Let's look ahead to "The Obamadinejad Talks" --The reincarnation of Chamberlain seeks an audience with the ghost of Hitler. The ObaMessiah takes on Dead Eyes 'dinejad.
"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene...
"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."
--Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
June 2, 2008
Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction.
--Senator Barack Obama
February 3, 2005
He also said this:
I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.
I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.
--Barack Obama
The YouTube Defense Credo
Should Barack win in November, which Obama will sit in the Big Chair? The strong 'moral compass' guy, or the limp-wristed disarmament guy?
Can't wait for the fireworks. Assuming Barack doesn't take those off hair-trigger alert too.
46 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
His three step plan for self-destruction, which you've re-printed here, must be seen for just what it is: a proclamation of stupidity. What makes this incredible buffoon believe that anyone else in the world would agree to any of this shit? How can anyone support a guy who thinks he can get a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or anyone like him, to play ball? How did so many Americans get so stupid as to believe in this complete and utter idiot? God help us. May He make the targets Barry will put on our backs difficult to see.
Dan and others are also drinking the Kool-Aid in regard to estimates on Iran's acquisition of Nukes-- anywhere from 3-10 years. Completely ignoring the 1-2 range. They hypocritically cite and cling to estimates from "reputable agencies" for their range of years, when they completely discounted out of hand the estimates from these same "reputable agencies" which claimed Saddam was a threat to the West. Rhetorically speaking, if these agencies were wrong six years ago, isn't it likely they are wrong now? Furthermore, it's not like we don't have evidence that Iran is enriching Uranium: they have 3000+ centrifuges all in underground concrete-hardened bunkers. That alone should say something! Say, 'we will not be deterred in our quest for nuclear mastery.'?
Personally, I thinks it's more prudent to couch any "talks" with Mahmoud on the premise that his country's only 1-2 years away. There needs to be a sense of urgency, especially in light of his continued and repeated promises of wholesale national and ethnic cleansing.
But this is the man we may end up with. It seems increasingly unlikely, but the chance is nonetheless there despite Obama's lack of integrity and his blatant willingness to bow to the pressures of political expediency.
Though I've said it before, I have to agree with Mom2. Barack Obama is just about the scariest political figure I've seen in my entire life. He makes Jimmy Carter look like newborn bunny.
Are you assuming that there is strength only in building more and more weapons? Would it not be better - and more biblically accurate, for we Christians - to say that the "Strong moral compass guy" IS the guy that depends NOT on more and more weaponry but on God, on reason, on wise and strong actions to stop oppression in ways that don't encourage further oppression?
Jumping back to biblical thinking, would you call Gideon "limp-wristed" for insisting on making his army smaller and smaller? Would you call God "limp-wristed" for insisting that Israel NOT depend on more and larger weapons but upon God?
There are more ways to measure a man's strength than the size of his gun.
a) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad specifically, and Islam as a whole, could be reasoned with.
b) Strength, moral or otherwise, had anything to do with a nation's ability to defend itself.
The problem is Barack has gotten no command from God to "tell the men" to drink from the stream, and choose out only those who cup the water in their hands.
Another problem lies in the fact that we cannot trust Iran to do as David did. When David had an opportunity to kill Saul in his sleep, he chose not to touch God's anointed and instead took his spear as evidence of both his mercy toward Saul, and his fear of the Lord. Iran has no respect for God's chosen people. Neither will Iran be so merciful as David.
A strong fence is therefore required for Israel to remain safe; and that fence necessarily includes armament. God is not asking Israel to go out and fight a mechanized army with slings and arrows. By that token neither should we attempt to meet future engagements with inferior weaponry. God didn't intervene during Katrina. He didn't intervene in Mogadishu. Nor did he intervene in Fallujah. It's not likely he'll intervene should Iranian nukes make their way via terrorists to cities such as London, Bonn, or New York.
Pray for the best. Prepare for the worst.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the 'good moral compass' guy. But when GMC Guy says we have to meet the enemy with slings and arrows [metaphorically speaking] GMC Guy becomes 'Limp-Wristed Disarmament Guy,' and a danger to his nation's survival.
But neither has Obama gotten a command from God to build up history's most massive military machine and use it to pound nations into peace (as if that were possible).
