Heres a question. If the Bush Administration commits to a 24 month timetable to exit Iraq prior to leaving office, what will Obama base his campaign on? Higher Taxes? Inexperience? Pandering? It may be all he has left.

Thats right, rumor has it Bush Co is going to agree to a complete withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by Oct, 2010, based on the recent string of successes the Iraqis are having against the Mahdi army on all fronts (Fueled by $$$ from high oil prices of course). Of course the agreement supposedly leaves in an escape hatch to delay the withdrawl or even augment our presence if security deteriorates, but Obama has as much as said he would redeploy if security deteriorated.

It makes one wonder, will the Dems celebrate the apparent victorious end of the Iraq conflict being negotiated by Gee Dub, or find some way to disparage it. What would be even funnier is for the Bush admin to produce Osama Bin Laden sometime in mid October.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Heres a question. If the Bush Administration commits to a 24 month timetable to exit Iraq prior to leaving office, what will Obama base his campaign on?

Actually doing it, instead of empty, hollow promises. Funny how Bush is "borrowing" Obama's agenda to try to gain some public support and be remembered as anything but the "miserable failure" that even Google's algorithm recognized him as.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Thats right, rumor has it Bush Co is going to agree to

1. Finding Osama bin Laden, aka bin Forgotten.
2. Making America safer.
3. Break America's addiction to oil, but also “What I think the president ought to do is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots … And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price”.
4. Dealing with New Orleans.
5. Firing the man responsible for the Valerie Plame leak.
6. Tripling AIDS aid, and then delivering 1/6 of his promise.
7. Actually not leave any children behind.
8. Outsourcing security to Dubai.
9. Sell social security to Enron for their superior management skills.

Originally Posted by cbwm

It makes one wonder

It makes one wonder what exactly is the proper word to describe someone who continues taking a man who refuses to tell the truth, at his word. Chum has already told us he has no morals, and is a hypocrite. But this continued stupidity over "Well the liar says he's gonna do it - so let's act like it already happened!" is more childish than anything any 6 year old will do this month.

Originally Posted by cbwm

apparent victorious end of the Iraq conflict being negotiated by Gee Dub

King George provoked a civil war by invading a foreign country and caused about a million (there are higher and lower estimates - by this point that's middle of the road) civilians, and bankrupted the world's one superpower to do it. This business of relying on future revisionist historians to "fix" his legacy is sickening. But, sure, you want to call an epic failure that will be remembered 100 years ago as an example of horrid policy as a victory, well, go ahead and butcher the English language, and enjoy your fantasy world.

Originally Posted by cbwm

It makes one wonder, will the Dems celebrate the apparent victorious end of the Iraq conflict being negotiated by Gee Dub, or find some way to disparage it.

I guess that answers that question .

Regarding borrowing "Obama's Idea", I don't recall Bush ever getting behind pulling out prior to the surge and leave the place a festering den of terrorist training. I'd say the Bush administration talking about time tables has something to do with politics, and something to do with Iraq's newfound stability. One might also take note of the escape clause wherein we will not withdraw if Iraq begins to destabilize. Sounds like the old Bush strategy with new wording. I'll grant you there are some provisos.... a) Iraq has to remain stable and b) U.S. troops need to be granted immunity from Iraqi law. That said, I can't see Obama NOT requiring either of those provisos either, so as I stated, he is going to have a tougher time differentiating himself going forward.

I think you're ignoring something here: Iraqis have been wanting Americans out for quite some time now. Maliki isn't such a popular guy in the country b/c of his up-'til-now unfettered support for The 43rd's policies. In fact, until Maliki (or some Iraqi govt official) came out and pronounced on the world stage that Iraq's govt was finally going to pressure Americans to get out, The 43rd and regime held the same stance they have for years. Now, the Iraq govt has set The 43rd up so that he can't continue on with the policy of death without end.

