David Moss: Choose McCain

Advertisement

For all of the undecided voters:

This letter is written to provide some food for thought as you decide who to vote for in this most critical election year, especially for president. I am a retired military officer with two tours in Washington, D.C., and 26 years in service to our nation, including a tour in Vietnam. I have seen the president and Congress in action.

First, the issue that is on everyone's mind - the economy. It is important to understand that the president does not control the economy or domestic issues. The president is only one of many who influence the economy. Other major players include Congress, the Federal Reserve, the rest of the world, and finally, us as consumers and what we buy or don't buy. Therefore, basing a vote for president on the economy probably will result in disappointment.

Further, all of the ads about "my program for the economy, health care, education" or other domestic issues should really say, "the program which I will submit to Congress and which they will change will be : ." This is why the race between Sens. Clinton and Obama was so interesting. The minor policy differences between them would have been changed by Congress anyway. Sen. Clinton knew she would have made a better president and was very frustrated when she was not chosen. Even Sen. Biden said she was better prepared.

What does the president directly control? He or she is commander in chief and controls foreign policy. This role is what makes the president of the United States the most powerful person on Earth. Who is president is a critical choice and makes a significant difference in our role in the world. An example: Jimmy Carter was, in my view, the most ineffective president that we have had in my lifetime. He allowed the Iranians to hold our hostages for 444 days without any effective action. The hostages were released as Ronald Regan was being sworn in. The Iranians understood that holding U. S. hostages when Regan was president would not have been acceptable, and they would have faced severe consequences. Unfortunately, Barack Obama reminds me of Jimmy Carter. He believes in talking over action and thinks the world is much like a neighborhood where differences can be worked out. The Iranian leaders hate us and would welcome an inexperienced president they can push around.

None of us know what is coming. I prefer a president who has knowledge, experience, and knows what he can and can not do. If you believe these traits and long service to this nation are important, then I suggest you vote for John McCain. He understands the world and the importance of the presidency. Having a Republican president and a Democratic Congress is not all bad as the parties can balance each other and truly good ideas can survive. Food for thought.

David Moss

Clark

Comments

Duke_bets 5 years, 5 months ago

playa - I am positive that you are not of age to vote. You should make a valid effort to polish your English and grammar skills before mommy allows you to leave the nest.

0

seminative 5 years, 5 months ago

David Moss is correct in saying that we need to choose wisely, and that is why I am choosing Barack Obama to lead this country for the next 4 or 8 years. It is true the President does not control the economy and that either plan proposed by the candidates will not be the ultimate solution. What their proposals do show are where the candidates hopes and loyalties lie. It is quite clear to me that McCain's loyalties are with big business and that Obama's are with working class people. The trickle down theory of economics has not been a proven policy. It's time for an different economic paradigm.

 Today on "Meet the Press", Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama as a leader that would best serve our country on foreign policy.  He stated that we need to reach out to our allies as well as other countries that we have not reached out to in the past. An endorsement from Powell on foreign policy is good enough for me.

The Colorado Water Compact  agreement should be of vital concern to all Coloradans.  Thanks for bringing that issue up, snowbow.  We tend to concentrate on national issues alone when considering a president.
0

playa46 5 years, 5 months ago

Barrack Obama is a great speaker, there is nothing McCain can do about that. He showed a few ugly moments during the debates while Obama simply kept his cool. McCain should learn to control emotions during one of the most crutial times, like during debates which he failed to do.

If I could vote, (unfortunately I am too young) I would vote for Obama. He understands how our country needs change and McCain understands how the word "change" is a great way to say "Vote for me, I like change". Unfortunately, that's all he does. The Republican Party likes to base their ideas off tradition while Democrats see change as a good role to base off of decisions. McCain just uses change as a slogan and says he will change a lot in America. (We've all seen it in his ads.)

However, McCain has voted along with Bush 90% of the time. He LIKES the war in Iraq, he LIKES having taxes on healthcare and he LIKES spending so much money on oil. I see no change in his ideals, he will continue what has destroyed so much of our economy and says he is for "change". While he is not Pres. Bush, he doesn't have to be to act like one.

Obama has more commonsense than McCain becuase he knows what we have to do to keep America as strong as it is. I say commonsense because (as my family likes to say) "The Definition of Insane is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result every time" which is exaclty what McCain does.

I have nothing against McCain, he is a war hero and deserves the upmost respect of any person in America and the World.

0

Ed Miklus 5 years, 5 months ago

Hmmm....Obama, Pelosi, Reid what a combo for America, the trifecta of "spreading the wealth." Hold your wallets if Obama is elected.

0

nordicskier 5 years, 5 months ago

Obama is who I am voting for! Not McCain sorry but I dont like the way McCain thinks he is LIKE Bush.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

BO was against the surge in Iraq. Said it would not work. He has no military experience.

McCain was in favor of the surge. Said it would work. He was a Squid and went to Annapolis.

The surge worked. Ultimately saved lives. Will keep America safe.

I go w/ the guy with the good judgment who gets stuff right. Not as eloquent. Not as GQ. Not as cool. Just right when the chips are down.

