Comments on YES, WE DO NEED TO CHANGE THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON THE EARTH

Go to Why can't I sue the whole country? - Add a comment - Go to YES, WE DO NEED TO CHANGE THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON THE EARTH

Writer
Once more we are looking at 'opinions' here.  I have looked at the facts of what Obama says he wishes to do and I see them as being the changes we need.  All that you have stated her about Obama is based on the Conservative OPINIONS of what he wishes to do.
 
I find the experience idea to be one of the weakest time and time again. Bush had no real experience at all when he got elected President, yet that never seems to come up.  Yeah he was a Governor of Texas, but he was more or less a puppet governor (Much like how he has been a puppet president) who basically just let others get him into office and more or less run things for him. Bush's best experience seemed to be in bankrupting oil companies and then using his family ties to get him out of trouble so he could move on to the next company to bankrupt.  And that has been greatly reflected in how he has dealt with economics. Besides, in truth experience is not the most important aspect of leadership.  There is drive and ability to work with others as well as get along with others and basically make people want to follow you.  I see NONE of those things with McCain.
 
Of course McCain would be a change for the worse.  Here is a man who cannot control his anger, who seems to be bent on getting us into wars and believes that the path we are on right now is great, even though the country is falling apart.  And of course since Clinton and Kerry have been labeled as being horrible leaders because of their extra-martial affairs, why should McCain not get the same labeling here?  It is well known that he cheated on his first wife not only with his present wife, but with several other women as well.  The more I learn about McCain the more I see nothing of him that says he is a good leader.  While it could be defended that Obama has not been given his chance to show his abilities as of yet.

posted by kooka_lives on August 19, 2008 at 8:33 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka, I commend your wisdom!

You wrote, "change can be a good thing." Thanks for the honesty!   It is very refreshing to see/hear an Obama supporter say that change can, as opposed to is, a good thing. So much of the Obama campaign has blithely presumed the latter.

Saying that change is a good thing is foolishness. Change must be evaluated by the question: Change from what, to what?

What gives conservatives and moderates pause about the changes Obama favors is the nature of those changes: Towards massive new taxe$, socialistic redistribution of wealth, disrespect for the office of the President (O Force One, anyone?) and the nation, the "citizen of the world" bit, embracing of our enemies and enemies of our allies, and advocacy of partial-birth abortion.

Obama also represents another kind of undesireable change - changing the leadership of the President from the experienced to the utterly inexperienced. Obama has no leadership experience in anything that I know of. And you want him to be the leader of the world's largest economy?

And please disavow yourself of the notion that conservatives oppose change. That is patently nonsense. We Conservatives have wanted major change from President Bush for years, especially concerning spending, relations with the Democrats, government expansion, action on social security reform, and border security. Unfortunately, neither of the viable candidates to replace him - speaking of change - are the least bit likely to implement any of that.

posted by WriterofLight on August 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM | link to this | reply

CPZ, You have really different view of those 'wars'
You are trying to claim we did win the wars, but in truth we didn't win either one.
 
If Afghanistan the reason for going in, basically what should be looked at as 'victory condition' was to dismantle the hostile organization that attacked us on 9/11.   While we may have dealt with a government that was aiding them, the Al Qaeda is still on the loose and free (Mostly due to Bush altering the priorities to Iraq and allowing them to get free).
 
We went into Iraq to stop them form becoming a threat to us and doing the same kind of damage and the Al Qaeda did.  But since they never were close to being able to do something like that, and had no links to Al Qaeda at all, we had already achieved victory before we set foot on their soil, making it so the war should never have happened. So the problem has been since then that Bush can't figure out what the 'victory conditions' are, and he keeps changing them in order to justify staying in Iraq.
 
