Experience Counts
[Guest post by DRJ]
Liberals – including some commenters here – are jumping on the bandwagon that Palin proves experience isn’t the issue in this election. I think the reverse is true and Palin shows experience counts. Here’s why:
Terrorism is the issue of this decade and, in my opinion, it will be for decades to come. John McCain has experience that will help him deal with the challenges of terrorism but Barack Obama also thinks he has the answers. Obama’s plan is to escalate the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a military solution that is at odds with the desires of his liberal supporters and that makes me leery he will follow through.
But Americans have lived with terrorism for 7 years since 9/11 and we’ve learned a lot about this threat during that time. It’s unlikely any President will be given a blank check to deal with terrorism now. We’re all armchair quarterbacks on this issue.
There is another, related problem that faces America and that’s Energy. Solving our energy problems will not only help our economy but will also help us deal with national security and even terrorism by limiting the funds available to terrorists from Middle Eastern states. We can solve our energy problems the Democratic way by curtailing our energy consumption and jeopardizing our economy in an all-or-nothing effort to switch to green energy sources. Or we can really mean it when we say every energy source is on the table including hydroelectric, wind, solar, nuclear, coal, gas, and oil.
Sarah Palin has proven experience with and more knowledge of oil and gas production than any candidate in this Presidential election. As Beldar explains, she’s used that knowledge and experience to work with oil companies to maximize production but Palin is not in the pocket of the oil companies. That’s exactly how it should be. Business doesn’t need a partner in government just a fair opportunity, and small “c” conservatives like Sarah Palin know that.
In addition, there is a lot of overlap in the production of energy. It’s no surprise that oilmen like T. Boone Pickens are able to transition from oil and gas to wind power without losing a step. Oil, gas, wind, etc., are all resources and the laws and processes that help people develop one energy source often apply to other sources. Thus, the experience and knowledge Sarah Palin has developed in dealing with the oil and gas industry will help her analyze and deal with all energy sources, and Energy is the issue of the future our leaders must be prepared to deal with.
Obama and Biden believe they are the best team for an America whose goal is that everyone get along and share. I want America and Americans to do more than get along and share. I want America and Americans to be efficient and prepared for the future, and for that McCain and Palin have the experience that counts.
— DRJ
The incessant caterwaling regarding Palin’s “experience” speaks volumes about the Dem’s current disarray on this pick. First we had them desperately attempting to “put the race issue to bed” after The Messiah’s “race speech.” Now we view the claim that we must “put the experience issue behind us,” all in a desperate act that seeks to deflect efforts to delve into more of Obama’s curious past associations. The more they harp on the experience angle, the more they highlight Obama’s scant resume and even more thinly – regarded record of accomplishment.
Dmac (874677) — 8/30/2008 @ 1:32 pmObama’s plan is to escalate the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan
As opposed to what plan from McCain?
steve (3d6981) — 8/30/2008 @ 1:39 pmsteve,
I think McCain also plans to pressure Afghanistan and Pakistan but his base is more likely to support that plan.
DRJ (7568a2) — 8/30/2008 @ 1:41 pmDRJ – That is but one of the issues that his base is willing to ignore since they know he does not really mean it.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/30/2008 @ 1:51 pmAs a note on experience:
Alaska is within sixty miles of more foreign powers than any other state. Amusingly, both are major players in the newfound concern over energy resources.
Al (b624ac) — 8/30/2008 @ 2:18 pmSixty miles? The island of Big Diomede in Russia is 2.4 miles from the island of Little Diomede in the USA (part of Alaska).
Icy Truth (75e0f5) — 8/30/2008 @ 2:58 pmActually, Obama’s posturing to try to attract the pro-war crowd was the first thing he did that I really felt was pure political bullshit. And I certainly didn’t ignore it because I didn’t think I meant it. Added onto his socialist bent, it turned me off to him pretty heavily.
However, it’s not like I have anything more attractive across the aisle. So overall it just deflated my expectations of this election.
And yeah, terrorism is the issue of the decade. Because this was the decade America stopped taking care of itself, and started spending trillions of dollars chasing shadows. All because a Muslim extremest living in a cave managed to scare the utter crap out of us, and we ere never able to get over it and get on with our lives.
Phil (3b1633) — 8/30/2008 @ 3:01 pmSpeak for yourself, Phil. I think we’ve done both: Fighting terrorism and getting on with our lives.
DRJ (7568a2) — 8/30/2008 @ 3:08 pmPhil once again devalues our own citizen’s lives -apparently, the cold – blooded incineration of almost 3,000 innocents just translates into a scare tactic by a caveman.
Dmac (874677) — 8/30/2008 @ 3:12 pm“…a scare tactic by a caveman.”
Dmac…don’t give GEICO any ideas.
