IN OBAMA'S OWN WORDS ON ISSUE # 1

[texaspackerbacker]

Today, Barak Obama actually had the gall to articulate the John Kerry approach to preventing terrorism--the police or law enforcement approach.

This, more than anything else, IMO, is what got Kerry beat. This also is, IMO, the A number one, most important issue in America today--Preventing acts of terror--repeats of 9/11 or worse.

Kerry said--and incredibly, Obama echoed today the concept that the way to deal with acts of terror is basically to wait for them to happen, then treat the events like crimes rather than acts of war, merely hunting down the perps like cops.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLY DANGEROUS. It is a formula for disaster--which, as I have been saying repeatedly, would be infinitely more likely with Obama or some other proponent of that foolhardy attitude as president.

We--the Bush Administration--has been 100% successful at preventing repeats of 9/11--so much so that people nowadays actually are not really even worried about terrorist mass murder of Americans. That, ironically, has played into the hands of Obama and those who almost certainly would let it happen--let mass murder of Americans happen. What if it is nuclear next time? How can people NOT pay more attention to this obvious most important issue--and the dangerously stupid approach pushed by Obama?

Why am I so convinced an Obama presidency would be so likely to result in acts of terror that put millions of Americans and our whole way of life in jeopardy? Because Obama is diametrically opposed to all of the factors that have been successful in preventing terrorism in this country. He steadfastly opposes the interventionist foreign policy--treating this as a war--the WAR on Terror. And he opposes--as evidenced by his VOTES as well as his words--every aspect of the enhanced security measures put in place after 9/11. Obama also opposes the treatment of terrorist prisoners and harsh interrogation procedures that have successfully--and directly--prevented acts of terror several times. As recently as yesterday, Obama endorsed the idea of allowing those terrorist prisoners access to OUR rights of due process--something never before given to enemies--not in World War II, not in Korea, not in Vietnam.

[the_idle_threat]

Do you think the wording of this poll is more slanted then an NRA member poll?

YES X

NO


But I still voted "Yes."

[mraynrand]

I vote yes too, despite the slanted question. It's important to note that the Democrats routinely say we were lied to about Saddam by the Bush administration, and that they would never have voted in favor of the Iraq war, knowing what we know today. Obama has a much different, far more dangerous view: He would not have gone to war with Saddam, EVEN IF everything the administration claimed were true. Think about it: Obama was against the war in Iraq, at the time when we were less than 2 years from 9/11, and we thought that Saddam had biological weapons and was working on acquiring and developing nukes. Not to mention that most of the other items that he was clearly doing were true (paying terrorists to slaughter Israelis, firing on U.S. planes, allowing terrorists like Zarqawi to live and get treatment in his country, slaughtering his own people, etc. etc.). The truth is that the interventionist bar for Obama is even higher than it was for Kerry. Meanwhile, Kerry's advisors called the war on terror (arguably a bad name) essentially a 'metaphor.' Obama's advisors make analogies between policy changes and Winnie the Pooh (I kid you not). They view terrorism not as an expression of ideology but of desire - like the and the rush from soccer violence - equating it to 'living in the moment' like having sex. In other words, terrorists are just normal guys kinda letting their hair down once in a while - or normal Joes who just get a little bored with the mundane and want a little more excitement. In America, such people go base jumping or skydiving - in Pakistan, they blow the shit out of infidels. These guys are not serious at all.

FROM THE TELEGRAPH:
"Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”

He spelt out how American troops, spies and anti-terrorist officials could learn key lessons by understanding the desire of terrorists to emulate superheroes like Luke Skywalker, and the lust for violence of violent football fans."

MORE FROM DANZIG:
In a briefing which will inform Mr Obama’s understanding of terrorists, Mr Danzig said he learnt much from recent interviews with jailed Aum Shinrikyo terrorists who released sarin nerve gas on the Tokyo underground in 1995.

He said that even people who are relatively well off and successful can feel like failures and become alientated from their societies. He said one terrorist told him: “We have been raised on a theory of superheroes. We all want to be like Luke Skywalker.

"When we’re doing mundane things, we lose track of our ambition but when someone comes along, like Asahara, the head of the cult, and presents himself as a messiah and gives us a picture of progress that is ordained by heaven and that we are carrying out a saintly mission on earth that is for us extraordinarily evocative.”

Mr Danzig added: “The parallels with al Qaeda are obvious.”


“Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.”

He said that another lesson about terrorists can be learnt from studying violent football fans. “One of the best books I’ve read on terrorism in recent years was not about terrorism at all,” he said. “It’s Bill Buford’s book Among the Thugs, which is a description of soccer violence in Britain.

“Buford became absorbed by soccer violence. He describes the most appalling examples of soccer violence by fans against fans. But he describes with relentless honesty how he finds sickening things attractive. He says violence lets the adrenaline flow; it’s like sex, you live in the moment.”

[sheepshead]

anyone that votes no on this has his/her head so far in the sand it's scary. To me it's another measurement on the superb job the Bush administration has done in keep us safe. No one would have voted no on 9-12-01.

[Zool]

Or they're voting no to poke fun at you.

[Gunakor]

anyone that votes no on this has his/her head so far in the sand it's scary. To me it's another measurement on the superb job the Bush administration has done in keep us safe. No one would have voted no on 9-12-01.

It is not september of 2001 anymore. And, to be perfectly honest, I would have been just as heavily against a war in Iraq in 2001 as I am now. But Iraq wasn't even on the table in September of 2001 - Afghanistan and Pakistan were. So I hadn't even considered a war in Iraq right after 9/11. Iraq didn't play any part in that.