And so we must question which approach is the most logical, the most useful, the most workable.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers who distrusted overly large militaries and thought that we have better, more efficient means to deal with enemies.
You keep a defensive-sized army, they advocated, to protect against invasions and imminent dangers. You DON'T keep a massive military machine and go gallavanting around the world engaging in military adventurism.
"Nothing but the failure of every peaceable mode of redress, nothing but dire necessity, should force us from the path of peace which would be our wisest pursuit, to embark in the broils and contentions of Europe and become a satellite to any power there."
~Thomas Jefferson
"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."
~George Washington
I don't suppose you'd call them "limp-wristed" too, would you?
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
See with a huge military we can refresh the tree of liberty quite a bit. I can safely say a small military has never resulted in peace anywhere in the history of earth.
"a small military has never resulted in peace anywhere in the history of earth."
--Edwin Drood
Are you, Eric?
Not now that it serves your purpose, huh Dan? You've done just that regarding God sanctioning the total destruction of OT cities and towns, leaving not one living soul. Flip-flopping doesn't quite describe what you've just done.
But just the same, God had direct contact with the OT Israelites. We don't have that advantage. We do have the duty to protect the innocent from savage a-holes. It's hardly galavanting to lend military aid to oppressed peoples. And it's deceitful to address this topic as if talks and diplomacy have never taken place.
?
Oh really? I spoke with God today. And I saw God in person today, in the form of the least of these. We had a discussion about bicycles.
They all broke pitchers in the dead of night and shouted "The sword of the Lord and of Gideon!" The Midianites were so confused at being woken up in the dead of night that they began killing each other....
God's work, not Gideon's. Which was the point of the entire exercise. Gideon acted on faith. And God provided the victory.
Unfortunately, as Marshall and I both have now pointed out, God is not talking to our leaders [who have all shut their ears to the voice of the Holy Spirit]. If we seek to face Iran with 300 [or even 3000] pitcher-bearing Americans, I can reasonably assure you that God will not cause the Iranians to attack and kill themselves.
"And I saw God in person today, in the form of the least of these."
[The following is off topic... let's not stay there.]
You saw GOD in person? or a person in whom God dwells? There is a doctrinal difference.
Canada, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Finland, lots of island countries in the pacific. The fact of the matter is that comparable to the U.S. every country in the world has a miniscule army. No other country out of 170 feels the military need or threat like the United States. Which is pretty remarkable considering we are defended by oceans on two sides and large peaceful neighbors on the other two. Perhaps as a nation we need therapy.
Does anyone think that if we DON'T calm down, rachet the rhetoric down, and sit down with these yahoos, whose infuence and power rests within the vacuum created by the U.S.'s diplomatic ABSENCE -- does anyone think continuing on the way we're going is the way to strategic strength for the U.S., and more peace rather than less in the world?
Pshgaw on y'all neo-post-modern-would-be-warrior-faux-conservatives, or whatever you are.
Could anyone have imagined what George W. Bush has wrought, based on his campaigning? On his governship in Texas? No.
Obama's youth and vision are his strength. He's going to be elected. And he's going to have some experience in his administration; they're gonna take diplomacy, and some hard-nosed, hard-assed diplomats out of mothballs, and we ARE going do things RIGHT on the geo-political stage for a change. We are more than likely going to be in wars un places we've never even heard of, no matter who is president. But I am so damned tired of shooting first and asking questions later. I WANT this country's president to sit down with those jerks. Rather than build them up, they will shrink back to their actual size vis-a-vis this country, once that vaccuum is gone. And then -- and *then* if they pose actual threats to us, we can war with them in good conscience, and with most of the rest of the world either cheering us on or being quiet while we do what we've got to do!
Assuming he actually does win, I'd not complain too much if that's what happened and it worked out just as you've outlined.
I don't like his rhetoric, however, of weakening the military. It's fine to have high hopes for negotiations but we need to be realistic as well. It's a wide and dangerous world out there. Maybe the U.S. DID have a hand in making it that way, but the way out of it is not to bury our weapons in the sand and ceasing our work on building a better mousetrap... beating our swords into plowshares, our spears into pruning hooks.
Dan--
If He was, don't you think he'd have told Barack to exit stage left from Trinity long ago? Perhaps told him to not vote against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act? Told him to stop supporting Abortion altogether? Especially Partial Birth?
