, we suspected Sadam of having WMD. He wouldn’t allow inspections. Without hindsight, and without imaginary theories, and without assuming Obama has actual god-like powers – would Obama have threatened military force then? And after Sadam continued to evade inspections would Obama have followed up on that threat?

And what about the legislation the Cowboy congress passed, the Patriot Act, which gave us the intel we used to stop numerous terror attacks in the past 8 year? You know sure as shit that wouldn’t have happened.

And here’s another one: Would Obama have been elected for a second term in 2004? Assuming he followed the policies he advocated during his campaign and acted the way he’s acting now, we wouldn’t have had the intel to stop the attacks. So we would have seen at least one more major attack and who knows how many small ones in his first term.

Debate tactics are for morons who can’t think. I like to think I don’t belong in that category.

In the world of if and buts and candy and nuts, I don’t know what Obama would have done. I just think it would have been done in a less reckless way. In the current situation in Afghanistan, I think he’ll listen to his generals and increase troop numbers. We’re going to lose otherwise. We’ll all find out tomorrow.

Regarding the “cooked books conspiracy theory.” It isn’t a conspiracy theory. That the Bush administration pressured to CIA to find evidence that Saddam had WMDs is well documented fact. Why they did it is more of a question.

Holy shit Dr. Dove. Don’t you realize how bias you are being? You’re willing to look so deep and thirst for a suitable truth from Bush’s actions. But you’ll take Obama’s actions at face value – many of which are contrary to his campaign promises. You see no motive behind health reform besides giving needy people healthcare – even though it’s not reform, is more representative of a takeover, and is being written in the opposite on-CSPAN bipartisan way Obama promised? And do you see cap’n trade as a sincere effort to control the earth’s temperature – even though it will increase carbon release and is really nothing more than a complicated tax on energy with a market the government would have control of?

Remember when I asked you about the Fort Hood shooting? Remember your bias answer, the one fitting this world view you’ve chosen? How did that work out? That fucker wasn’t even counseling Vets. He was counseling soldiers before they went over. The military accepted his worthless ass in his lat 20’s or early 30’s – giving his a second chance at life – and gave him a world class education. And he decided to give Jihad a try to thank them. One of the initial conclusions was right. Mine was partially right. Your’s was totally wrong!

Hey, if it was a Christian doing Crusade would you have had the same initial opinion, or would you have brought up how religion can help a man to overcome empathy?

And as for Iraq, we were worried about Sadan having WMDs even during the first Gulf war – Kuwait. And as far as response goes, bush was following the policy Bill Clinton advocated during his presidency. So let’s not act like we’re stupid. Sadam was doing everything he could to get nukes. He used WMD on his own people. Stay out of the conspiracy drawer full of fake moon landings and Bush-planned 9-11.

Unless you think – maybe – Bush thought there were WMD and the CIA just wasn’t magical enough to find the evidence glaring and clear.

This isn’t an if’s and but’s. This is serious. You’re under a delusion about Obama doing everything, no matter what it is, in a better way, whatever that is. It’s the blissful poetry he sold you guys with.

It’s perfectly honest and logical to study how different leaders would have dealt with different past issues – based on their philosophies and motivations – in order to predict how they will hand current issues and future issues. And in this case it’s not ambiguous. Obama has discussed these vary past issues and how he would have handled them.

I imagine he’ll ‘listen’ to our Generals as well. Of course, that depends on your definition of ‘listen.’ Do you think he’ll actually send the 40k the Generals say is NEEDED to not LOSE? Because you seem to assume Obama is staying with the strategy he set out months ago – one that includes securing peace and freedom in Afghanistan.

What happens when he hedges the bet, compromises, and only half-measures the troops number? Because that’s what I think he’ll do – just my prediction, based on his past actions. I think he’d order withdraw if he hadn’t politically painted himself in a corner.

And if you don’t want to be listed in the moron category, answer questions when posed, and don’t use debate tactics.

I think we should give up talking politics for a year or so. Our viewpoints are incongruous. You interpret the world through a lens that thinks conservative thinking is right and liberal thinking is wrong, and I’m just trying not to lose my faith in humanity. Our opinions reflect our viewpoints and goals. Case in point, regarding the Fort Hood guy, I think the evidence clearing indicates the guy snapped. He acted alone, and conflict between his obligation as a soldier and his religious affiliation helped snap him. Jihad can only be used loosely to describe what he did. I think I was right, and you two were wrong. I think the evidence supports my initial instincts.

I support Obama because he’s trying foster a world where nations cooperate to achieve a common good. I refuse to become cynical.

The second argument is valid. Bush and Cheney were both from industries with business models 50+ years long. So they certainly would have seen our lack of influence in the ME as a threat to our energy security.

Of course, that would only be a bonus motivation. Anyone making business plans 50 years long knows that it’s more likely you’re assumption will be wrong – things change a lot. Who knows what the ME would be in 50 years, except that we will need oil from there.

The fact is, we were going to have to fight Sadam again eventually. He was far too destabilizing of a character. Had there been a reasonable post-war strategy we wouldn’t be discussing it. Iraq would be a shining example of productive American intervention as I believe it will soon, assuming Liberals don’t write ALL the history books.

As for the original question about predicting Obama’s actions, assuming the intel was accurate and Sadam did have WMD, what then? Or, in reality as he didn’t, would he now if Obama was President instead of Bush?

And by the way, 2 guns remember. Two guns. That’s what I’d do if I were planning a terror attack. The last thing you’d want is to only have one damn gun in a war for your Lord and have Satan cause a malfunction leaving your victims properly matched to you.