Good judgment, the product of experience. Experience, the product of bad judgment.

President McCain --- like the sound of it!

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 5 months ago

Great! The surge worked for something we shouldn't have been doing in the first place. "Gee, Rocky- I knew it was wrong to set the house on fire, but since I did, we may has well roast marshmallows to feel better about it!"

0

Duke_bets 5 years, 5 months ago

Moss - "the most ineffective president" was Jimmy Carter. Have you been in hibernation during the Bush era?

And, what exactly does your military experience have to do with this election? Vietnam and Iraq are extremely poor references to gain support.

Colin Powell can talk from experience and he has unwrapped himself from the Republican flag.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 5 months ago

McCain concede in Colorado? No way! McCain said he'll never quit! Of course, he said that after pulling out of Michigan. So...McCain will stay in Iraq as long as he has to, but Michigan scared the bejeebers out of him?

0

aichempty 5 years, 5 months ago

Remember Hillary Clinton's plans for national health care almost sixteen years ago? And that turned out . . . how?

If McCain wins, people will be saying, "All we got was four more years of the same." If Obama wins, they'll be saying, "At least he WANTED things to change."

Presidents don't change anything without the support of congress and the citizen voters.

Most in Congress are wealthy, and most are attorneys. They have no idea what your life is like, and except for your vote, they don't care. They are the problem, not the person who sits in the White House.

The federal government cannot provide affordable health care for you. The few hundred people in the House and Senate are not a good example of a government health care plan. Instead, federal civil service health benefit plans are run by Blue Cross/Blue Shield and similar companies, and lots of HMOs who offer service in local areas. They do all of it under contract to the federal government. Federal employees pay $100 to $500 every two weeks for health care, and the government pays as much or more to go along with employee contributions. Google it up for yourself.

If you want the equivalent of a postal clerk making decisions about your health care, you are woefully uninformed about who really works for the federal government. Even NASA has had it problems, right? Do you really want some clerk in Kansas City deciding to substitute a generic medicine for the one your doctor prescribed? Deciding whether you get a new hip or a new crutch? Deciding whether a person 80 years old really deserves a heart bypass operation?

No thanks.

I doubt Obama will do without gas for his car whether or not he wins the election. He doesn't need to worry about domestic energy production.

It's cold and snowy out tonight, and I'm burning propane to heat my house. Propane prices are linked to gasoline prices. I've already got health insurance . . . so who would you vote for in my place?

I suggest you all stop reading, and start thinking realistically. That's change we can all get behind.

0

playa46 5 years, 5 months ago

Windle-

Thanks for the kind words, tell your kids I said thank-you.

I agree with you on the matter if their would be a draft for Iraq. I also agree with your referance to Vietnam. In class, I am reading a book called "The Things they Carried" by Tim O'brien, a Nam veteran. The book is about the "conflict" and one chapter is about the narrator getting his draft notice for Vietnam. The narrator is horrified and tries to flee to Canada, but in the end, decides he will fight and probably die for America. He sees lots of death and destruction in Vietnam. His regiment all feels like they are being watched and know they can die at anytime, which eventually scares them to shoot blindly or shoot of their toe to get out of Nam. Because O'brien surivives, he is left with the fear of Nam and what he went through. In one chapter, one of his fellow soldiers commits suicide due to what he went through.

JLM, Carlyle, Everyone:

I don't know if any of you have gone to war, but I sure would not want to. JLM seems like the type that would like to go to war, assert our dominance, crush our enemies and get outta their. Lots of soldiers were like this in Nam and World War One in 1914. When, I'm sorry, IF they came back, they were left with the haunting images of jungle warefare and trench warfare, the completly opposite of how they felt going into the war.

Wilfred Owen (1893-1918) "Dulce et Decorum Est "

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! -- An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . . Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light, As under I green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, -- My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1914warpoets.html#owen21

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

Polls, those pesky polls! Just ask Presidents Gore, Kerry and Dukakis about what leading the polls really means! LOL

In 2 weeks we will all know the final answer. I am predicting a very, very good final result.

President McCain

0

oldskoolstmbt 5 years, 5 months ago

McCain's choice of VP speaks volumes.... PRESIDENT OBAMA !!!

0

bigfatdog 5 years, 5 months ago

Everyone needs to understand the role of the US President and then seriously consider if you would elect Jimmy Carter at a time like this? Great speaker, international diplomacy skills, philosophical but history shows he couldn't get the job done! "Jimmy Carter aspired to make Government "competent and compassionate," responsive to the American people and their expectations. His achievements were notable, but in an era of rising energy costs, mounting inflation, and continuing tensions, it was impossible for his administration to meet these high expectations. "

Does this sound familiar?

America may need to vote for the known quantity.

0

playa46 5 years, 5 months ago

It seems that McCain's choice of VP lead to his downfall in the end, not saying that this election is over however.

I just want to tell all of you over 18, unlike me :(, to go and vote ASAP. DO YOUR DUTY MAN!!!!!!