If God is speaking to Barack, Barack is tuning a selective ear to His voice [as is everyone: myself, Dan, ER... everyone to some degree or another], or ignoring it outright.
No. In fact, I'd reckon God would chastise Obama for leaving it for political reasons.
If he wanted to go to a safe, normal church, there are plenty of those out there, but so much pablum sorta makes a fella retch.
But we're going afield.
You don't care what the Founding Fathers wrote regarding limited government in economic matters, nor do you care that your call for a military that is only capable of defense from invasion is contrary to how President Jefferson himself used the U.S. military to defeat the Barbary pirates. You cite the Founding Fathers only when they suit you.
You don't care about the Bible as a whole, dismissing as "atrocities" Old Testament passages that you don't either like or understand. You cite the stories of the Old Testament only when they suit you.
And, over at your own blog, you can tell us how much you focus on sin and God's commandments, but here you make clear that even your commitment to God's law is double-minded. You're quick to accuse others of bearing false witness when they criticize you in ways you don't like, but, my, how your criticism is muted when the pastor of Trinity UCC slanders our government by accusing it of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide.
If you really do have principles from which your positions spring, I wish you would start appealing to the source of those principles rather than appealing to other sources only when they be used as rhetorical cudgels.
Yes, I cite the founding fathers when they are stating wise things, I don't cite them as authoritative when they are advocating keeping slavery.
I cite the Bible when it says wise things. I don't cite the Bible as authoritative when it is advocating genocide.
That strikes me as a logical position to take, you disagree?
I reject the notion that we must have a military larger than the rest of the world combined. I reject the suggestion that doing so makes us safer.
I think the founders would agree.
I think suggesting that a leader who wants to limit the size of the military (not unlike Washington or Jefferson) is "limp-wristed" is engaging in a wrong-headed sort of demonization and I think most of the country has tired of that sort of lazy thinking.
You may think as you wish.
You're being selective about when you invoke those wise things, because the very things you cite have deep implications on your support for intrusive government regulation.
What that indicates is, not that you discard their hypocritical support of institutional slavery and pick out only those statements that affirm the principles individual liberty and constitutionally limited government, but rather that you invoke those principles themselves only when they suit you.
But that's not the most important matter...
yes, yes, yes. We've all heard how you know what I'm doing and thinking. Fine. Prove it. Show me where I've done so - but some other time on a blog where that's the topic.
Right now, the topic is how wise it is to try to demonize a leader who wants to try a smarter approach to foreign policy than what we've been doing - one that is in fitting with the wisdom of the founding fathers.
You have not talked about that but rather tried to distract the conversation in a personal and unsupported attack. Stick to the topic at hand, I'd suggest.
Do you disagree with Jefferson and Washington's and Obama's thinking that a MASSIVE military is not the way to a secure nation?
Enough with the rabbit chasing.
(I apologize Eric, if I'm being too presumptive in asking Bubba to stick to the topic.)
Quite literally, the presumption you display in telling me to stay on-topic in someone else's blog is infinitely less presumptous than your position that -- never mind that Christ Himself affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke -- parts of Scripture are neither wise nor authoritative.
The King has hand-picked His heralds, and they have recorded His decrees, and there's a word for what you're doing in daring to presume that you have the authority to pick and choose from those decrees and declare -- on your own authority -- what's wise and foolish, and what's authoritative and inauthentic.
That word is treason.
About foreign policy, you write, "the topic is how wise it is to try to demonize a leader who wants to try a smarter approach to foreign policy than what we've been doing."
The question is whether his approach is smarter in the first place. Calling it smarter as a description of the topic at hand is intellectually dishonest and quite clumsy even for you.
It's worth noting that your Jefferson quote doesn't say what you think it does.
"Nothing but the failure of every peaceable mode of redress, nothing but dire necessity, should force us from the path of peace which would be our wisest pursuit, to embark in the broils and contentions of Europe and become a satellite to any power there." [emphasis mine]
The point wasn't "peace at all costs" but rather "don't become a European satellite." Considering that Europe couldn't even handle a minor bit of genocide in its own backyard without our help, I'd say we don't have much to worry about on that front.
And about Washington's quote, it all depends on what qualifies as "over grown", doesn't it? And reasonable people can conclude that the measure may have changed first with industrialization and then with the development of total war, weapons of mass destruction, and the ability to strike intercontinentally.