Want to know the reason I think Iraq's president, er, the US president, is finally capitulating? So that people will think his policy of accelerated murder was the correct one and earn more votes for the next anti-US president-wannabe: McCain. Purely a political move in my never-humble opinion.

Besides, The 43rd had said he was seeking to settle issues in Israel, but with that not going to happen, he needs to distract the populace.

Here's what Obama brings to the table that none of the Republicans like: diplomacy. Instead of murdering people b/c they don't agree with us, have more oil than us, and aren't democratic, Obama's policy is to negotiate with them (where such negotiation doesn't risk the safety and security of our country) to come to a peaceful end. Republicans keep declaring that those who don't believe what the Republicans believe are anti-American and ought to be killed. Don't like Iran -- "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". Guess who that quote is from? Sure in the hell isn't Obama. Going around saying that accelerated murder was successful is a complete misnomer. Which innocent's death was a success? A political, diplomatic solution, I suggest, would have been as successful -- actually, more successful given that Iraq would have been pressured into a situation where their internal government would be stronger. Instead, The 43rd has left a gigantic opening for what happened in Gaza (I believe -- could be Palestine or something): election of an anti-US party which will cause us more harm than good (not that Gaza can do this effectively, but Iraq will be able to). What then?

Oh, and you omitted something very salient: Maliki came out in support of Obama's policy before The 43rd and regime.

I'm glad we're getting out of Iraq. I'm confident that Obama will focus his attention on more important issues and, unlike The 43rd, will spend substantially more money on US citizens instead of Iraqi citizens. Unlike The 43rd, Obama will be a president for the US, not a president for Iraq.

Personally, I don't care who gets bin Murderer. Fact of the matter is that bastard ought to be executed. Fact of the matter is that The 43rd ignored the safety of our country to go on an all-out personal vendetta against Saddam. A true US President would have hunted bin Murderer down long, long ago. A true US President would have told Pakistan to let us hunt him down in his country (while he's reasonably believed to be there) or face the full force of the US military -- ok, that's a bit harsh, but a true president would be willing to go that route if diplomacy first fails. I believe I read recently that Obama said he'd go into Pakistan to get bin Murderer.

Now, if the Republicans really have anything on Obama, why are they dedicated to a policy-absent, name-calling campaign? Oh, never mind, I know -- virtually every policy they've advocated and implemented when the Democrats didn't go around filibustering every ten minutes like the Republicans are doing now FAILED! Can't exactly run on that. Which, very likely, is why the Republicans are telling the Republicans to criticize themselves!

Maybe if Republicans had decent policies and knew how to govern instead of politic, they would be more effective. Instead, they rely on rhetoric, lies, deception, and creating a do-nothing-via-filibustering-so-they-can-blame-Democrats Congress.

Democrats ought to be better at the game of politicking, but I've been very counter-impressed. They seem to rely on a principle I heard (can't recall the speaker): "If the truth can be told so as to be understood, it will be believed." They have more faith in the citizenry -- that is to say the people they are supposed to represent.

I suppose success is relative word. I'll agree a diplomatic solution to Iraq, if successful, would have been a better solution than a successful military solution. Clinton certainly didn't bring it. Neither did Bush. All the monday morning quarterbacks may claim Obama could have, but thats a far cry from proof, and god knows his very abbreviated resume doesn't back up that claim. I doubt you will argue a failed military solution(Obamas) is better than a successful one (Bushs). Oh sure, the opposition will claim it was just Bush/Malaki finally buckling under pressure, but that certainly ignores the dramatically improved and improving security situation in Iraq.

Its good to know we can agree that there are certainly some politics involved in this leaked change of direction, and also that the civilized world needs to seriously start bombing the hell out of certain border villages between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

when the Democrats didn't go around filibustering every ten minutes like the Republicans are doing now FAILED!

Maybe if Republicans had decent policies and knew how to govern instead of politic, they would be more effective. Instead, they rely on rhetoric, lies, deception, and creating a do-nothing-via-filibustering-so-they-can-blame-Democrats Congress.