0

carlyle 5 years, 5 months ago

Windle, you are out of your mind on reinstating the draft. Senator Obama has proposed some sort of universal service, but no one has or will propose the draft, unless we get involved in a truly massive land war. The draft produces, as we saw in every war, second lieutenants and privates. Current conflicts require majors and master sergeants, ranks that take years to attain.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

You better damn sure hope that young Americans decide to serve their country or maybe you might begin to study Arabic?

Who is going to safeguard your life --- ACORN? LOL

0

playa46 5 years, 5 months ago

cont.

This poet went through war and saw what happened in it.

This is one of the reasons I think John McCain should not be put in office. He may have gone through torture and still think war is fine, but that is one man's opinion against many others in America.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

There is no opinion which is more dangerous to our democracy than an uninformed opinion. A soldier who has seen war up close and personal has the knowledge to hate war for its waste, ugliness and bankruptcy of humanity. War is always a failure of humanity.

As a Nation, we can only look to informed opinions to guide us otherwise we are simpy throwing darts.

You sound like a 17 year old who has discovered sex. The ugliness of war has been around for some considerable time. Read a bit of Tsun Tzu and Kipling and talk to someone who has actually been in a war.

Now is not the time to entrust our safety and security to a naif, a fakir and a poseur.

VMI Abn Rgr SF CIB --- been there, done that

0

playa46 5 years, 5 months ago

Right JLM, are you proposing that we is just fine? That killing people is justified? We didn't even declare war in Vietnam, which is why historians call it the "Vietnam Conflict".

You once again use my "age" as an argument. You think I am a 17 year old who has discovered sex? I think you are just another angry middle-age American who has nothing better to do but feel the need to shoot things. There, happy? Can we get back to the discussion now?

Again, you even admit to war being "a failure of humanity". I don't know why you still support THIS war. (Sorry if I sounded like a oppose all wars). Some wars have benefieted this country, and yes, wars will never stop untill we are all dead.

My grandfather has indeed been to war (Korea). When I was young, he told me stories, the blood and bullets and destruction. He told me how he opposed it so much, why he joined, he didn't know. During school, while we are studying wars in this unit, we tell stories about how our grandfathers hated war and how some even commit suicide.

You seem to not like my beliefs and think it is due to me being, "young". Just because someone is 17 or any other age, it doesn't mean that he/she has been exposed to how the world works.

Back on subject, I think our best option is to trust our hopes upon the war to Obama. Lots of people oppose THIS war becuase of what it is doing to all of us, not just soldiers. Obama is right on one thing, McCain simply doesn't get it. He is too old to get out of his brainwashed ideas of "Lets just level them".

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

The first casualty of any war is the plan. How we got into Iraq is not the issue with which this President will wrestle --- we are at war --- two wars --- and the next President will have to decide how to fight it and how to conclude it.

Sen McCain --- at great personal political risk --- supported the surge. Said it could work.

BO opposed it. Said it would never work.

The surge worked.

Good judgment is acquired through experience. Experience is acquired through the exercise of bad judgment.

McCain had good judgment because he had the requisite experience. BO had bad judgment because he is lacking in experience.

At the end of the Viet Nam war, the Army was so perilously weak --- because of its demoralization from the war --- that we virtually invited the Russians to come across the northern German plains. It was a very, very close call.

To lose in Iraq --- or to elect a President who is so lacking in judgment to even consider this eventuality --- is to invite the same dangerous and complex calculas whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taiwan, Georgia or the Ukraine.

The decisions made by voters will decide whether we spill much more American blood in the future. This is a decision too important to be left to children, GQ or ACORN. This is why you are not old enough to vote.

0

playa46 5 years, 5 months ago

Ok JLM, you need a lecture

Yes the surge has worked, about five years ago during "Mission Accomplished". But now what? We still haven't found Osama and we still pour money into the pot that could be used for better things.

You say if we pull out, it will make America look weak, well we did in Vietnam and I don't see them trying to throw a Nuke at us. If we were attacked however, we can use the Republican's theory of simply closing our eyes, pushing the "lauch button" and call it an accident. If we do pull out, we can at least try to stop terrorists from hating us, instead of just killing them.

0

seeuski 5 years, 5 months ago

Terrorists stop hating us? That is hilarious bro. Why did they attack us on 9/11 then? Bush came into office with a no Nation building isolationist agenda which is what you are now saying will make the terrorists stop hating us. Stop, your killing me.

0

seeuski 5 years, 5 months ago

Why are you voting for Obama playa? He has promised to kill Bin Laden, do you think that will make terrorists like us? Besides I thought there were no terrorists in Iraq remember and Al Quaida hated Saddam so they should love us for getting rid of Saddam. Can you please clarify. Do you really want to go back now and evaluate the Vietnam white flag surrender? When we stole defeat from the jaws of victory and left, more than 1.5 million innocent men, women and children were murdered by the Khmer Rouge. Can you say Pol Pot? http://www.killingfieldsmuseum.com/genocide/genocide.html

No we should not let the left wing repeat history.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

No, I do not believe that "...if we pull out, it will make America look weak..." --- I know that if we do not conclude the job in Iraq, the FEBA (forward edge of the battle area) will follow us home to America.