You glibly assert that Obama's foreign-policy position is identical with that of our Founding Fathers...
Do you disagree with Jefferson and Washington's and Obama's thinking that a MASSIVE military is not the way to a secure nation?
...and that's a cute rhetorical trick, but not an honest attempt at the truth.
But about that position:
You keep a defensive-sized army, they advocated, to protect against invasions and imminent dangers. You DON'T keep a massive military machine and go gallavanting around the world engaging in military adventurism.
Let's suppose -- crazy as it sounds, outlandish and positively absurd -- that some land-locked Third World nation in central Asia provided aid and comfort to a terrorist organization that murdered literally thousands of Americans on American soil in a single, horrific attack.
Ridiculous, I know.
What size army would adequately protect against this threat? If this is something that a military can't directly prevent, is it out-of-bounds for the military to invade the land-locked Asian country in retaliation? Instead of such "military adventurism" are we supposed to plead to the world court that they hold the terrorists and their state sponsors responsible?
And where again did Washington and Jefferson advocate our prostrating ourselves before a world court?
Your position is asinine, Dan, and your defense of Obama's naive positions on foreign policy isn't strengthened by glib invocations of Founding Fathers whose philosophies you don't really share.
Well none. 9-11 happened. There was nothing the armed forces could do to stop it. What we needed were more spies and intelligence allies. We needed comprehensive intelligence about all the people of the world who don't like us. But we aren't funding for that. We're funding for a worldwide war whose chances of happening get slimmer and slimmer. We're funding to fight a super power that doesn't exist anymore. What we should be funding is foreign aid, counter intelligence and smart domestic intelligence. Those will stop future 9-11's. Stealth bombers won't. Army grunts won't. Those are offensive tools which have little value for deterrence. They only have value if your goals include territory acquisition. Is that one of our national goals?
Talking to hostile regimes doesn't limit our strategic options. It may even open more possibilities. It only strengthens our enemies if we accept and listen to our enemies' propaganda. If our enemies want something were willing to trade for peace, then we give it to them. If not we say "no." All it takes is maintaining peace in the middle east for the next 10-15 years and there will be economical, and practical alternative energy sources. The increasing price f oil will guarantee that.
I don't think your idea is totally off the wall, but I don't believe for a minute that Barry is the man for the job. With his desire to cut back militarily he will not be speaking from a position of strength. This is essential when dealing with evil and violent people.
What "experience" will he have surrounding him if your fantasy and the world's nightmare comes true? The same types who dealt so well with terrorism before Bush came to office? No thanks. If we're going to lose Americans, I'd prefer they have the chance to shoot back.
At the same time, I really don't agree with talking to the scum of the earth and in doing so give them legitimacy. I don't give a flying rat's posterior about how the world views what we do. If they can't see the wisdom in marginalizing and castrating the scumbags, who needs them? I don't want to have any American take a beatin' before some European jerkwad decides it's OK to fight back.
For Bent and Danny,
No other country out of 170 feels the need for a large military because they have the United States of America on their freakin' speed dial. They know we won't let them take the big hits for long, because they know the character of this nation. So sad that when we answer the call, people like you guys saddle up your high horses and accuse the USA. Well that's fine. Just clean up after them horses when your done. "Wait. That stuff's not from the horses!"
I believe the decimation of our intelligence agencies happened pre-9/11, but I agree that they need to be populated with agents. I believe that is being done to some extent, but it's now a game of 'catch-up'. I also believe we've been funding to accomodate the notion that we need to be large enough to handle two fronts. This was talked about way back at the beginning of the war, if not after the first Gulf War (I don't recall exactly) And the "grunts" have deterred in the best way possible, by killing lots of bad guys. Pay attention. In addition, their value has been to support the fledgling Iraqi and Afghan armies to get to the point where they can fight their own battles as experts on the ground insist is happening.
I can't believe, Bent, that you would even suggest trading for peace. Have you ever heard of a country called "Israel"? They've tried that many times and have gotten nothing but death and sorrow. Cram that suggestion. One negotiates with those who want peace, not with those who want to destroy entire nations. Those people we kill until their attitudes change.