You make a good point. The Republicans ARE much better at politics than the Democrats. Regarding doing nothing, it seems Nancy Pelosi is the one who wont let the new energy bills hit the floor for discussion or vote, as she knows they will get bi-partisan support. Hard to argue that is doing something, or at least something productive.

It was interesting to watch Paris Hilton's silly video reply to McCain's advertisement. I'm not sure she was aware of it, but the energy policy she advocated was that of John McCain. Does the "Paris Hilton Endorsement" count for anything?

Originally Posted by cbwm

All the monday morning quarterbacks may claim Obama could have, but thats a far cry from proof, and god knows his very abbreviated resume doesn't back up that claim. I doubt you will argue a failed military solution(Obamas) is better than a successful one (Bushs).

Um, you can't say that one un-implemented policy should be called 'Monday morning quarterbacking' and then perform the very same quarterbacking in the next sentence (i.e. claiming Obama's strategy "failed" when he never had an opportunity to employ it).

However, I will still assert that trying peaceful tactics is far preferable to murderous ones. In fact, our own country was founded on such a peaceful policy: After having tried peaceful means to get King George to treat the colonies better and after King George denied such treatment did the founding fathers declare

Originally Posted by http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
...
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

[As an aside, you ought to read that thing (again?) and take note of the oppressions suffered -- they are remarkably similar to those now instituted by The 43rd.]

As for Pelosi, well, the Republicans are getting a taste of their own medicine and I'm sure if there was enough support that the Republicans could figure out a way to force a vote -- they're very good at that.

Furthermore how many times did Republicans pull such stuff when they ruled Congress? I don't have the stats, but given that their de facto policy is that their policies are right and Democrats are always wrong, I'm sure it's substantial compared to the excessive compromising the Democrats have done in this Congress.

Obama's strategy was to withdraw from Iraq at a highly unstable point. I'll agree we don't know what the outcome would have been, but I think one can reasonably assume the security situation would have deteriorated further into civil war.

You mention King George, and It reminded me of how "murderous" of a solution our founding fathers felt was necessary and just. Why is it always murder when its them, and just when it is us? Oppression = them, Enforcement = us. Could it be it just came down to money like it always does(Taxation, representation, and all that nonsense)?

Originally Posted by Jeremy Miller

As for Pelosi, well, the Republicans are getting a taste of their own medicine and I'm sure if there was enough support that the Republicans could figure out a way to force a vote -- they're very good at that.

Haha. And there you have it. Case and Point. Pelosi does it, its ok because the Republicans did something like it first. By the way, I agree with that point. In this particular case, however, she is demonstrating once again that the Democrats are not as clever at the game. For her to block bi-partisan legislation from coming up for vote, especially on an issue as vital and pressing as energy policy is blatant undisguised party politics at the expense of the electorate. It will cost her in political capital, though the democrats have lots to spend right now. It seems the pedophile priest who wants to retain his flock would take the alter boys into the back room rather than acting indecently in front of the congregation. Sorry about the analogy.

Obama has never suggested a precipitous withdrawal. He has always said that he thinks it could happen within a number of months and that he'd first talk to commanders, but give them instructions to find a way to get us out instead of The 43rd's demand that ... well, I can't speak on his behalf, but the evidence there will stand on it's own.

You implicitly asked the difference between self defense and murder. I think having just now restated it in the proper terms, you'll now understand why our founding fathers didn't want to take the action they felt forced to take and subsequently began the Declaration of Independence with (font styles added):

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands...
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
...
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

[An aside: I love that last part of the quote "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." To me it implies that one ought not to accept any evils as sufferable.]

King George posed a threat and had violated the "unalienable Rights" of the colonies and it was the colonies themselves which stood up to fight for their rights.