The war on terror must be concluded in a manner that the terrorists are found, fixed and killed where THEY live rather than where WE live.

If you do not appreciate the psychological impact that Viet Nam and its unsatisfactory conclusion had on America, then you have missed its importance completely. The Viet Nam headache has continued to impact American political life and decisionmaking for over 40 years. Many of our most important political judgments have been made in response to the angst left over from that time.

Terrorists not only hate us, they hate the principals upon which America was founded, they hate freedom. It is naive to suggest that terrorists are going to "stop hating us."

These are folks who conduct beheadings. Neither you nor BO are going to sit down with these folks and reason with them. If you try, it will literally cost you your head. But, then that might not be much of a loss, eh? LOL

0

aichempty 5 years, 5 months ago

Except for the invasion of Iraq, the United States has tried isolationism and pacifism after every war.

The war of 1812 was a response to British aggression following the American Revolution.

The great Civil War was a result of Northern failure to govern the Southern states, leading to secession and the highest number of American casualties in history.

The United States stayed out of the Great War (WW-I) until German aggression in this hemisphere (unrestricted submarine warfare on our merchant shipping) could not be ignored by a nation dependent on the sea lanes for its economic prosperity.

The United States stayed out of WW-II until Japan and Germany declared war on us. Period.

The Korean conflict was a result of an invasion of an ally, and was seen as a threat to Japan and our Pacific rim interests.

Vietnam could have been won, at risk of nuclear war, and Lyndon B. Johnson (a Democratic President with almost no military background at all) is the fella who let it get out of control. If we had shown the national will in Vietnam that we showed in Iraq, things would have turned out differently.

Iraq was a threat to U S interests in the Middle East. Yeah, oil. None of us can live without it, and a lot of us would die here at home if it was shut off. That's just an inconvenient truth which happens to be true. If you look at the map, you'll see that Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan surround Iran. It's not a coincidence that we have troops and allies in all of those places. It would have been impossible to contain a nuclear-power Iran if Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq, especially with the nuclear weapons he was trying to get from North Korea, which has tested them in the last year.

Our current economic crisis is a drop in the bucket compared to what we'd be facing if oil was shut off, or if Iraq and Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, or invaded Saudi Arabia.

We can fight our enemies here if we wait for them to make their move, or we can fight them in Iraq, as our President G. W. Bush wisely chose to do. We don't have war because we've stopped it cold so far in the Middle East, and despite the cost in lives, history tells us that more Americans died in the first couple of days of WW-II than have died in Iraq, total. That's a dear price to pay, but people sitting at home safe up in the Rocky Mountains, worrying about nobody but themselves, need to take a long look and decide whether they want a President who will deter evil on foreign shores, or wait for an Iranian or Syrian nucelar weapon to roll into Denver in a rental truck.

When history judges George W. Bush, he will be lauded for seven years when the United States was free from mass-casualty terrorist attacks on the continental United States.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

Not to put too fine a point on things but as a graduate of a military school who has studied these things in more depth than I care to remember and as an active participant, if America had adhered to its historic military view that capturing the enemy's capital is a "good thing" the VN war would have been resolved in short order.

US troops were never bested in battle during the entire VN war.

The intellectucal framework that a war of insurgency somehow calls into question the decision not to take and hold terrain from the enemy was the basic flaw of the VN war. When it became clear that the Viet Cong was simply a proxy for N Viet Nam, the war could have immediately evolved into a more traditonal territorial oriented armed conflict.

If we had owned Hanoi like we own Baghdad, the VN war would have concluded in a dramatically different manner.

The decision to allow Cambodia to become a sanctuary and to fear Chinese intervention were miscalculations which were promulgated and compounded through the years. This was in part the legacy of the Chinese intervention in Korea.

In fact, the Chinese did not intend to intervene and had never intended to intervene. Just a few years after our departure from VN, the Chinese were engaged in a serious border skirmish with VN.

A great military lesson to be learned is the necessity for using overwhelming force --- the Powell Doctrine.

An interesting read is N VN Gen Giap's memoirs which indicate the wholesale surprise of the enemy as to how we prosecuted the war; and, the fact that we had decisively engaged and defeated them in Tet '68. We could have cake walked to Hanoi in the months thereafter as we had decimated the leadership of every NV unit in SVN. Cronkite's ill advised comments thereafter managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

0

Steve Lewis 5 years, 5 months ago

Bush seems to be burning many diplomatic bridges to the neighbors. Is his goal is to prolong conflict in this region??

0

Steve Lewis 5 years, 5 months ago

Its true. There will always be militants who hate the U.S. But our first mistake is to fail to understand how the few are able to grow large armies to fight us.

It is innaccurate, useless propaganda to say they hate us for our freedom. Their campaign against us rallies around our military presence in their countries, as in Iraq, and on their holy grounds, as in Saudi Arabia. Bombs we drop on civilians are also very persuasive.