Also, has anyone been paying attention to what's happening in Russia? Putin has essentially set himself up as Csar. Every report I've read say's he's trying to recreate the old Soviet machine minus the food and toilet tissue lines. China is building [it's virtually complete] a deep [military] harbor with tunnels bored into the sides where subs can leave their underground bunkers and depart underwater, and unnoticed. No U.S. sub can do this... China's subs can come and no satellite will be the wiser. China has also bought old Russian carriers and are currently reverse-engineering them. Imagine the shipping lanes in the south Pacific with Chinese carriers patrolling. Confrontations [deadly or otherwise] with U.S. vessels are a virtual guarantee.
There are a lot of threats in the world; many of them not as overt as religious fanaticism/fatalism, but dangerous nonetheless.
The days of small militaries are over for those with an option. We do need a whole lot more spies, and we do need to keep the hands of a bulk of the politicians and unelected bureaucrats off the levers... the information needs to be free-flowing, unhindered, between our information gathering agencies. And those people who leak our information to the New York times and other rags should be diligently sought out and tried for criminal offenses, if not treason; actually spending some time in prison for their efforts. And those who print the details should be sued in federal court to the tune of millions of dollars in defense, in hopes that other rags may be discouraged in the future of doing the same.
But cutting this short, a strong reinvigorated network of spies and operatives is no substitute for boots on the ground. If the need arises, this nation needs to have enough boots available to send when and where they are needed.
Dan prefers his pastoral image of men with hoes running to their homes to grab their carbines and powder horns, but in today's world such an army is both unrealistic, and foolhardy. Kuwait not too long ago had to ask for international aid to repel Saddam because it didn't have a military big enough to do the job on its own.
To NOT invest in new technologies, as Barack has more than hinted he will do, suggests a lack of respect for the lives of those who volunteer to fight. New technology saves American lives on the battlefield. Compare losses in Vietnam to our losses in Iraq. For those who stand agog at roughly 4100 American lives lost in five years, these same should have died of strokes at Vietnam's butcher's bill.
Lastly, the idea that Barack would seek to divest America of its nuclear arsenal? Even if only as a good faith gesture toward disarming the world? that is the worst kind of naiveté.
It is dangerous. Should he win the White House I can only hope his advisers will dissuade him from being so insanely reckless.
For starters, because God doesn't tell people to advocate partial-birth abortion (aka infanticide) and to oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (which makes Obama even more pro-abortion than NARAL).
If the child is in the womb when the mother decides to kill it then by golly you can kill it inside or outside the womb. Those pesky innocent human beings somehow manage to survive abortions now and then, but with Barry on the case we won't be having any of that. What a true man of God.
He is so non-violent, don't you just love him? You just have to ignore the fact that ~99% of murders are abortions.
For starters, because God doesn't tell people to advocate partial-birth abortion (aka infanticide) and to oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (which makes Obama even more pro-abortion than NARAL).
This would carry more weight if it weren't coming from a guy (and his pals) who believes God commanded people to commit genocide and rape in the Bible.
Peace out, y'all. Listen to Ben, he's making the most sense here...
What a dodge. Even you weren't bearing your usual disnenguousness "I love the Bible / it's God's Word / no it isn't" nonsense it would still be irrelevant.
It is as irrelevant as me saying that your comment would have meant more if it were coming from a Christian who actually understood the Bible.
Now, if you are done with petty games and want to actually address the FACT that Obama votes for partial-birth abortions and against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act while acting like Mr. Non-violence, then do so. Otherwise, don't embarrass yourself further.
"This would carry more weight if it weren't coming from a guy (and his pals) who believes God commanded people to commit genocide and rape in the Bible."
What a cop-out, Dan. Abortion is not murder because God gave a few "unappealing" [to Dan] commands? If God can do it Obama can stand on abortion rights and still retain his halo?
As to the other, Ben IS making more sense than usual, but you're not. Your making excuses for abortion is reprehensible. Anyone who supports abortion-- and that include Barack Obama --is likewise reprehensible. There is no excuse for such a position. You'd probably think a man absolutely horrid for throwing a sack full of puppies into the river, but you make excuses for the man who says abortion is a "good" thing. You're priorities are messed up.
This would carry more weight if it weren't coming from a guy (and his pals) who believes God commanded people to commit genocide and rape in the Bible.
"Genocide" and "rape" are the words YOU choose to describe what is commanded in parts of the Old Testament. Those are your words, not ours. We have never used those words to describe what YOU call Old Testament "atrocities."