Now, however, I claim and defend that The 43rd is guilty of murder (and treason) because Saddam did not pose an immediate threat to the United States (albeit that he posed a long-term threat). The immediate threat was from al Qaida -- they, not Saddam, had attacked us. Instead of properly defending the Constitution and our country, The 43rd ordered information to be manufactured to implicate Saddam. He then lied internationally to get support for his personal vendetta. This is his crime and it was treasonous, illegal, immoral and resulted in death. Subsequently he is guilty of mass murder. Additioanlly, he has wholly failed to bring to justice (and I don't mean Guantanomo as justice!) those responsible for 9/11, namely, bin Murderer.

I take horrible offense at your comparison of the motivations behind our founding fathers and those of The 43rd! They are in no manner whatsoever comparable to The 43rd and I dare say would have risen up against him!

Apparently you haven't checked out the Declaration of Independence, so let me refresh you:

King George was accused of (and undoubtedly guilty of) these crimes (amongst others -- I cherry-picked as some of his crimes not even The 43rd was able to commit and others are not relevant to today's society):

* He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. (Ever hear of our Department of Justice?)

* He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

Recall now, that we must listen to the commanders on the ground who follow the orders of their commander in chief -- this is a smaller crime as he could be stopped, but he claims that cutting off finances for the military is not supporting the military even though in the Federalists papers, it was asserted by Alexander Hamilton that :

Originally Posted by http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed24.htm

If he came afterwards to peruse the plan itself, he would be surprised to discover, that neither the one nor the other was the case; that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that instead of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity.

So the ability for Congress to regulate the monies appropriated for an army was their only check-and-balance on a tyrannical executive! It was there to demonstrate a lack of support for the executive, not the members of the military!

* He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.

* For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States. (A crime duplicated via no trials for contractors in Iraq.)

* For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent (who do you think will be paying for this war?)

* For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury

* For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences (Yep, rendition!)

* For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments

* For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. (Related, but not exact, is the appointment in recess of people not fit for appointed offices which Congress didn't bring up for a vote -- instead of compromising, he dictated)

* He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. (Just had to bold that one. True, the armies now are being sent in the other direction, but "begun with..." really strikes home.)

Please, please, say whatever you want about the historical facts, but I cannot accept any comparison between The 43rd and our founding fathers. Contrast, yes, but comparison absolutely not. I am far too much of a patriot to let that one go.

[EDIT: I should have said comparison in their motivations. The statement above was far too general. I had in my head the context of this conversation, but did not accurately express it.]

Murder is an action taken when self defense is not an aspect and is diabolically opposed to self-defense. Remember that one of King George's crimes was "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands." That, in and of itself, is worthy of revolution and completely separates the founding fathers' motivation from that of our current tyrant.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

You implicitly asked the difference between self defense and murder.

When your motive is no bid oil contracts to benefit your good friends at Hunt Oil in Texas, that pretty much rules out self defense. No bid oil contracts = Mission Accomplished.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Murder is an action taken when self defense is not an aspect and is diabolically opposed to self-defense.

The U.S. has been engaged in countless wars where self defense was not directly an aspect. Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, El Salvador, the entire anti-German engagement in Europe/WWII, ALL of WWI. I'm hard pressed to call our soldiers, or their presidents, murderous for their participation in these engagements. Certainly some of these wars had a much clearer line connecting them to "national security" and indirectly, self defense, than others. Perhaps it is not unlike the killing of an unborn child, where we make moral judgements about the beginnings of life. Killing one child is just and right whereas killing another is murder and the difference between the two depends on who you ask.

Applying the example to Iraq, there have been many a Democrat in office prior to Bush who put forth the idea that anything threating the oil supply coming from the middle east is a direct threat to the national security of the United States. That isn't you or me or John or the pundits or Fox News or CNN or someone else saying it. It is pretty much every elected leader of our country for over half a decade. For me, the question isn't why did Bush lead us into war with Iraq. The question is why didn't Clinton, or better yet, why didn't Bush Sr. finish the job. I've lost all respect for Colin Powell in hindsight.