Another Drew (4b90b4) — 8/30/2008 @ 3:19 pmAnd here I thought the Jooooooos were behind 911 or were they in league with a cabal of BusHitler minion co-conspirators? Rosie O’Donnell most wisely educated us all to the fact that fire does not melt steel. And ChimpBush sat lost in a classroom for twenty minutes or so. Of course Lurch or was it algore was even more befuddled at the time or so he claimed.
Great to know that dems would have pursued Osama to the ends of the earth and THAT would have ended terrorism for sure. Even though Clinton turned down several opportunities to have Osama handed over by Somalia prior to 911? It is a no lose situation when the Messiah is POTUS. Slow Joe Biden has already stared down dictators and makes them pee in their undies, but the Boss (Obambi) is so persuasive that he will have ImADamnNutJob and Putin kissing his mulatto ass and making all sorts of concessions to the ONE.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/30/2008 @ 3:44 pmReally looking forward to Obama’s vast new civilian domestic brownshirt corps.
Phil once again devalues our own citizen’s lives -apparently, the cold – blooded incineration of almost 3,000 innocents just translates into a scare tactic by a caveman.
You apparently live in a sheltered little TV-land world where nothing bad ever happens. That’s the only reason I can see that the deaths of 3000 innocents would be such an utter shock to you. Have you looked around the world? Innocents are getting mowed down everywhere.
I’ve said it before, but you apparently weren’t here: 45,000 innocents died in car accidents in the United States in the past year alone. Where’s the “war on unsafe driving”? How much money are we spending on that, anyway?
Phil (3b1633) — 8/30/2008 @ 4:06 pmSo the moonbat is content with the possibility that terrorists might well release a dirty nuceal device in a major metro area with great loss of life, not to mention profound radiation that would make the area off-limits to human habitation for years? People die in car accidents, have heart attacks and cancer that kill them off and the left equates that with the pontential for “acceptable” losses to terrorism. I’m glad that phil lost no one at ground zero or on those ill-fated 911 flights. Maybe if asshat Jimmy Carter had a set and stood up the mullahs thirty years ago, we’d have fewer problems with the islamowhackjobs now? Pacifism, turning the other cheek, singing kumbaya and blaming your own country for an ugly world don’t seem to do the trick. Liberalism is a disease. Obama wants to set us back and be loved by the world community. I’d rather the world respected us for our power and not for bending over and taking it up the butt.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/30/2008 @ 4:21 pmPhil 8/30/2008 @ 4:06 PM:
That’s a ludicrous comparison but even if it weren’t, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars improving car design, researching transportation safety and improving road and highway safety, developing safety devices for vehicles and roads, conducting road and vehicle inspections, and maximizing the availability and quality of medical care for victims of vehicle accidents.
DRJ (7568a2) — 8/30/2008 @ 4:28 pmCar Accidents v WTC/9-11….
Apples and Oranges, old Buddy! Apples & Oranges.
Car accidents come under the heading of Shit Happens!
9-11 was Premeditated Murder!
And, we spend Billions on the War on Unsafe Driving.
Another Drew (5efac7) — 8/30/2008 @ 4:29 pmLook at all the conditions imposed upon the States to enforce various aspects of driving so that they may get their highway funds.
As an example: Raising the drinking age to 21.
Another example: During the days of the Double-Nickle, each State was rated on how its’ compliance rate was re 55. Those that were over the line lost part of the hi-way funds.
There are many aspects of Fed Funding that is tied to traffic enforcement; though, it would probably take an army of CPA’s to come up with the exact figure of how much money is being spent to discourage unsafe speed, DUI, driving while texting, etc.
But again: Apples & Oranges!
Car accidents come under the heading of Shit Happens! 9-11 was Premeditated Murder!
I want you to go to the funeral of someone who’s been killed in a car accident and say that to their family.
Why is it more important to stop intentional murder than to stop death from accidental or reckless causes? Both get you just as dead.
Phil (3b1633) — 8/30/2008 @ 6:20 pmPhil,
Both victims deserve our sympathy but intentional conduct gets a more aggressive State response precisely because it’s a choice. Wrecks are usually accidents but when they result from intentional misconduct, they get a more aggressive response, too.
DRJ (7568a2) — 8/30/2008 @ 6:25 pmWe prosecute murders.
We prosecute homicide.
We prosecute vehicular homicide.
We prosecute criminal negligence.
Killing someone because you thought it might be fun is a more heinous crime than failing to properly maintain your parking brake.
Al (b624ac) — 8/30/2008 @ 6:25 pmDRJ –
Both victims would have our sympathy, but intentional conduct gets a more aggressive State response precisely because it’s a choice.
— Well, there is one situation where someone dies as a result of intentional conduct, but there is no state response precisely because it’s a (legally protected) choice.
