Taxes are just one of the issues in debates. National Security is also a very important issue. If the DOD budget is to be trimmed , the military downsized and Spec Ops relied on more. Should our Special Forces tactics and methods be kept even more classified?
More important question: Is it a good idea that the president personally select and approve drone strikes. I seem to remember LBJ doing similar with air strikes in 1967/8 to bad effect. Really it is a sign of micro management that can be destructive and counter productive. It seems BHO's foreign policy is closer to W's than dems like or like to admit. Except he is waging a secret war in Pakistan, the Horn of Africa and other places with drones.Remember W asked for and received congressional approval for both Afganistan & Iraq. We need to discuss and debate where and when we use our resources. I admire his balls in ordering the Bin Ladin hit and sometimes such action is warranted but not on a daily basis. Likewise his inability to recognize the need to leave Afganistan as soon as possible. Funny not the way he was perceived when he was given the Nobel Peace Prize 4 years ago.
When I saw this thread I thought about the national security leaks that have been not been in the news. I'd like to know a little more information than we have been given. Like who, what , when, and why.
one cyber attack that flew under the radar shut down a couple of the iranian nuclear facility computers and then had them come back on playing AC/DC Thunderstruck at full volume. didn't catch the name of it but thats funny.
A president having that level of involvement in the planning is not good. Obama should be providing leadership, not management. Some Geek with a sense of humor had a lot of fun with that one.
you guys are full shit and Obama hate, plain and simple, if Bush killed Bin Laden youd still be at his doorstep lined up to suck his balls. Stop the bullshit.
it was policies put in place by the Bush administration that led to the information that got bin laden. obama couldn't help but use the event as a political football and divulge tactics that will cause the enemy to change their tactics and probably lead to the death of more soldiers. to me obama hasn't shown much constitutional leadership, just dictatorial. he uses his czars to skirt congress, push his agenda and control corporations through regulations.
If you look though this board far enough you will find that in the past I have said I opposed the Iraq invasion from the beginning. I thought it was a mistake that would cost us a lot. (My daughter who works as a political consultant exclusively for Democrats in Austin can verify this). I was no more than 50/50 on Afghanistan because I knew it was quicksand. I thought Bush also F'd up by not paying for the war if he felt it justified I voted for Obama in the Texas democratic primary - instead of Hilary. It was a huge mistake on my part. Hilary would have been a better president All that is to demonstrate that when it comes to me and what I believe about Bush and Obama you don't know shit. Now to your post You responded knee jerk fashion without reading what you were responding about. You were already writing your reply before you read the subject post. Which is common on this board but I expect better from "The Mastermind". The discussion was not about the OBL raid - I agree that Obama was good on that call - but about him reviewing and approving drone strikes routinely. Which is what LBJ did - its all in Winston's post if you care. That - the drone planning - is below his pay grade. Obama should be leading the war - not managing it. Do you understand the difference? It's a really really big difference. So the question is, do you think Obama should be managing the mid-level details of the Afghanistan War?
my step father was a korean and vietnam war vet. he told me it was politicians that cost us vietnam. if the president wants to start wars and gets congressional approval then so be it. the military has to do the political bidding. but, once the call is made for war, the politicians need to get out of the way and let the commanders call take care of business. all the politicians should do is see to it that the military has the resources to get the job done as efficiently and quickly as possible with as little loss of life as possible.
Obviously you don't bother to read my point; I gave BHO profs for giving the order to do OBL. He earned them as that was a major call with international implications. I remember OBL was in Pakistan and we had to cross into an unstable ally's territory. The call took guts. OK? What I say is that he has gone to far since. Calling hits on second level Al Quida henchmen in Somalia is not something he should be involved in. I have read former Dem foreign policy who wonks say that. He has waffled in Afganistan because he said it was a "good" war and he could be for it safely he thought. Afganistan is like the tar baby if you stick your finger in you can't get loose. Ask the Russians, Brits, Indians the Greeks. I wasn't posting on this board in 2001 but while I agreed with the invasion I remember Hack Peters' article saying we should have gotten out after we kicked the Taliban asses. I also read Winston Churchill's memoir about being a calvary officer in Afganistan in the 1890s and it hasn't changed. I would have been against W had he tried what BHO did. BHO is making the same mistake LBJ did in Vietnam and W did in Iraq. He got in for domestic political reasons not geopolitical necessity.