[clears throat]
It seems like you're putting words in our mouths, which -- by the standards you demand of others -- would make you a rumormongering liar and a partisan attacker whose actions are in contradiction with the Christian duty of love.
In the same gracious charitable spirit that you claim to have, I say, shame on you, and go away.
"Barack Obama is just about the scariest political figure I've seen in my entire life."
You are amazingly susceptible to scare-tactics and propaganda.
No wonder you're so willing to give up the civil liberties that our country stands for out of fear.
The enormous cowardice on the Right just never fails to astound me.
Solomon
Feel free to explain yourself, Solomon. You just can't throw that out there without offering any support for it.
It seems to many on the right that enormous cowardice is greatly evidenced in the persons of Democrats... Men and women like Murtha, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, and yes, Obama-- all Democrats afraid of winning a war, and willing to lie about our successes to avoid achieving that end. Mostly because winning the war would hurt their chances of staying in office.
What I mean by cowardice is, those who call themselves "Conservatives" today do not deserve the name. There's nothing "conservative" about attacking a country by mistake. There is nothing "conservative" about abandoning what this country stands for. "Conservatives" are willing to throw away the rights of citizens (like Habeas Corpus) as long as they think it's someone else who will be hurt.
Can someone please give me an example of Habeas Corpus being violated
Well, that would depend on what type of sack you used. (Dead Puppies are bio-degradable.)
Speaking of sacks, for once I agree with Dan and ER.
I believe that it is time to abandon the "Cowboy Diplomacy" policies of the Bush Administration, and embrace the "[Female Genitalia]" diplomacy advocated by Obama, Dan, ER, Ben, et al.
Then, the United States can be "popular" with the world again... You know, like that girl you knew in High School...
Second, on 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which suspended habeas corpus for any person determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”. President Bush signed the Act into law on October 17. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal. Furthermore, the Bush administration has argued in court that U.S. citizenship does not guarantee Habeas rights (See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 2004).
Sol
The MCA did not suspend habeas corpus. Instead, it simply refused to offer a redundant extension of habeas to alien combatants on foreign soil. And, in Hamdi, the Administration did not dispute the citizen's habeas right; rather, what was disputed was the nature of the habeas review that was legally required for a citizen who was detained, not as he was handing out teddy bears in a children's cancer ward in Topeka, but while he was on a battlefield in Afghanistan allegedly aiding our enemies.
No, not allegedly.
That's where they were, and what they were doing. That fact is not in dispute.
What's amazing to me is that these guys are unwilling to admit that there are any evil, malicious people in the world other than Bush and Cheney, and that we should extend U.S. Constitutional rights to everyone in the world no matter what they do, but do not believe that I have the right to own the products of my own labor, or that we should take a collective stand against the practice of human sacrifice to the god of laziness and irresponsibility.
The parts of the Constitution that protected MY rights were shredded long before Bush/Cheney ever got here.
If Ahmadinejad agrees to speak with Cart... uhm, Obama (how would that make the U.S. look, guys?),it would only be an effort to buy time to complete whatever Weapons Program he is working on. (We've seen this before.)
So there were no WMD in Iraq.
GOOD.
We got there in time.
How many more U.S. soldiers and Marines would it have taken to overcome an Iraqi despotic dictatorship with tactical nuclear weapons of their very own?
How many U.S. Soldiers and Marines are these guys willing to sacrifice to overcome one in Iran?
World Peace would be great. Nuclear Weapons are terrible things, and it would have been better if they had never been invented...
BUT as long as there is one ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, then WE BETTER have some, and the rest of the world had better be convinced that we are willing to use them.
Negotiate. Absolutely.
But do it from a position of strength.
Do not go out into the world on MY behalf, and beg idiots and madmen to not kick my behind.
Make them beg us not to kick theirs.
THAT is what I want from my leaders when it comes to foriegn policy.
Lookey there, Dan!
Gideon had a sword!
Remind me again... What advantage does a position of unarmed helplessness afford us, as a Nation?
That's an exaggeration, but I do think that, picking up on an earlier comment thread, there are those on the radical left who -- despite their claims to the contrary -- really do affirm American exceptionalism.
They just see the United States as exceptionally evil rather than exceptionally good.