Icy Truth (75e0f5) — 8/30/2008 @ 6:32 pmPhil…
Another Drew (5efac7) — 8/30/2008 @ 6:49 pmI attended my first funeral in High School for a car accident. Don’t presume to lecture me about what I’ve known about for 50+ years.
If you want to argue in the micro, take it somewhere else.
Policy discussions can never be on the micro level, it is just too painful for someone.
Macro, on the other hand (wan’t it Harry Trueman who said he always wanted to hire a one-armed economist because he was so damned tired of being told “On the other hand”), speaks in broad generalities that transcend individuals.
Accidents happen. Yes, we can attempt to minimize the number; but, life can never be made SAFE! Only safer.
Humans make mistakes, that is who we are.
Murderers, on the other hand, need to be hunted down like the rabid dogs they are, and shot in the street where they stand (for all you civil libertarians out there, I sometimes descend into extreme hyperbole, but I think you know what I mean).
Murderers have no place in a society of civilized people. They have broken the compact, and their lives are forfeit.
Accidents happen. Yes, we can attempt to minimize the number; but, life can never be made SAFE! Only safer.
Why is that true for accidents but not for murders?
I wasn’t trying to lecture you about car accidents, but I was trying to get you down to the micro level.
Macro, on the other hand (wan’t it Harry Trueman who said he always wanted to hire a one-armed economist because he was so damned tired of being told “On the other hand”), speaks in broad generalities that transcend individuals.
Ah yes, Truman. The only world leader ever to actually use an atomic weapon against another country — not just one, but two. He certainly was an expert on the “macro” perspective, that’s for sure.
Phil (3b1633) — 8/30/2008 @ 6:58 pmPhil:
American society is working to maximize safety in personal protection as well as transportation. In most jurisdictions, there are procedures by which people can be authorized to carry concealed weapons, mace or other personal protection products so they can defend themselves. We’ve developed 911 and enhanced 911 to minimize response time, and most communities have neighborhood watch programs.
The same medical services that help save the lives of people hurt in wrecks also take care of victims of violent crimes. In addition, trauma services in high-crime neighborhoods are often especially adept at dealing with gunshot and stab wounds. Injuries that would have resulted in near-certain death 10 years ago are treatable today.
DRJ (7568a2) — 8/30/2008 @ 7:11 pmDRJ, I was asking why the statement “life can never be SAFE it can only be SAFER” applies only to accidents.
I don’t think that was what you were addressing with your post. Absolutely we’re trying to make America SAFER from accidents. We should also try to make America SAFER from terrorists.
The idea of a “war on terror” implies that there can eventually be a surrender, an end to terrorism. That’s as stupid, in my opinion, as having a “war on accidents.” There will always be disgruntled extremests out there. It’s about minimizing the risk of them attacking, and the harm they can cause.
Of course I feel the same way about the other moronic wars on “poverty” and “drugs.” Just look at the tragedies in Mexico that are arising out of the wonderful market we’ve created in illegal drugs. Or the families dependent on public services. We’re creating a whole other road to ruin with this war on terror. We’re already occupying two countries, ramping up for another (Iran). Is Georgia next? We’ll see how far it goes . . .
Phil (3b1633) — 8/30/2008 @ 7:22 pmPhil is full of disingenuous bile tonite, racists.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/30/2008 @ 7:29 pmPhil,
I agree this has nothing to do with the post but that’s okay with me. However, I don’t agree we try to make life safer in some areas but not others.
As for the “War on …” concept, it’s an easy way to convey the notion that something needs strong action. We used to talk that way about eradicating cancer when I was growing up, and as a young adult I heard it used to describe treatments for AIDS. People understand we aren’t going to permanently end illnesses or terrorism, but that doesn’t mean we can’t “win.”
DRJ (7568a2) — 8/30/2008 @ 7:33 pmJD, I’m insulted. My bile is completely heartfelt, and not disingenuous at all.
Phil (3b1633) — 8/30/2008 @ 7:37 pmPhil…
Another Drew (5efac7) — 8/30/2008 @ 7:42 pmTo clarify, my intention was very broad when I said that life can be safer, but never safe. I was not speaking only about accidents, auto or otherwise.
Having spent a lifetime within the auto-racing community, the safe or safer argument is one we have dealt with for a very long time.
But, as long as human activity involves humans, there will be accidents, and (heaven forbid) people will die through no fault of their own or others.
This is also one of the arguments between the Left and Right (macro).
The Left attempts to perfect life so that everyone is safe.
The Right, knowing the faliblity of man, only attempts to make life as safe as possible; and, pushes the concept that the individual is responsible for himself and his actions.
And yes, I believe that Shit Happens!
Correction…
Another Drew (5efac7) — 8/30/2008 @ 7:46 pmThis is also one of the arguments divides between the Left and Right (macro).
forgot to write strike for “arguments”.