Now Obama's ideas make sense here.  He say let's work with Iraq, where the government officials have said they want us to leave and allow them to run their own government.  We slowly pull our troop back and allow Iraqi officials to take charge of their own country.  Until we at least give this a try, we can NEVER know if we have been successful.  Both Bush and McCain say 'Don't try at all'.  So Bush and McCain are saying we somehow get to tell Iraq what is best for them, which sounds a lot like Bush and McCain somehow believe that Iraq is now part of the US, and not an independent country.
 
Pulling out of Iraq in the correct fashion, as Obama is suggesting is what right and what is best and is really the only way to do it, unless you wish for us to be occupiers for the next century, which will only CAUSE more attack and more destabilization of that region.
 
And by Bush and McCain logic, we can NEVER win over there, because the only way to win is to basically commit genocide, which very often has seemed to be their goal.  We have to keep on fighting the radical Muslims, which keep making the less radical Muslims become more radical, creating more and more enemies.
 
If Bush would have done it all right and focused on the Al Qaeda and Bin Laden and taken them down correctly without bothering Iraq, the whole Middle East would be in better shape and we would be in a strong position to work with the rest of the world to pull things together and get the Middle East more stabilized than it has ever been before.  But since Bush threw away that golden opportunity because he just HAD to go after Iraq, he has made it all worse.
 
And just for the record, Bush went and lumped the nation building as being part of the war before anyone else did.  He made it one long drawn out mistake, not Soro.  All Soro has done is played off of what Bush started.
 
McCain  has more or less shown that all he wants to do is keep doing as Bush ahs been doing.  That characterizes him as 'Bush Jr.'. He if would start to show he had ideas of his own and give us examples of how he was going to do thing different than how Bush has been doing things, then you might have a point. So far he has done nothing to show he has any plans of his own at all.  Also, by saying we need to remain over in Iraq just because it we can 'lose', even if we either already won or in reality the battle he wishes for us to be fighting is unwinnable due to its irrational nature, he is showing he is not going to follow the reasonable example of Bush Sr.
 
Also, so far McCain has been the one trying to turn this election dirty.  He has been the one playing off the countries partisan division over issues.  His side has been playing the games with propaganda and misinformation while Obama's group seems to just want to talk about the real issues.  Obama seems to be focused on talking about doing things that will have long term positive impact on this country, while McCain seems focused on the quick fixes and non-solutions that seem to have been what the Bush administration was all about.
 
I do thank you for this exchange being civilized and non-emotional.  I am used to many here on Blogit having lashed out with insults at me by now when we have disagreements over such political issues.  I look forwards to continue this exchange, since it feels good to have such a disagreement kept at such an adult level.

posted by kooka_lives on August 13, 2008 at 8:35 AM | link to this | reply

Re: CPK, Now you are really getting confusing
Let me see if I can explain my position to clear up your confusion, taking it point by point:

1.  At this late date, five years after Saddam Hussein was overthrown, both Bush and McCain are talking now about winning the nation-building effort.

2. However, the Soros recasting of the situation from being a war followed by nation-building into being one big war -- similar to declaring that WWII didn't end until the end of the Cold War -- has made success in nation-building critical for military prestige.  All hell breaks loose if the US military is perceived as weak.

3. Therefore, if we leave without recognizing victory in the wars to depose, it would be disastrous.  This is the problem that I have with Obama's Iraq policy.

4. Also, that lumping of the war and the nation-building together, by making the latter critical for US military prestige, has been the major reason for the deaths in Iraq since a few months after Hussein was deposed.  Without it, the US could simply have determined that continued nation-building was not feasible or advisable in Iraq and pulled out.  This was Soros' doing and those in the Democratic Party who, in following his lead, value politics over human lives.

5. I would agree with you that George the Younger did not learn from his father, but seemed to be trying to one-up him with respect to Iraq.  That, however, is the current President's mistake and his family's reputation.

6. Point (5) has nothing to do with McCain.  His family has nothing to do with this.  Rather, it is entirely the military prestige issue for him.

7. Attempts by Soros to mis-characterize McCain as "Bush, Jr." is intended to inspire those who subscribe to his propaganda to shift their politics of hate to McCain.  It has no basis in reality.

