A President Needs Good Judgment Rather than Experience

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Bush broke the rules of the authorization.
 
I remember that one; there is nothing in there about "going into Iraq."

You stupid lying fuck. It has occurred to me with this campaign that this is basically what you guys do: just keep repeating BS until it's true. I have no doubt that in a year's time, it will be accepted & unchallengable that Sarah Palin sold her plane on eBay, fired her chef & boldly stood up against the "Bridge to Nowhere."

It's what you do. It's all that you do.
 
You said Congress voted to "go into Iraq."

That is a LIE. If you can't spot that as a LIE, you have serious, serious mental issues.
 
McCain was pushing for an invasion of Iraq before the admin built it's fraudulent case. He was pushing for it before Bush was elected.
 
Onceler said:
You said Congress voted to "go into Iraq."

That is a LIE. If you can't spot that as a LIE, you have serious, serious mental issues.
Click to expand...

I can't help that you are too retarded to read the Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. I can't help that you are too stupid to comprehend plain English. Those are problems you will have to deal with yourself, nothing I can do will change that. As I said, we've debated this a million times already, and it's a waste of my time and energy to debate it again, because no one's mind will be changed.


It wasn't a lie, it's not a lie, and you are the one lying.
 
Dixie said:
I can't help that you are too retarded to read the Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. I can't help that you are too stupid to comprehend plain English. Those are problems you will have to deal with yourself, nothing I can do will change that. As I said, we've debated this a million times already, and it's a waste of my time and energy to debate it again, because no one's mind will be changed.


It wasn't a lie, it's not a lie, and you are the one lying.
Click to expand...

No. I read it - the WHOLE THING. And nowhere in there can it possibly be interpreted that it is a resolution to "go into Iraq."

You are, as has been said many, many times, psychotic.
 
Onceler said:
No. I read it - the WHOLE THING. And nowhere in there can it possibly be interpreted that it is a resolution to "go into Iraq."

You are, as has been said many, many times, psychotic.
Click to expand...

LMAO... What the holy fuck do you think it means when it says AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ? How can that possibly be interpreted any other way, than permission to go into Iraq? Have you had a lobotomy recently? That is utterly ignorant and stupid for even YOU!
 
Onceler said:
No. I read it - the WHOLE THING. And nowhere in there can it possibly be interpreted that it is a resolution to "go into Iraq."

You are, as has been said many, many times, psychotic.
Click to expand...
Get real. If you think for one second anyone who voted for (or against) the resolution did not understand full well that it would be used to invade, then you are even more delusional than he whom you debate.

Yes it is worded vary carefully. The acronym for that is CYA. But each and every legislator who signed off on that resolution KNEW that invasion would follow. (as were those to opposed it - which was their reason for opposing it.) Anyone who says they were not aware of the consequences of the resolution, or were "hoping it would not come to invasion" is the real liar.

You can point at the wording of the document all you want and lie to yourself. Or you can admit to the reality of the situation. At the time of the declaration the vast majority of Americans wanted to go after Hussein. Congress followed popular opinion and gave Bush what he needed to invade, KNOWING full well that the "permission" they handed Bush would be used, and the phrases calling for diplomatic solutions were as empty as their collective vote-seeking heads.
 
Dixie said:
Waterhead = Retard! lol
Click to expand...

day-about-to-get-much-worse.jpg
 
Dixie said:
WTF? Where am I being delusional here?
Click to expand...
On the topic of Iraq. You have said it was a great thing to do. Delusional.

It was a Charlie-Foxtrot from the get go that never should have occurred. The results speak for themselves.

While I agree Hussein was a threat most of the anti-war crowd are unwilling to acknowledge, we could have handled the situation without the need for a ground war and subsequent occupation. The invasion was the wrong thing to do, both militarily and politically.
 
20 years (examp--like Biden) of crappy--"fuck the poeple" experience I think we are all tired of.

All any politician has to do is realize, and practice, the basics of the simple values of "right and wrong" for the people that elect them.
That is why we have elections.

In a liberial/socialists society--there is no reason for voting

Now--since liberials live all kinds of freaky lifestyles, how can they expect to know any damn thing about right and wrong?

To who's value system? "you ask" Better one that is proven and accepted by normal people than none by freaks!!
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
McCain's experience has not done a thing to improve his judgment.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2311

A President Needs Good Judgment Rather than Experience

In her “I’m just a hockey mom” speech at the Republican National Convention, Sarah Palin—who has rapidly rocketed from an unknown, recently-minted governor of Alaska to Republican Vice Presidential candidate—questioned, with a straight face, whether Barack Obama has had enough experience and accomplishments to be president. Republican pundits piled on, saying the Obama has had no “executive experience.” The Republicans then rounded out their attack by claiming that such experience is especially needed now because “we live in dangerous times.”