The next mistake is believing our army is the core tool to defeat them. JLM and Aichempty ignore the studies which show how our application of military force has greatly amplified the strength of this enemy. JLM or Aichempty need to explain the military endgame against this enemy that only grows stronger with every bomb we drop.

I agree the effective campaign against Al Qaeda requires the military. But it would have stayed focused on Afghanistan with more troops used and fewer bombs dropped. The endgame is winning the minds of the bystanders. Army efforts to build schools reflects this endgame.

Aichempty at least acknowledges the reason reason for Iraq was oil. But that war itself has destabilized that market. Oil prices also spiked amongst the Bush "attack Iran" saber rattling. That spike in oil prices and the diversion of $$ into the war contributed to worsening economic conditions in the US.

Invading Iraq was a huge mistake. Bush's war on effective government also is proving a huge mistake. Bush's legacy of mistakes would be a joke, if it hadn't cost us so dearly.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

The definition of "war" has become progressively more complex and it is less and less likely to be a traditional contest between sovereign nations who possess armies and whose objective is to contest territory with those armies.

While I agree that there is a useful effort to be made with civics works projects, armies exist to find, fix and kill our enemies not to win the hearts of bystanders. There is nothing wrong with mobilizing some other part of our government to do this work, but it is not the work of armies. This is why the "pacification" of Iraq was such a cock up. Wrong skill sets and too rapid transformation.

In almost every instance, armed conflict should be the very last resort to resolve a disagreement. However, when used, it should be used in an overwhelming manner.

Nobody hates war more than a soldier who has seen it up close and personal.

The military is only one tool in the tool box which must include diplomacy, ecomomic warfare, intelligence warfare, cyber warfare, intellectual warfare, idealogical warfare, political warfare, class warfare and religious warfare. The war on terror must by its very nature access different parts of this matrix.

All parts of the government must work together seamlessly to ensure the info is pooled and good decisions are made. We have huge amounts of work to be done among State, Pentagon, CIA, NSA, military intel and others.

Frankly, it is quite easy to identify our enemies but it is difficult to define the nature of the contest with them. When we cannot accurately identify the nature of the contest, it is very difficult to determine what kind of war to wage against them.

Even when we can identify our enemies and can understand the nature of the conflict, we must be careful to ensure that the conflict is "strategic" in nature. Should we be prepared to allow Georgia to be admitted to NATO if Article 5 requires us to come to their aid militarily? I think not because our interest is not strategic in nature.

As another example, Hugo Chavez is clearly an enemy of the US while we simultaneousy allow the Venezuelan government owned oil company, Citgo, to freely operate in the US. How should we counter him? Should we sever our dependence upon them for oil or should we suck them in deeper making them totally dependent upon us for their foreign exchange and balance of payments? While I think Hugo Chavez is an enemy, I don't think the people of Venezuela are our enemies. Change the leader and change the relationship.

There a lot of things to criticize the administration about but we have had 7.5 years of safety from terrorist attacks in the US under this administration. I am no apologist for the administration but any intellectually fair criticism must acknowledge the safety which it has brought to our Nation.

0

Steve Lewis 5 years, 5 months ago

Re: Bush legagcy - This today from Ed Rollins, who served as Reagan's political director.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/26/rollins.historic/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

"....Not satisfied to change only American politics, Bush and his neo-con advisers, led by Dick Cheney, wanted to use American military might to spread democracy to places that had been led only by tribal councils and ruthless dictators.

If Bush had accomplished these goals, he truly would have been a historic president much like his newfound hero Harry Truman. But his failures were unimaginable. W will go down in history, all right.

He will leave office with the lowest approval ratings of any president in modern times and will be judged as a catastrophic failure who destroyed his party, left his successor with two unpopular, unfinished wars and left the country in the worst economic condition in nearly eight decades. That's not even counting the Bush administration's inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. ...."

The Bush legacy will only get worse when we fully realize how much of our government and enviromnmental protection he has dismantled on behalf of corporate oil and coal.

0

Steve Lewis 5 years, 5 months ago

JLM, I'm writing much slower than you, that's for sure.

You make a lot of good points on strategy. We both see the military as secondary.

I think its a false sense of security to point to no attack on our soil, when the numbers who would attack us have grown exponentially. The trade for that absence of attack also seems to be instability in their region caused by our war on their soils. That will pose an even larger threat to our country.

Such as: ...."Syrian officials lashed out at Washington on Monday for a "sheer violation of international law," saying the U.S. attack killed eight people and wounded one.

Syria's state news agency SANA said four U.S. helicopters crossed the border and struck a farm about 5 miles inside Syria before returning to Iraqi airspace. ...."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/27/syria.iraq/index.html

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

OK, you have convinced me, I will not vote for Bush. Ooops, I guess he isn't running after all is he? LOL

While I am always suspect of political consultants who did not get a gig in the current election, I am a big fan of Ed Rollins and much of what he says is absolutely true. Though said a bit too stridently. There is no doubt that President Bush has made it a bit more difficult to get McCain elected but McCain was already a difficult Republican candidate to start with.

Bush did destroy the Republican Party but primarily because of his and the Congress' inability to control spending. The Congress has acted irresponsibly and there is enough blame for both parties.