None of this is to say that McCain is the best thing since sliced bread.  Rather, I take his work with Feingold on campaign reform and with Kennedy on immigration reform as indicative of his open-mindedness and non-partisan proclivities.  Seeing nothing along those lines with Obama 's legislative career and seeing his eagerness in adopting Soros' bitterly partisan rhetoric, I can only conclude that Obama is a close-minded partisan.  Therefore, in my considered opinion, McCain would be more likely to learn from his predecessors, while Obama would be constrained by his partisan nature.

Of course, I think I would do a better job than both of them.  I only hope that we would all think that before the election and, after the term of whoever gets elected, can find the wisdom in some of what they did and have cogent arguments for alternatives to the rest.

Respectfully yours,

Carl Peter

posted by cpklapper on August 13, 2008 at 7:41 AM | link to this | reply

CPK, Now you are really getting confusing
 If the wars are over with, then why is Bush saying we need to stay until we achieve a victory?  McCain says we need to stay there as long as it takes to get a victory, even a hundred years if need be.  If we shouldn't be involved in setting up a new regime, then what victory conditions are we looking for?
 
Then you are saying that we should not be over there now, because we have already achieved victory and it should be up to the countries themselves to deal with creating their new government, since our military personal were never intended to be used for such things.  Yet you are critical of Obama who says we should be doing what you say we should be doing.
 
Earlier you talked about how a good President looks to his predecessors for guidance in seeing what they did right.  Well Bush Sr. saw that going into Iraq and overthrowing the government was a no-win situation.  Bush Jr. and McCain seem to not care about his view on this, thinking they cannot only win this somehow, but that they are justified in their nation building by claiming it is winnable just to get votes.  That to me says they have no respect at all for the wisdom of those on their own side who came before them, let alone anyone from the other side. In fact much of what you've said here helps to point to Obama as the better man for the job since he fits your profile much better than McCain does.
 
You also seem to ignore the simple fact that the Democrats who are saying we need to get out of Iraq are NOT the ones who put American troops into that country and so have nothing to with the lose of lives, either American or Iraqi.  So their actions are NOT at the expense of anyone lives. Those lives are being spent recklessly by the Bush administration.  using the death to point out the foolishness of the war is actually putting value on those lives, so that they were not fully wasted but instead might be used to create a better end result.

posted by kooka_lives on August 12, 2008 at 7:18 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Re: But how? Posted by cpklapper on August 12, 2008
Excellent comments cpklapper! I agree 100%!

posted by RedStatesMan on August 12, 2008 at 6:25 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: But how? Posted by cpklapper on August 12, 2008
In both cases, we deposed a tyrannical regime.  That, in my book, is winning a war.  It is the same way the Allies won the two world wars.  IMHO, we should not be in the business of setting up a successor regime.  And we definitely should be lumping any such attempt into the same bucket as the actual war, as George Soros and his puppet organization, MoveOn.org has done so successfully.  The only thing that does is to stake the reputation of a military force on a task for which it is ill-suited.  This makes it nearly impossible for any responsible leader to pull out of a no-win peacekeeping effort -- no win because even if we win, we lose.  Mr. Soros and his allies in the Democratic party have been making political hay over the course of the past five years at the expense of thousands of American and Iraqi lives.

posted by cpklapper on August 12, 2008 at 5:51 PM | link to this | reply

Re: But how? Posted by cpklapper on August 12, 2008
I have the same question as my son, only it isn't a question.

It's a statement -- we haven't won the "wars" -- only they aren't wars; the are military actons.  There is nothing about them that fits the definition of a war.

U.Sl forces moved in to Afghanistan with a force of less than 20,000, relying mainly on bombers to pulverize the Taliban.  But they didn't control more than about 30% of the countryside.  Even today, it's evident that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are nowhere near vanquished.

And Iraq?  -- there is still danger.