I appreciate the history lesson on King George, but to be fair, as I read the many complaints and think about the events to which they referred, I'm hard pressed to find many of them very applicable to Gee Dub. The entire analogy falls apart entirely when you consider that none of this happened, nor continues to happen without the approval of our legislature. Deficit spending on war, changing of laws, these things were done with the overwhelming support and approval of both houses of congress. They continue to be done by the Democrat DOMINATED congress vis a vis the FISA bill. The U.S. is not a Monarchy.

I know, I know, "Bush Lied". Without the necessary evidence to support that statement, it hardly seems appropriate to use it, though more than likely it is true. I hate to use your "Pelosi" defense, but truth be told, Clinton bought silence as well by pardoning everyone who could have gotten him convicted. I can see that loophole being used more and more often by future presidents to stand above the law.

I didn't mean to cherry pick your post, but time for my response was limited.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Applying the example to Iraq, there have been many a Democrat in office prior to Bush who put forth the idea that anything threating the oil supply coming from the middle east is a direct threat to the national security of the United States.

Can you -- no, Will you please cite the evidence? That's not a challenge, but a request as I'm ignorant of the evidence or I would speak right to it.

As for previous wars, I must admit that I'm a student of coding long before a student of history, so I'm not qualified to speak to those.

Regarding King George, I think I sufficiently tied things together, but if you object to a specific citation, I'm more than happy to elaborate. Again, however, I'm not a history student, so I don't know exactly how far that will go. I am, however, a lover of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and can discuss the nature of the comments therein, if not their history, as the character of the principle ought to be able to stand on its own and I believe that it does.

Pardoning, I will give you, is something far overused and should be much more limited. Perhaps a constitutional amendment requiring > 50% approval of Congress and being excepted from the filibuster rules requiring a larger majority would be best.

Filibustering is something I've always thought should not be a part of our congressional process. In fact, I don't like most of the rules of Congress as they seem to be focused on ways of getting around things instead of properly evaluating them.

As far as The 43rd lying ... the evidence already speaks for itself. If tried, he'd be convicted by a court of justice (as expressly opposed to a court of law) and I remain hoping that he is one day tried in an international court for crimes against humanity (amongst others). The savior (for The 43rd) there will be that many other countries don't support the death penalty, so at least he could spend the last few years of his life behind the bars that he unjustly put so many others behind and if karma has anything to do with it, he may get a stint at rendition.

We're coders with lots of other things to do, so I can understand cherry picking. I was quite disturbed by the comparison of The 43rd's motivation to the founding father's and wrote on about it quite extensively, so I don't expect that you'd take much time from coding to respond to each and every point.

To me what really matters is not what others have done in the past, potentialities, or other fairly irrelevant data. What matters is the actions that current individuals take. The 43rd has clearly defied our constitution, our country, dignity, and integrity. He has actively (intentionally or not) worked towards the weakening of the United States and succeeded. He has failed to admit he was wrong. He has spent more of our childrens' money on Iraq than the United States. He has harmed the US more than he ought to have and failed to do his duty as a president of our country. He is an embarrassment in almost every regard (only regard I can think of for an exception is that he seems to like his dog). To assert otherwise, in again, my never-humble opinion, is to ignore the facts.

Furthermore, the Republicans have claimed the superiority of their principles for decades and when given the opportunity to run the government roughshod (sp?) with little-to-no interference and implement their policies, they faced a robust round of failure and are not "man enough" (forgive the sexist reference) to admit they were wrong and that they ought to change their thinking.