Nonetheless, the country is better served not electing a Socialist and giving the reins of government to a San Francisco liberal and a Senator from a state whose core industries and values are gambling and prostitution. This is truly cruel and unusual punishment.

So we agree that Bush is bad and we will both vote for McCain. Glad we had this little chat! LOL

0

aichempty 5 years, 5 months ago

The real truth is that Bill Clinton left a bag of dog doo on George Bush's front porch at the White House, and Osama Bin Laden set it on fire nine months later.

Everything after that has been looking for the hose and dragging our feet on the grass to clean off our shoes.

A lot of Republicans need to go to jail. So do a lot of Democrats. Something like 500 of them, total, need new jobs (out of Congress). I honestly think that either man running for President will do a fine job in the end, because nothing they say during the campaign really has much chance of coming true anyway. Once they get in there and know the facts, they'll both make the best decision available given the mess they've been left with.

Hey, notice how nobody's talking about Global Warming this October? Can somebody figure out how the reduction in CO2 emissions due to the recession is going to affect Global Cooling?

If that mountainside in the Azores slips and causes a Tsunami, the east coast of the United States will be destroyed, and that's going to overpower every other factor in world politics anyway.

People who have spent every cent they earned over the past few years just to live are going to be hurting in the years to come. The rule in a depression is that nobody has much money, but what money you have is worth a lot. People who have lived within their means working in basic agriculture and some industries will be okay, and the ones who were mortgage brokers will be taking the jobs that only illegals will take now.

Live within your means, save money, and do the best you can at work are still the keys to security in the United States economy. If you settled for a job that most people can do for themselves, or were engaged in real estate speculation, mortgage banking, etc., you're going to need to change your lifestyle.

Overall, I'd say that Pilates are pretty good, but I predict that stooping over to pick vegetables in the San Fernando Valley is going to have a very important role to play in a lot of people's weight control programs in the future -- keeping their weight UP, that is.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

SL ---

The most important issue is WHERE are you going to meet our enemies? In Manhattan? In Denver? In Baghdad? On the Arghan-Pakistan border?

The next most important issue is WHO is going to meet our enemies? Investment bankers in pin stripes? The 101st Airborne Div? The 5th SF Group? The CIA?

Lastly, we must disagree that we are making more "enemies." You and I may disagree but we are not "enemies." We have a fairly civilized discourse. Men can disagree without it escalating into violence. Out there somewhere is the Pakistani George Washington. He is a nationalist and that is a good thing.

Anybody who has a tendency to allow their disagreements to precipitate or to degenerate into armed conflict is way beyond civilized behavior and we are not likely to develop a very good friendship anyway. I figure that folks whose dispute resolution techniques include live public manual beheading are not going to be exchanging friendship rings whether we identify them quickly or not. These folks need killing. Maybe by the CIA but killing nonetheless.

Frankly, my views on this subject include simple "criminal" behavior such as Mexican nacro traffickers/terrorists who chain saw up live DEA agents. They also need killing.

I am very picky about these things.

One of the interesting things about the war on terror is that since it is not "state sponsored" and does not typically include or respect the boundaries of sovereign nations, then the solution will also have to be so pragmatically and flexibly applied. There cannot be any sanctuaries and we should be entitled to hot pursuit.

Notice that that the Syrians did not protest that there was no mischief afoot but only that we violated their boundaries. We should follow terrorists wherever they go and sovereign nations should know we will not respect their sovereignty if they do not hunt down terrorists within their own territory. I think this is a good doctrine.

0

playa46 5 years, 5 months ago

Okay, few things

In my last post, I said try to stop terrorists from hating us. I know I sounded a little like Miss America on that, and I want to clarify something about that.

I never said that terrorists would stop hating us, but we could try to die down the fire that has sparked. I admit that some will continue to attack us, but this isn't our problem anymore.

What JLM and seeuski fail to see, is that we already one this war (according to Bush) and the Iraqi people want us out. However, there are a few reasons why we absolutely had to keep the big bad terrorists in order, and I am not just talking about WMD's.

This is not a justifiable war anymore. 9/11 was a good reason to go in, however we have already one this.

What about now? We waste billions of dollars on this as the months go by. We have put ourselves in a 4 trillion dollar debt, righties seem to think that the sky is the limit. We need to reassert control of this situation, we need to find Bin Ladin and get out ASAP. And the solution is simple really, we leave Iraq and go track Bin Ladin so we can find him, which was the goal of the war anyway.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

The messy problem with wars is that once they start, they are very, very, very difficult to stop. Kinda like BO's silly notion of just dropping in on Mahmoud A and having a nice little "chat" over tea. Easy to say, not so easy to do and very, very, very naive.

I would not insult you and say go back to playing with your Legos with the other children, but you are pretty close to being a Brownie, not Miss America. Miss America would rip your lungs out, sweetie.

In the old days, we used to vanquish our enemies and have surrender ceremonies. I think every school kid in America should have to see the newsreels of Pearl Harbor and count all the American battleships sunk; and, then get to watch the Japanese surrender on the battleship Missouri. And then discuss how the war was won (or maybe "one"?).

