Dirty little secret....Obama has the most effective military policy since FDR and Truman.

Well apparently Iran isn't too concerned about the "most effective military policy since FDR and Truman" as they publicly threaten to attack the U.S. and its allies this morning.

This as we're preparing to abandon millions of Afghans who're fighting and dying to rid their country of the Taliban.

The drone attacks have worked, but the Arab Spring may still end up being a complete disaster. And wasn't it the British and FRENCH who did the heavy lifting there?

I don't like putting our boys in harms way, but if it means people around the world can live their lives without fear of getting stuck in a theater with a bunch of suicide Jihaders, I'm all for it. An armed soldier on the field of battle has a much better chance of survival than any innocent victim of a terrorist attack ever will.

No I just meant that some of them should be sitting in Starbucks at a bad college and not anywhere near a position of power in the American government And you know very well olivant that to conduct foreign policy with these centuries old dynastical politys (China, Saudi, Iran) who think in terms of empire and legacy, not partisanship and elections, you need experience and in depth knowledge of historical circumstances on your side, and I just feel like we're sending 'Kool and the Gang' to deal with these people right now.

Then the US won't have any kind of freedom to fight for anymore, right?

Who exactly are you talking about?

I ask the same question DT.

He can't, not when the current President has been more effective on the warfront AND tougher on illegal aliens than the last President. And Mitt's politics are very similar to Obama's, so if you're leaning towards a centrist President (like I am), why not just give Obama another term to finish the job?

If you're a hardcore conservative and the idea of a centrist President is somehow unappealing to you, then that's another story.

I think a Republican will stay the course in Afghanistan. We need to seriously look at the what we're leaving behind because we'll probably be right back in there at some point in most of our lifetimes. It's important for stability in the region and around the world to help the majority of Afghans who are struggling to free themselves of the Taliban yoke and who want to live in this century along with the rest of the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Obama cabinet a bunch of Clinton cronies? The same President who let Bin Laden go and let this nation's defense sleep while terrorist forces grew in power around the globe.

America had a chance to become the ultimate super power at one point as I've heard it and the year 1990 represents one of the biggest squandered opportunities in history, as we let it slip out of our grasp. We were the world's only super power at the time whereas now any 13 year old with a lap top can cause us problems, not to mention all these empowered back-water rogue terror states. I say we have to stay on the aggressive.

11 years and trillion bucks later, I don't the American public really gives a shit about those people anymore. Jesus that war went longer than Vietnam. We tried, we did our best for improving freedom and democracy in that landscape, but when the local government that we helped install pulls a Saudi trick of being 75% as theocratically evil as the Taliban and that Karzai regime blames us for everything that goes wrong...fuck it. I'm sorry, but there is charity and then there is pointless blood-letting. Not to mention that same corrupt government wants us out, we can't force a supposed sovereign ally nation to continue deployed inside its borders against its will.

(Fun Fact: Rape victims in Karzai's Afghanistan can escape imprisonment for "adultery" if they marry their rapist. Is another decade going to make a difference with them?)

We went to Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden and "smash" that terrorist network. Through two different administrations, we've accomplished that mission (more or less). Hell come to think of it, how many of us gave up on Bin Laden sleeping with the fishes? I'll be honest, I did.

If Mittens wants to seriously campaign that withdrawal is surrender and that we must sacrifice much more for even more years in Afghanistan, let him. The American people will tell him to go piss off. Americans are tired of war, especially Afghanistan which they believe they've "won." Just think of the kids growing up today who've never known a time when America wasn't at war?



Some are, but with your logic, I should hate that Obama retained Bob Gates as his Secretary of Defense, who held that job under Dubya's last days. Despite the party he belongs to, he's revealed himself to be quite a capable one trying to strategically withdraw from two unpopular wars, and advocate for DADT repeal and responsible Pentagon budget cutitng. (Not to mention he despised this popular Neocon motion of bending over totally for Tel Aviv's demands. And he's goddamn right.)

As for Bin Laden/Bubba, yeah you're right. Not to dismiss that, but remember Richard Clarke's anecdote that the first order of foreign policy business in the Dubya White House once he came in was Iraq. Al Qaeda was irrelevant. Until 9/11. Both administrations fell asleep because of complacency, lazyness, bad luck, all those usual recipe ingredients for a major catastrophe.



I don't think Bush Sr. gets enough credit, surprisingly even after Iraq 2, for choosing not to go after Saddam. Yes Bush's coalition didn't have the political mandate to go and "finish" the job and said coalition wasn't in a hurry to displace Saddam. But Bush Sr. agreed with them for the same reason.

His people were worried that a power-void Iraq would became...well, what happened after we invaded in'03. He was worried that the Shia majority in power would become too friendly to Tehran...which happened. He was worried that we would be bogged down over there in an endless quagmire. Which obviously happened too.



I remember as a kid back in the 90s a popular joke, one which THE WEST WING later retold: Democrats wants to gut the military, but have it fight everywhere, Republicans want to fatten up the military but refuse to use it.

Not true anymore.

Nitti, where in God's name do you get your information?

My boy George Will backs up a point made earlier about the current domestic policies behind foreign policy:





http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/r...F1zQ_story.html

In addition to that RR, the economy is improving. That leaves Republicans with only one campaigning option: culture and religion. Of course, they've already realized that and are exhausting their voices and meagor rhetorical talent embracing it.

I won't go into length since I did in the Mandate thread, but I wonder if the White House purposely changed the story from the economy to the culture war in an attempt to make the right-wing overreact and overreach.