Never once has anyone on these or any other forums heard me complain about the Patriot Act, or many of the other things Bush has done to improve our own security. I even applaud him for most of those measures. But right now I am just as concerned with our economy, and how today's decisions will affect future generations of Americans. Such as the national deficit that has been increasing at an average rate of 1.5 BILLION dollars per day for the last year and a half - you know, the one Tex loves to say doesn't matter and won't ever have to be paid back anyway. I'm concerned with the fact that the average cost of living is increasing while the average income is decreasing. I'm concerned with the fact that the oil industry recorded a 2.7 billion dollar profit in 2007, while independent truckers and other small businesses have and continue to be forced out of business due to high fuel costs. And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

[Freak Out]

Where the fuck did he say "lets wait for them to attack and then we'll throw the cops and lawyers at them"? Has he said he will disband the TSA and Homeland Security?

[SkinBasket]

Usually I don't care much one way or the other who wins the White House. Sure, I've got my preference, but I'm not going to get all upset if they don't make it. But for first time the possibility a nominated candidate might actually become president (and his wife the first lady) is creeping me out a little bit.

[The Leaper]

If Obama gets in, there is no doubt that I will feel far less safe going forward. There is little doubt that Obama is far less knowledgable and polished in terms of foreign policy and the current global situation...and that is kind of scary. What is even more scary are some of the complete nitwits he is putting around himself in that regard.

I'm not sure which is worse...guys who do whatever it takes to do what they want (Bush administration) or guys who don't have the foggiest notion of what the hell to do (a likely Obama administration). Obama would be very similar to Jimmy Carter...an inexperienced guy the nation turned to hoping for "change" after a GOP administration filled with scandal. We all know where that ended up the first time around...and I'm afraid that is where we are going again.

[Freak Out]

Usually I don't care much one way or the other who wins the White House. Sure, I've got my preference, but I'm not going to get all upset if they don't make it. But for first time the possibility a nominated candidate might actually become president (and his wife the first lady) is creeping me out a little bit.

You talking about Mac or Hussein?

[The Leaper]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?

[Gunakor]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt? Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit? No, those problems didn't exist then. They exist now, and the duty falls upon the current and future administrations to clean it up. Stop implying that because there were economic problems before that somehow those problems make today's bigger problems more acceptable.

I am just as concerned with the SS problems, but those have to wait because there are bigger problems that I have to deal with before I even reach such age to collect the SS benifits that won't be there anymore. I have to worry about getting to my next paycheck. I realize that there have always been people with that to worry about, but the number of people is going to increase substantially because for those of us who do not have our retirements and/or pensions secure, saving money has become substantially more difficult. The average cost of living is rising faster than the average income. Is that the fault of previous administrations?

[SkinBasket]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt? Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit? No, those problems didn't exist then. They exist now, and the duty falls upon the current and future administrations to clean it up. Stop implying that because there were economic problems before that somehow those problems make today's bigger problems more acceptable.

I am just as concerned with the SS problems, but those have to wait because there are bigger problems that I have to deal with before I even reach such age to collect the SS benifits that won't be there anymore. I have to worry about getting to my next paycheck. I realize that there have always been people with that to worry about, but the number of people is going to increase substantially because for those of us who do not have our retirements and/or pensions secure, saving money has become substantially more difficult. The average cost of living is rising faster than the average cost of income. Is that the fault of previous administrations?

Don't forget Katrina. The current administration is accountable for not reigning in natural disasters as part of it's domestic policy agenda.

[Gunakor]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt? Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit? No, those problems didn't exist then. They exist now, and the duty falls upon the current and future administrations to clean it up. Stop implying that because there were economic problems before that somehow those problems make today's bigger problems more acceptable.

I am just as concerned with the SS problems, but those have to wait because there are bigger problems that I have to deal with before I even reach such age to collect the SS benifits that won't be there anymore. I have to worry about getting to my next paycheck. I realize that there have always been people with that to worry about, but the number of people is going to increase substantially because for those of us who do not have our retirements and/or pensions secure, saving money has become substantially more difficult. The average cost of living is rising faster than the average cost of income. Is that the fault of previous administrations?

Don't forget Katrina. The current administration is accountable for not reigning in natural disasters as part of it's domestic policy agenda.

So now Katrina is responsible for $4 gas while oil companies turn 35% profit? Katrina is responsible for 1.5 billion dollars in deficit spending per day on average? I guess I don't understand. Please explain.

[The Leaper]

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt?

Part of it. I don't see either side of the aisle in Washington jumping at the bit to reign in spending.

Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit?

The rise in the price in oil is directly attributable to the lack of a cohesive energy plan to reduce our dependance on oil after the last shitstorm in the late 1970s...so again, part of it. What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high? How will taking money away from the oil companies make prices any lower?

No, those problems didn't exist then.

Just because the problems currently presenting themself did not exist does not mean that previous administrations were not lax or ignorant of issues that lead to the problems we have now.

To claim the Bush administration alone is responsible for all of this is ignorant, and is precisely the kind of thinking that puts an inexperienced guy like Obama into office.

Washington has been broken for a long time, and some have talked about it at length long before now...but most have gleefully ignored the warning signs of a political system where power and special interests now rule instead of the will of the people. Hell, one of the biggest problems with our economy is our lack of savings, which has greatly helped reduce the value of the dollar. This is something that has been pointed to for decades, but you are going to sit here and tell me that all the blame belongs on Bush alone?