The thread title is "The Obama Difference" and that is what I think is important to address. Obama has acted as a man of diplomacy. He has worked with the Illinois legislature and the US Congress to come up with bi-partisan solutions that increase health care, security, govt openness, and the ability for citizens to pursue and enjoy 'life, liberty, and happiness'. His admittedly-short record is one which cannot be (or, more accurately, has not been) effectively attacked because he has acted in accordance with the principles he now espouses. On the other hand, the Republican strategy has been to crack jokes, make fun, lie, and deny the reality which has already slapped them in the face. The difference is in policies, some of which in the Clinton era were successful versus policies executed over the last decade which have demonstrated themselves to be failures. The difference is in a man who can admit that he should evaluate the views of others (e.g. a changed policy on limited offshore oil drilling) versus the man who thinks he already knows everything needed to be known. The difference is in a leader versus a hot-headed tyrant who bills himself as a maverick while claiming to be The 43rd 93% (approx) of the time.

It's OK to be wrong. Everyone is. What is not OK is to say that even though one is wrong, that they are really right -- that is denying reality. Republicans need to step up to the plate and re-evaluate everything which they epouse (not all of which is wrong). Republicans are more focused on religious rights/tenants (before you're offended, just recall that there is a "religious right", but not a well-known "religious left") and in unfettered businesses and should take a hard look at which aspects of those areas are actually good for the American people instead of which aspects will be approved by God (for the religious right) or their donors. When they can do that, they will have a moral ground to stand on and, far more importantly, a successful platform from which to work.

Are Democrats perfect? Hell no! But their policies are far from religiously-influenced and much less dictated by high dollar donors. Their policies are ones which they truly believe (and in many, though not all, cases) will help our society to move on to be a better society: a society which is greater, safer, healthier, more productive, and better for our environment. Yes, many call that naivete, but truth be told, it is a noble goal and goal they seek to fulfill without "breaking a few eggs". Suggesting it is naive only exposes a defeatist attitude.

If the Republicans could just step outside of their little crusader mentality and actually try to work out differences instead of dictate behavior, then we may be able to see substantial progress towards a better society.

The 43rd and his wannabe replacement, however, have demonstrated an unwillingness to do what every person must do on occassion: admit they are wrong. The 43rd and his wannabe replacement have demonstrated that no matter what reality is, they will continue on with their policies. Why? It is virtually unfathomable and my guess, being a guess, is not something I'll publish here as it will undoubtedly be unpopular and I cannot support it with substantiable facts.

The difference, in short, is between one who knows how to lead (perhaps instictively, though I'm not much of a believer in instinct) versus one who knows how to dictate.

One final point: Republicans can't go around manipulating the system for their own goals and then when the system is used against them complain that they are now the victim. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander, so they ought to shut up (or play nicely -- which is what I'd prefer). Had the Republicans spent 1/10 the time they have in manipulating congress towards trying to work together, they might not be in such a pickle and we might all be in a better situation.

no one is stopping this obama campaign from presidency

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Can you -- no, Will you please cite the evidence? That's not a challenge, but a request as I'm ignorant of the evidence or I would speak right to it.

Here is the 30 second wiki lookup and quotes but with a little digging, I could produce volumes to support this. Mind you, these policies were created with an eye to the Soviet Union, but the principal of Middle Eastern oil being worth shedding American blood over is well documented.

Carter Doctrine

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. (full speech)

Nixon Doctrine

The doctrine was also applied by the Nixon administration in the Persian Gulf region, with military aid to Iran and Saudi Arabia, so that these U.S. allies could undertake the responsibility of ensuring peace and stability in the region. According to Michael Klare, author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency (New York: Henry Holt, 2004), application of the Nixon Doctrine "opened the floodgates" of U.S. military aid to allies in the Persian Gulf, and helped set the stage for the Carter Doctrine and for the subsequent direct U.S. military involvement of the Gulf War and the Iraq War.

Eisenhower Doctrine

The Eisenhower Administration also saw the area as being influential for future foreign policy for not only the United States but also its allies. The Middle Eastern region contains a large percentage of the world's oil supply. If the area was to fall to communism, the United States and its allies would suffer immense economic consequences.