We Americans were born of a bloody bayonet in revolt against the mightiest force of its time --- the British Empire. We are good fighters when well led and allowed to fight. This business in Afghanistan and Iraq will end in victory if only we can get the new Commander in Chief to grow a pair.

Deserting Iraq --- which is what you propose --- is a prescription for disaster as it would create a power vacuum in the Middle East to be filled by the Iranians. Do you like the idea of the Iranians having more influence in the Middle East? Gas will be $25/gallon and either Teheran or Tel Aviv (or both) will glow in the dark.

Let a BO administration cut military spending by 25%, piss off the Army by forcing them to turn tail in Iraq and you will be lucky to get ACORN to fight our wars. This is serious business.

You may not have noticed but Gen Petreaus has just about got things sorted out in Iraq. Why mess up a good trend line? It is almost over, just sit back and let it happen. Don't make any sudden moves and frighten the natives.

Think globally, act locally, kill terrorists!

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

Quite a few dopey young people who have never experienced any real hardship in their lives and who are believing the siren song of the O may vote for him.

Wait until they realize that there is no money for anything and that the triumvirate of wild eyed liberal, a San Francisco liberal and a Senator from a state whose values are gambling and prostitution are in charge!

Do you remember the lofty plans for the first 100 days of the new Democratic Congressional majority and all of their actual achievements? Well, take comfort, neither does anybody else because they did not accomplish anything.

O just looks a bit better in a suit, talks a whole lot better and is to the left of even that bunch. Good luck to us all.

I guess the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree, eh? LOL

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

Winnie, babe, you are absolutely right there are tons of smart young folks --- some even smart enough not to submit willingly to the yoke of socialism.

There are those who might say that I have known hardship on very intimate terms, but I have been deleriously happy for my entire life. I have never been bested by hardship. I am not absolutely certain why, it must be the Irish blood.

Many times in life it is not the IQ but rather the I WILL which determines outcomes.

I have no respect for folks who would look to the corrupt Chicago machine, a San Francisco liberal and a Senator from a state whose core values are gambling and prostitution to lead our Nation. BO is a naif, a fakir and a poseur. He is the most liberal Presidential candidate in US history.

I dismiss dopes and stupid folks routinely but I still love them all dearly as children of God, misguided but still children of God. Even in all of your personal dopeyness, I still wish you only the very best and a bit of luck to boot. I disagree with you intellectually --- only your ideas not you personally --- but I am sure you are a wonderful chap.

ACE

0

aichempty 5 years, 5 months ago

I think, in the end, the decision will come down to whether people want to see Tina Fey continue to do Sarah Palin on Saturday night live. Palin will fade from view like Dan Quayle if she's not elected, and television is bad enough as it is, without losing such a great character when she's got the potential to be there for the next eight to sixteen years.

Who do you want to see in the news for the next four years? Caribou Barbie with legs up to here, or Joe Biden?

Personally, if McCain is elected, I will see four more years of steady employment. That's all I need. And, if Obama is elected, I'll see a RIF with offers of early retirement. Either way, I win. Sweet.

It doesn't really matter who you vote for. Nothing of any material value to us up here is going to change because of what the government does for the next four years. Just go out, vote, and be a part of the disaster that's sure to come!

0

playa46 5 years, 5 months ago

Well said Windle

Republicans and Democrats are two evils, dems. just being lesser. I am sick of the nation pointing fingers at each other, can we all start to realize what is going on in the world?

JLM-

I just absolutely LOVE your reasoning. "You're young, and therefore your stupid." HAHA...very good old man.

Perhaps the problem with you is that your so brainwashed to the republican party, you can't even think unless you are guided by the conservatives.

You said that Obama's plan would "piss of the Army". Not necessarily my friend, I see a lot of soldiers coming home and MANY of them protest the war in Iraq.

JLM, I too, am starting to loose respect for you and your decisions. The problem is, you believe becuase I actually like to think about my decisions, you get mad because you view the world as something you have to blow up. What I am trying to do is open your eyes for you to see the truth of your "Maverick". Election day is near, so all I can do is wait.

aichempty- Hehe..never thought of the world that way. The disaster that's soon to come...clever.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

playa ---

Please accept my apology if I have ever said you are "young and stupid." That is not very gentlemanly and I sincerely apologize. Often folks are, in fact, young and stupid but it is neither productive nor polite to point that fact out. Please accept my apology and I promise not to call you young and stupid in the future.

I would not hesitate to tell you that some of your ideas are a bit "dopey" and "underdeveloped" --- sometimes that it is simply the result of being young but not stupid. Just inexperienced.

In the future, I will try to only comment upon your ideas and not to personalize it.

Your anecdotal information about the Army is not accurate. In a recent Army Times poll, McCain was favored by a huge margin 68% v 23%. This should not surprise anyone.

The military is completely volunteer these days and if left to their own devices, they would finish up the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan with victories. Not a surprise conclusion. Soldiers like to fight and WIN!

