Instead of getting hot and heavy with Afghanistan, I think a more pointed mission against Al-Qaeda would have been more tactically sound. The current administration is interested in transforming the Middle East and instead of specifically getting the folks who attacked and killed 3000 on US soil, the current administration embarked on a much larger undertaking. I like spending money domestically and I'd like our country to be more productive and self-sufficient.
What do you think we did in Afghanistan? We specifically went and got the folks who attacked and killed 3000 on US soil. We went after the Taliban (who had been harboring and financing Al-Qaeda, as well as being a horribly oppressive regime) and defeated them. Afghanistan is a much better place on the whole as a result and is functioning quite well. Yes, the Taliban is regrouping, but they won't be for long. Yes, we know you don't like intervening with other countries' business and getting involved and keeping our military strategically placed and whatnot. Which is why you will never be in charge.
We did? I thought we didn't. Isn't Bin Laden still a free man? Bolded part = irrelevant. As for harboring and financing Al-Qaeda, why didn't we continue into Pakistan to finish the job? I understand keeping some strategic bases, but I don't think we need them to the extent to which we have them.
A free man, yes. Relevant in today's world? No. He has no power and his organization has no infrastructure. The hunt continues and we'll find him eventually or he will die first, if he's not already dead. In your eyes maybe but not in most. The main element was they supported and funded Al Qaeda. The Taliban needed to go, as they were a threat to America's national security. Pakistan wouldn't let us, plain and simple. And Musharaff can't just let us go in there off the books, it's not that simple, especially since he's already not very popular in his country. Pakistan was needed as an ally during the Afghanistan war to provide some stability. As for Bin Laden, yes he could be in Pakistan, but simply hiding out in the mountains, unbenownst to the government. Now, do I think the government is aware of that? Probably. It's about that time to start putting pressure on Pakistan in that regard. But several years ago, it wasn't in our best interests at the time, if you ask me. Let's see. Current conflicts aside, we've currently got permanent bases in South Korea, Okinawa (which is in the works to be moved to Guam over the next 10 years), and Germany. Obviously, we're planning on keeping a permanent base in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan, but I doubt that. Then along with that, you have one or two Marine Expeditionary Units that sail around the world that can respond to pretty much any situation with great speed and efficiency. You think that is too much?
Well I just have to say Hilliary Clinton was made a fool of by her husband during his administration. More so..she made a fool of herselfby staying w/ him. I don't have as much a problem with Bill Clinton and his extra-curricular activities...it really doesn't effect one's ability to do the job, until you start lying about it and then all sorts of character issues come into play... The real problem I have, like has been said, is she tries to empower women yet she stayed w/ her husband for her own political gain or to hide secrets they share. Now I suppose she could love him down to the core of his last little toe-nail, but after what he did and how that would have made me look...I'd have been out for blood, and it would have been all over TV..unless there was something else to hide! Every time I see her, all I think about is Monica Lewinsky and I won't be a part of putting her in that powerful of an office out of pity. Had she stood up to him, kicked his azz from NYC to Cali and back again (not for WHAT he did as much for how it made HER look in the public's eye)..then I'd have had some respect for her and think "heh..Ole Osama better watch out!"
I've said it here for four years now. Hillary is likely unelectable because most women won't vote for another woman, qualifications be damned! People underestimate the vast number of women voters and the sometimes unusual reasons they vote for a candidate. It ain't always about the issues they discuss on Meet The Press. My dear old Mom voted for Bill Clinton and for George W. Bush. Why? Because "they seemed like nice young men." She'll vote for Obama this time (already bought his book!). Guess why. Republican women elected Sir William of Smooth to two presidential terms. Why? Because he was charming! :grin:
I couldn't agree with you MORE. One of my biggest pet peeves with women for ages has been the woman who "stands by her man" while he publicly embarrasses her. Some key examples are: (the wives' of) Bill Clinton, Kobe Bryant, that New Jersey governor who was gay, the SD senator who solicited in an airport bathroom, John McCain (as recently as last week.) I cannot, as a woman, STAND to watch a woman stand behind her husband on national tv while he admits to cheating on her. That is a humiliation too horrible to bear. I say this with all honesty; if my husband does that to me, I will send him packing--fast. And I would be $#&@# if I would stand by on tv to "support" him. %$#@ THAT! I would respect Hillary more if she'd left Bill.
IMHO, McCain is too old, Clinton is too Clinton, Huckabee is out of it, and Obama is too inexperienced. We know Obama is all about change, so he's considered to be a visionary...but what will he change, and more importantly, HOW? He doesn't have enough of a track record to base an honest opinion on...and what there is of it is pretty liberal...too liberal for my tastes. In short, it will be yet another trip to the voting booth...with a clothespin for my nose as I pull the lever.:rolleye33: It amazed me the last two elections that the dems couldn't put anybody better up against Bush...but now it seems NEITHER party can put up a decent candidate to replace Bush.