I'm going to leave the King George comparisons alone as I think they are a detour. I believe semi-legitimate parallels can be drawn between many historical figures and our current leadership to present an opinion. God knows I've now used Lincoln, Mandela, Ghandi, King, and the Founding Fathers, not that I believe any of those is any more or less appropriate than your parrallel to King George.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Furthermore, the Republicans have claimed the superiority of their principles for decades and when given the opportunity to run the government roughshod (sp?) with little-to-no interference and implement their policies, they faced a robust round of failure and are not "man enough" (forgive the sexist reference) to admit they were wrong and that they ought to change their thinking.

Don't both parties believe their principals are superior? You certainly espouse the superiority of the secularist ideals of the Democratic party later in your post. I believe any party allowed to implement their policies with little interference will produce less than desirable effects. Smaller Government is a Republican principal, yet this administration has created a much bigger government, one of the failures to which you refer, and to which I agree. Why? No questions asked and a full checkbook = bigger government, even if you represent the party of smaller government. I know its easy to blame the Republicans for the "No questions asked" part of that equation, but the Dems signed off on almost everything that got pushed through as well. 9-11 brought both the cohesion and the clear thinking of a lynch mob to our government and, as is typical with lynch mobs, a few extra people got hung.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

If tried, he'd be convicted by a court of justice (as expressly opposed to a court of law) and I remain hoping that he is one day tried in an international court for crimes against humanity (amongst others).

Your post was long, so rather than cut and paste from the remainder, I picked the quote I felt most representative. I can sum it up in one word. Idealism. Its a theme you repeated over and over. Obama is a "man of diplomacy". "Court of Justice". Democrats are "much less influenced by high-dollar donors". Democrats have "Noble goals". Obama "Knows how to lead instinctively". Truth be told, there are no courts of justice, only courts of law. The democrats are in the pockets of high dollar donors, sometimes the same donors who back Republicans. I doubt there exists a political party including Al Queda who doesnt believe it's goals are Noble. The fact that a politician is charismatic gives little insight into his leadership abilities, or where he plans to lead us.

Call it an artifact of age, call it cyncism, call it what you like. Idealism is nice but it simply isn't reality. It is frankly the most concerning thing about Obama's foreign policy. So long as we have the two party system, the games and the players will remain the same. Its why I can cast my vote for Obama and know that, though the turd has less experience and a slightly different polish, it still smells the same.

I have not ssen an issue hat Obama will stand on without flip flopping. His views does not matter. He is goodlooking and from Harvard. That is enough to get elected. If anyone black or white opposes Obama they are a racist.

Change,Hope,Change,Hope,Change,Hope,Change,Hope,Ch ange,Hope,Change,Hope

Why is it that (on both sides), changing one's views is called flip flopping? By the same note, McCain is a flip flopper, so let's stop with the ad hominem attacks and stick with the foundations of each candidate's arguments.

EDIT: Seriously, if you think about it, The 43rd is not a flip flopper. In the face of close to everything he does being wrong, he still persists... Sometimes change is good.

And, Republicans should be happy. Obama's latest flip flop was to allow limited off shore oil drilling in an effort to compromise. But, Republicans call compromise "appeasement" and run from it at so many costs...

Originally Posted by homebizseo

I have not ssen an issue hat Obama will stand on without flip flopping. His views does not matter. He is goodlooking and from Harvard. That is enough to get elected. If anyone black or white opposes Obama they are a racist.

Change,Hope,Change,Hope,Change,Hope,Change,Hope,Ch ange,Hope,Change,Hope

That's, "his views do not matter." But that is better attributed to someone who doesn't have a good chance of winning the presidency right now...Like you.

Originally Posted by highanddry

That's, "his views do not matter." But that is better attributed to someone who doesn't have a good chance of winning the presidency right now...Like you.

And Like you as well.