I served in a draftee Army and in the post-VN era (no draft), we came very close to losing the entire Army. Had the Russians attacked across the northern German plains in about 1976, we would have been SOOL.

Today's volunteer Army is not going to be able to attract recruits if the Army is made to feel that its sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan are not appreciated. The volunteers will simply dry up. What happens then? A draft is certainly a possibility. So, be careful what you wish for as it may have personal impact.

The world is a very, very dangerous place and we will need an Army to protect us for some considerable time. It better be a good one. We have a good one now.

0

playa46 5 years, 5 months ago

Duke- I am aware of my spelling errors. I simply am trying to make a point rather than checking all the time to see if my apostrophes are in the correct spots. This is just a discussion, when it comes down to a job application, then yes, I will correct more of my spelling.

0

Kevin Chapman 5 years, 5 months ago

Democracy in action!!! (watch November 4th evening) We love our country right? Love it so much we would die for it yes? Agreed. Now, the outcome of the election will be the collective decision by the majority of your fellow countrymen. As Palin has stated, the election is in god's hands. Therefore god's will shall be seen on November 4th. Right? If that be true then we should all be happy with the outcome right?

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

I don't think the 'Cuda is implying that God is actually voting though I do hear that ACORN registered Him a couple thousand times but that was only in Ohio. LOL

God has given us "free will" which means He will even allow us to vote for Barack Hussein Obama, if we so choose. He also will allow us to suffer the consequences or enjoy the benefits.

If the truth were known, I am pretty sure that God is voting for McCain though there is some whisper that the Holy Ghost favors Ralph Nader. Jesus the Carpenter, interestingly enough, is still undecided but he did get a gig building a huge stage in Chicago for the Obama campaign's "victory" party. He's afraid to express an opinion just now because he fears BO will cancel the contract or kick Him off the campaign plane if He is not gargling the Kool Aid. Rumor has it He will be breaking toward McCain with all the other undecideds but who really knows? Well, I guess God knows now doesn't He? LOL

Please forgive me for the blasphemy but we all need to lighten the heck up!

0

aichempty 5 years, 5 months ago

Obama's campaign kicked three reporters off the tour. Why? Because their parent newspapers endorsed McCain.

What does this forebode for McCain supporters? So much for Unity, right? Revenge is sweet.

Reparations for 400 years of oppression? Downright preference rather than affirmative action? Pardons for those who used violence against the lawful government during the turmoil of the 60s?

No, in reality, not much. OPEC succeeded in destroying our economy with the help of Congress. Hopefully our governing class has learned that giving loans to people who haven't shown the ability to repay, and a history of financial responsibility, will result in some more realistic policies and regulatory activity in the future.

John McCain and Sarah Palin have demonstrated experience in making plans, executing them, and reaping the benefits. When McCain was in the Navy, his life was a constant round of planning to achieve an objective in an environment of scarce resources. He knows how to look at what needs to be done, and also, to see what's available to use to achieve the objective.

The failing of everyone from Lyndon Johnson to Bill and Hillary Clinton right on down to Barack Obama is the idea that force of will is enough to make things happen. It's not. Whatever is done must be done with money and resources that are available, and law school doesn't teach you how to do that. Engineering schools and military academies do. So does executive experience in a large state with a small population.

Promises made and not kept include: The War on Poverty; Equal Education; Universal Health Care; Universal Home Ownership. Why have they all failed? Because the people who were intended to receive better opportunities didn't pick up the plow and go to work. They waited for somebody to show up on a tractor and do it for them.

You cannot have prosperity in single-parent homes, drug-addled families, households that don't place value on education, and cultures where people spend thousands on tires and wheels for their cars and ignore health insurance. If we fund them, and let them choose, they won't choose the things we consider good for them; health care, home ownership and education. None of those things win out over free handouts from the government, liberal sexual behavior and illegitimacy, and the right to spend your money on getting high instead of for the benefit of a nice home, health insurance and better job skills.

When somebody in the top 5% buys a new car, a working man or woman gets to keep their job. When you take that money away from the top 5% and give it to somebody who doesn't make enough money to pay taxes, they don't spend it to make their lives better. They don't get enough to obtain a real, ongoing benefit.

Tax credits should be tied to health care premiums, college tuition, energy-efficiency and other beneficial behavior. That's where Obama misses the boat.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

With all of the imperfections in society and political environment, the US of A is still the envy of the world.

With all of the imprefections, this year a black man and a woman (well, an approximation of a woman --- Hillary LOL, just kidding) vied for the Presidency. We are doing OK.

All of this has happened in a capitalistic and wealthy society in which the American dream has been to live a progressively better life and to pass along more opportunity to one's children. To work hard and to keep the benefit of your own work.

Hey, let's change all of that and try SOCIALISM! LOL

0

aichempty 5 years, 5 months ago

We could make things much better almost immediately by pardoning millions of felons and allowing them to vote next time.

I hope Bush doesn't pardon Sen. Stevens of Alaska. Now that would really burn my last bridge to nowhere.

0

freerider 5 years, 5 months ago

hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha loser's

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.