Palin is asking the public to overlook the fact that John McCain, at 72, would be the oldest president ever to take office and that she, as his potential successor in the event of an emergency, would have only the experience as mayor of a small Alaskan town and as Alaska’s governor for less than two years. She may have more executive experience than Obama, but he will have served four years on the Senate Foreign Relations committee by the time of his inauguration. Palin has no foreign policy or national security experience. Like Obama, McCain also has had less executive rather than legislative experience, which includes serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But pundits always refer to experience as if it were an end in itself. The assumption seems to be that experience improves future judgment when crisis arises. But what if you don’t learn much from your experiences or learn the wrong things?

Richard Nixon was one of the most experienced people ever to take the office of president—having served in the Senate and eight years as vice president—yet he made a thorough mess of things domestically and had a mixed record in foreign policy. Similarly, James Buchanan had been a U.S. congressman and senator, minister (ambassador) to Russia and Great Britain, and secretary of state before becoming chief executive, but his poor policies as president helped cause the bloody Civil War. On the other hand, Chester Arthur only held two mid-level jobs in New York and was vice president for a mere six months before taking over for James Garfield after he was assassinated in 1881. Yet Arthur was a good president. The only reason he is not better known is because he was not president during a war (a good thing if you stop and think about it) and did not exude charisma (although he was a snappy dresser).

In John McCain’s case, it can be argued that he hasn’t learned much from serving in Vietnam, which turned out to be one of the worst interventionist debacles in American history. Unlike others who have been made skeptical of U.S. adventurism overseas by their service in Vietnam—former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), and the late Lt. Gen. William Odom, director of President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Agency—McCain revels in being a neoconservative hawk. Phillip Butler, a former naval aviator who knew McCain well while at the Naval Academy and who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for eight years, respects McCain but is going to vote for Obama, because he thinks McCain learned the wrong lessons from that war.

McCain advocated doubling down and deepening U.S. involvement in the Iraq quagmire long before President George W. Bush signed on to the policy. Apparently still thirsting for revenge, Cold War-style, McCain advocated kicking Russia out of the G-8 group of industrial countries even before the recent conflict in Georgia. And after the conflict erupted, McCain—apparently overlooking the fact that the reckless Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili started it—made bellicose statements toward Russia and proposed that NATO rethink its April 2008 decision not to give Georgia a path toward membership in the alliance. The conflict, of course, dramatically illustrated that admitting a country with such a rash leader into the alliance and guaranteeing its security by treaty could drag the United States into an unneeded conflict with a nuclear-armed great power; it also demonstrated that the faraway United States could do little to effectively defend a nation in close proximity to Russia against overwhelming Russian local military superiority.

Obama, although less experienced than McCain in national security matters, seems to have better judgment and instincts. He was against invading Iraq from the start, has astutely championed withdrawing U.S. combat forces during what is likely to be a temporary lull in violence, and was much more measured about the conflict in Georgia, which threatened no vital U.S. strategic interest.

Thus, experience does not necessarily produce good policy instincts—in fact, in McCain’s case, he seems to have been co-opted into bad judgments by serving too long in Washington’s military-industrial-congressional complex. Observers of the elections should remain undistracted by the superficial debate on “experience” and should focus directly on the candidates’ judgment.
Click to expand...

I knew about Sara Palin 3 months before the acceptance speech---because I am better informed today--than you are.

Thats a long write to slam a gal who is Right---are ya scared? Ya better be--you got an ass kicking coming commie.

Oh--did you just cut and paste something--I thought it might be actually your own words.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
On the topic of Iraq. You have said it was a great thing to do. Delusional.

It was a Charlie-Foxtrot from the get go that never should have occurred. The results speak for themselves.

While I agree Hussein was a threat most of the anti-war crowd are unwilling to acknowledge, we could have handled the situation without the need for a ground war and subsequent occupation. The invasion was the wrong thing to do, both militarily and politically.
Click to expand...

We could have handled the situation differently, had we known he didn't have WMD's and a secret nuclear program, but we didn't know. We simply couldn't take that chance after 9/11, it would have been monumentally irresponsible, had we not taken action, and the intelligence had turned out to be accurate.

We have to judge this on the basis of the information available at the time, not in a retrospective 'look back' and pretending we knew something we didn't know. Furthermore, we needed to establish some kind of fundamental military presence in the proximity of Iran, because we knew, even before Iraq, that they were the root problem regarding fundamental Islamic extremism. Iraq provided a dual opportunity, first, to eliminate our #1 pre-9/11 enemy, Saddam Hussein, and second, to provide a base of operations, should we need to take action against Iran. This is not some simple and easy black and white thing, where you can just say, it was 'dumb' to do this... it is very complex and intricate, which is why so many simple minds can't understand it.

I agree with you, if we had a crystal ball and could have known for certain that Saddam posed little or no threat, maybe we could have avoided invasion and occupation, maybe we could have bombed him into compliance with the UN, but I still don't know how you position your military to deal with Iran, even in that scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top