The problem is, and the reason so many think we have won over there is that the atmosphere resemble George Orwell's 1984, where the public is fed only what the government wants them to be fed, and that is information positive for the government.  It looks like the U.S. is succeeding when there is so much information that we don't receive from the mainstream media.  A few outlets inform us, but not many, and those that do are ridiculed because they oppose the government's line.

posted by Xeno-x on August 12, 2008 at 1:17 PM | link to this | reply

We won wars with Bush?
When did this happen?  I we have won those wars, then we should be pulling out of those countries, since the reason both Bush and McCain say we need stay is became we need to achieve 'victory' against the evil Muslim terrorists.  Now you are saying we've already done that? You might want to get word to Bush that this has happened.  After all we never went into either of those countries to become nation builders, since that would go against what Bush claimed we were doing over there in the first place.
 
Bush has foolishly wasted a whole lot of money by going to  war with Iraq and put this country into a record debt.  That is NOT something anyone should be praising him for.  He has wasted time and money in the Middle East and has not been able to achieve any goals over there that have a positive benefit for here at home.  Instead he has neglected the needs of the people and has not put a single change into place that actually will help to build up a stronger economy in  the US, which is what we really need right now.  If this country is going to go into debt, I would rather see it happen by taking actions that strengthen us from the inside than staring a war that was clearly unneeded and has only served to drag us as a whole down on so may levels.
 
I have in the past asked for any action Bush has taken that actually has been positive and has been for the long term benefit of the US.  There have not been any.
 
As for McCain, I've seen no sign that he wants to change things.  He seems to be ready to just blindly follow the path Bush has started us down.  A path that so far as create record unemployment, record foreclosures, a decrease in the average wages for our working class, a much more defined gap in wealth between the classes, and the highest national debt ever after coming into office to the first surplus in my life time.  That is what we need change from.
 
Also with McCain where are you getting the idea that he works well with both sides? He is disliked by a fair amount of his own party due to his rudeness and his attitude of superiority.  How is that a positive thing?  Do we want a man in office who can't get along well with others?  Who won't play nice because he really has no diplomatic skills and openly flaunts his attitude about how he does not keep up with economic and social issues?
 
Bush does not work well with both side, and it would seem that McCain will have problems with even with his own side.
 
We need some serious change right now in this country and I have no doubt that McCain will fully do nothing to make that happen.  He has no plans to do anything it seems.   He scares me on so many levels and every time I hear him speak or see something new about him, it just adds to my understanding that he is not going to be healthy for this country.

posted by kooka_lives on August 12, 2008 at 12:22 PM | link to this | reply

But how?
That is the question any thinking citizen must ask, be they conservative, liberal or sui generis.  And with the answer to that question, the next question is "Why?"  The point is not to prevent change but not to simply change for the sake of change but, in the terminology of the great American political tradition to which I am most closely allied, in order to achieve some progress.

What is alarming to the those of us who are sickened by the bandwagons is the current partisan extremism that has been encouraged by George Soros.  Quite frankly, I cannot give my support to a candidate who is incapable of seeing the wisdom in some of the policies and actions of their predecessors, particularly those of an opposing political viewpoint.  They are, in that incapacity, also incapable of leading a country whose citizens will never all agree with them, especially on the most necessary of actions.  Doubts about authorship aside, a major part of the appeal of JFK was his name being on "Profiles in Courage".  It showed that he had ability to see both sides of an issue and appreciated people who took unpopular stands.

President Bush has led us through a difficult and traumatic period with dignity and humor.  He won wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq before getting mired in the peacekeeping and "nation-building" efforts.  In my opinion from that time and forward, the latter were misguided, but I can appreciate the altruistic motives in both.  Senator Obama's  parroting of the Soros' party line that Bush can do no good does not instill confidence in me.  Senator McCain's aisle-crossing career is, to me, much the better model for a President.

Carl Peter Klapper

 

posted by cpklapper on August 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM | link to this | reply