Assuming BO wins, congrats to the following:

#52
#52
hatvol96 said:
The current inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue certainly doesn't.
Click to expand...
I'll gladly concede that he is a complete failure. I don't mind the "big stick" mentality when used properly, but he hasn't. I do think we'll have a strategic presence in Iraq that we all appreciate long term, but that doesn't change the embarrassment of having been dead wrong on the reasons.

I've said before that I'm fiscally conservative, militarily hawkish and center left socially due to ambivalence. That idiot destroyed us fiscally, did some good with funding the military and is a virtual retard on social issues.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#57
#57
i'm not calling for it and I'm not condoning it, but I have serious fears the racist wackos will not make reelection possible.
 
#59
#59
hatvol96 said:
I would like a military strong and flexible enough to handle necessary missions like Afghanistan run by people smart enough to avoid starting wars because "he tried to kill my daddy" and based on what dubious intelligence tells them.
Click to expand...
Better to fight wars, in an area of the world of little to no strategic or national interests, because less than 1/10 of 1% of Americans were killed than to wage a war against a regime which had consistently defied UN Resolutions against them, in an area of the world that holds both strategic and national interests...???

Sound reasoning.

Throughout the history of Afghanistan, the people have been tribal and disparate. There has been little to no civilization there and the region as a whole has contributed even less to the world.

Over the same period, advanced and heterogeneous civilizations have flourished in the region presently known as Iraq. This area is resource rich and has a history of beautiful culture and art. There are instances of infighting, yet those are the exception, not the rule.

We will be out of Iraq prior to being out of Afghanistan. When we leave Iraq, we will leave a sustainable, representative government. When we leave Afghanistan, the country will destroy any infrastructure we have left in the ensuing power struggle. Warlords will continue to fight for the supremacy of their tribes and Afghanistan will once again fail to contribute to any greater world society.
 
#60
#60
haha, this is funny how CNN is trying to act like the race isn't over and anything could happen. Trying to keep viewers.
 
#61
#61
Palin just jumped the gun and conceded when she found out there is no prize for runner-up.
 
#62
#62
I'm telling you that gutting our intelligence services had a massively larger role than the garbage you're sourcing. They blow nothing out of the water and are dubious at best.
Click to expand...

Have you even read these books? Credentials of the authors? Seen the sources cited? I would suspect not, and if you have, then your objectivity has serious problems. Keep running around in circles with your fingers in your ears screaming "Clinton's Fault! I don't care what anything else says!"

Assuming they're right, such warnings would have been little more than noise given the level and quality of any intelligence supporting them
but maybe you don' understand actionable intelligence or the absolute need for corroboration.
Click to expand...

OK, this would confirm you didn't read Suskind's book, at the very least.

Finally, your three sources are all partisan types, with Clark being head idiot.
Click to expand...

Really? Because they don't fall in line with the way the Bush supporters think? Ridiculous. A little open-mindedness goes a long way here. Clark served in the administrations of Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. Woodward was one of Bush's biggest proponents in the lead up to the Iraq war. For anybody else that has any objectivity to this issue, it means something that these guys broke ranks and decided to tell the truth about the way everything was handled.
 
#64
#64
Note to GOP: Stop nominating old moderates as some sort of lifetime achievement award.
 
#65
#65
volsgal03 said:
I dont know, just a thought i guess. Does every president try to go for a second term?
Click to expand...

Lyndon Johnson didn't try. Truman could have run for a third term in 1952 because he was grandfathered to the new amendment, but chose not to. I can't think of any others.
 
#66
#66
SavageOrangeJug said:
Since when is the truth lousy?
Click to expand...

The truth is good. The truth is that the best man will win. The truth is that we can finally move in a positive direction as a country. The truth is that Barack Obama is going to be our next president.

The crap in the initial post is nothing more than sour grapes. Come back and tell me in four years how many of those statements were "truths".
 
#67
#67
rjd970 said:
Have you even read these books? Credentials of the authors? Seen the sources cited? I would suspect not, and if you have, then your objectivity has serious problems. Keep running around in circles with your fingers in your ears screaming "Clinton's Fault! I don't care what anything else says!"



OK, this would confirm you didn't read Suskind's book, at the very least.



Really? Because they don't fall in line with the way the Bush supporters think? Ridiculous. A little open-mindedness goes a long way here. Clark served in the administrations of Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. Woodward was one of Bush's biggest proponents in the lead up to the Iraq war. For anybody else that has any objectivity to this issue, it means something that these guys broke ranks and decided to tell the truth about the way everything was handled.
Click to expand...

Have you read anything that counters their view? Until then don't consider yourself objective.
 
#68
#68
Sabanocchio said:
The truth is good. The truth is that the best man will win. The truth is that we can finally move in a positive direction as a country. The truth is that Barack Obama is going to be our next president.

The crap in the initial post is nothing more than sour grapes. Come back and tell me in four years how many of those statements were "truths".
Click to expand...

I can already say 50% of your "truths" are false
 
#69
#69
GAVol said:
Note to GOP: Stop nominating old moderates as some sort of lifetime achievement award.
Click to expand...
What's their alternative? Right wing twits like Inhofe? Clueless knownothings like Alexander? It is a party in depaerate need of a good fumigation.
 
#70
#70
MontereyVol said:
Have you read anything that counters their view? Until then don't consider yourself objective.
Click to expand...


I watched the selling of the WMD intelligence leading up to the invasion. I guess "actionable intelligence or the absolute need for corroboration" didn't apply in that case.
 
#71
#71
hatvol96 said:
What's their alternative? Right wing twits like Inhofe? Clueless knownothings like Alexander? It is a party in depaerate need of a good fumigation.
Click to expand...
The alternative is to quit trying to pander to the middle and actually nominate a candidate that can inspire people. Obama is living proof that there's no need to move to the middle.
 
#73
#73
MontereyVol said:
Have you read anything that counters their view? Until then don't consider yourself objective.
Click to expand...
exactly, and pretending that I don't know is stupidity. I'll assure yo that I know every person mentioned and have more than passing familiarity with their commentary.

Suskind is a buffoon, Woodward is a glory seeker and Clark is a a partisan shill at this point. None has an ounce of objectivity in them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#74
#74
GAVol said:
The alternative is to quit trying to pander to the middle and actually nominate a candidate that can inspire people.
Click to expand...
Good luck finding that in the wing of the party that thinks selling "Intelligent Design" as science and "Faith Based Initiatives" as social programs is the route America wants to travel.
 
#75
#75
rjd970 said:
I watched the selling of the WMD intelligence leading up to the invasion. I guess "actionable intelligence or the absolute need for corroboration" didn't apply in that case.
Click to expand...
No, because the UN resolutions were the heart of the matter, period. Guess you have no idea about that. The actionable intelligence was simply corroboration for violations of everything UN. Tell me yo have some remote clue, please.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top