In short: If that hypothesis is true, the WH popped a cork when Rubio introduced his Senate measure today. Yes we so hate making Catholic groups supply the pills, lets make it that NO EMPLOYER has to! We'll convolute the story further from the original focus and into pure free-for-all pro-life activism.

That'll win over the female vote in the fall.

If we're talking national security we have to talk more than just destroying random terrorists, it's about nation building over there. Pure, plain, and simple

Afghanistan isthe most sought after nation in history, and there's virtually a civil war right now to try and oust the Taliban. As long as they're in power not only are Americans probably directly in danger but certainly countries such as Russia and other parts of Europe with huge Musilm populations as well.

It would be ridiculous to leave these people in the 14th century when they have the potential to be the most modernized and forward looking country of this important region.

No offense to the Afghani people, but the country having the potential of being the most modernized in the region is highly unlikely (like 99.9%).

"The economy of Afghanistan has improved significantly since 2002 due to the infusion of multi-billion dollars in international assistance and investments,as well as remittances from Afghan expats.It is also due to dramatic improvements in agricultural production and the end of a four-year drought in most of the country. However, Afghanistan still remains one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world that is highly dependent on foreign aid. The nation's GDP stands at about $27 billion with an exchange rate of $15 billion, and the GDP per capita is about $900."

About 35 percent of its population is unemployed and live below the poverty line, suffering from shortages of housing, clean drinking water, electricity and employment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Afghanistan

btw, the Karzai administration is in power not the Taliban. The Taliban control certain areas of the country and conduct terrorist attacks, etc but they dont control the entire country.

nation building is what the US/NATO have been trying to do in that country since they ousted the Taliban but its a tough battle , the country has many many ills and is constantly under attack by Taliban insurgents.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama will propose a budget on Monday that forecasts a $901 billion deficit in 2013, and includes plans to make targeted investments in areas like infrastructure while hiking taxes on the rich.

-To say the economy is doing well today is to ignore the long effects that the record high borrowing (which produced current job gains) will have on the future economy especially 5-10, 15, 20 years down the road.

-The Karzai government rules today in Afghanistan because he United States and its allies ousted the Taliban. But to say the extremists don't still rule in Afghanistan is like saying the Klan didn't rule in the old South. The fact that we've so effortlessly pointed out the backwardness of such an important nation is all the more evidence of a need for international intervention.

-In referenc to the comment I made earlier about America losing all chances for ultimate superpower status in 1990. I heard this discussed on CSPAN during a conference about American exceptionalism, actually.

The Bush Recovery:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of people seeking unemployment benefits in the U.S. fell to the lowest point in almost four years last week, the latest signal that the job market is steadily improving.

Weekly applications for unemployment benefits dropped 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the fourth drop in five weeks and the fewest number of claims since March 2008 — six months before Lehman Brothers collapsed and only a few months into the Great Recession.

Off-topic, but am I the only one who's noticed how the GOP presidential field has rarely (if ever) mentioned his name on the stump or in debates?

Which is odd since Dubya can be credited with his administration's efforts in the fall of '08 with the bailouts and all that.

Or that is why they're doing a Voldermort on him.

It was in summer '08 that the unemployment rate started to climb. It was also in '08 that the budget deficit reached a record high. It was also that year that TARP emerged.

Yes, but Dubya does deserve credit for his administration for their part in the auto bailouts and all that. Which exactly is why it's never mentioned. You're right.

Of course his own party won't even give him credit for his work in Africa, which even from a guy like me who despised his adminsitration, I must admit was a great amazing humanitarian achievement. Which you'll never hear about on Fox News.

I can understand the GOP shunning Nixon's existence, but this is ridiculous.

Pure speculation: Did he drop this today in order to cut the wind from out of the sails for Mittens' tax plan speech slated for later this week?

Obama seeks Corporate Tax Rate down to 28%, Loophole limit



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/geithner-obama-seeks-28-percent-corp-tax-rate-165554751.html

The Great Debate '12: 25% or 28%! (or how 1% screw the 99% harder.)

Probably. But I am not a fan of loading up the rich with taxes just because they can afford it. For all practical purposes, the revenue that brings to the Treasury will not impact the budget deficit or the national debt that much.

More details on the Obama proposal for Corporate Tax Trade ("Tax Cut" is technically misleading, since we're talking about reductions being eliminated):





http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/en...e-tax-proposals

I think the strategy is to make the Republicans choose one or the other.

Considering all the times we've reached promising signs with North Korea and then they pull out the rug from under us, I treat this news with tepid optimism. All hope for the best.



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/u-announces-diplomatic-breakthrough-north-korea-152331635.html

They really don't like the man. Or his mother.
Judge explains ugly email
Reporting from Seattle— Montana’s chief federal judge Wednesday admitted forwarding an email to friends about President Obama that appears to equate African Americans with dogs and raises questions about the president’s mixed racial ancestry.

“Normally I don’t send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine,” Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull wrote before forwarding the email, a copy of which was obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

The email was sent from the judge’s court email account and immediately ignited a firestorm in Montana, where there were calls on social media sites for his resignation.

And this clown is Federal Judge?

In the email, a boy asks his mother why he is black and she is white. “His mother replied, 'Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!' "

Not the judicial temperament or sense of discretion we want in our jederal judiciary. In the context of the slur his remarks about how touched he was is even more offesive than the failed joke.

Exactly, Counselor.