Another Drew (5efac7) — 8/30/2008 @ 7:47 pmSorry.
See, AD, that’s why I truly believe I’m being conservative by opposing the war on terror as it is currently being managed. But hey . . . who am I to say that increasing government spending, interfering in the private lives of citizens, and trying to establish our own ideal system of government throughout the world is “liberal.”
Phil (3b1633) — 8/30/2008 @ 7:49 pmWhat is conservative about wanting to jam your head in the sand and pretend there is not a problem?
JD (5f0e11) — 8/30/2008 @ 7:56 pmSome points Phil…
1- When hasn’t government spending increased?
If they’re going to spend a bunch of money, I’m all in favor of using it to liquidate enemies of America, in places far, far away;
2- Please cite where the lives of private citizens have been interferred with; other than terrorist, that is. Last time I looked, we have failed to establish the internal internment camps favored by FDR and Earl Warren;
3- We are not trying to establish our own ideal system of government throughout the world. We are though, attempting to allow others who have not known freedom, to establish a form of government that they are comfortable with, and which government does not pose a threat to its’ neighbors, or the World at large.
And, you’ld have to define Liberal – there seem to be several conflicting definitions available.
Personally, I advocate – like William Wallace – FREEDOM!
Another Drew (5efac7) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:00 pmPhil, why is it that you find yourself opposing things that are only happening in your own head? Oh, and by the way, spreading Democracy has been a ideological goal of the United States for a couple of centuries now – you can join in whenever you feel like it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:04 pmIf they’re going to spend a bunch of money, I’m all in favor of using it to liquidate enemies of America, in places far, far away;
I think we disagree on what’s actually happening. If I’m ever convinced that we’re simply “liquidating enemies of America,” then I agree. From what I can tell, incidents of terrorism have increased tremendously, and terrorim has gained a lot more legitimacy around the world, since we started “liquidating” them.
2- Please cite where the lives of private citizens have been interferred with; other than terrorist, that is.
Oh please . . . heck, it’s being used as an excuse to put a wall up across the U.S.-Mexico border. We have to stand in line and get searched before we fly. Government agents can look up my business records whenever they want — what if one of them is related to a competitor of mine?
I will grant you that I tend to be pessimistic about the government’s spying/surveillance, and that in theory, a lot of people can live in a society like that without noticing. A lot of people lived under the KGB and in East Germany without noticing the government day-to-day, too.
We are not trying to establish our own ideal system of government throughout the world. We are though, attempting to allow others who have not known freedom, to establish a form of government that they are comfortable with, and which government does not pose a threat to its’ neighbors, or the World at large.
You say tomato, I say total bullshit. Sorry . . . Again, I disagree. With all of that. Just be honest — we want to kick the terrorists’ ass, and we just can’t find them, so we’re starting with taking over Iraq and Afganistan, because at least we’re doing SOMETHING then.
Oh, and by the way, spreading Democracy has been a ideological goal of the United States for a couple of centuries now – you can join in whenever you feel like it.
I’m all for spreading democracy — by example. And supporting those who want to live in a democracy.
Phil (3b1633) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:25 pmIn most jurisdictions, there are procedures by which people can be authorized to carry concealed weapons, mace or other personal protection products so they can defend themselves.
Wonderful country, this America, where we can expect the government to permit us to defend ourselves.
(I know it’s offtopic, DRJ, but what you said just struck me in the eye.)
As for the “war on…” meme, the problem is that while people in general seem to understand your point, the politicians and pundits don’t seem to understand it. At least, they act as if it’s a war where, if we just pound them hard enough, the jihadis/drug traffickers/etc will say, Stop, and sign a formal surrender document.
Plus there’s the fact that all these “wars on…” have been so marvelously effective. I mean, we’ve made such a dent in poverty since LBJ began the War on Poverty, and the outstanding success of the War on Drugs is obvious to even the most biased observer. And the War on Drugs is increasinly a campaign by police against the populace (all segments of it). At the moment, the War on Terror seems very mixed in results. The only one with much progress is the War on Cancer, and I don’t recall anyone actually using that phrase in the last few years.
kishnevi (765df9) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:26 pmPhil, you just can’t keep to one line of your own bullshit for more than a single comment, can you?
The things you complain about by and large have nothing to do with the war on terrorism. The wall on the US Mexico border exists because we are tired of illegal aliens, and people had to stand in line and get searched before getting on aircraft for decades now, do pay attention.
And government agents always could look up your business records … are you Rip Van Winkle and only woke up last year?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:28 pmSPQR–spreading democracy (at least, spreading it to other countries) didn’t become an ideological goal of the government until we started dueling with Communism after WWII. (Unless you count Wilson’s war to end all wars.) And even then we didn’t even attempt to do a thorough job of it.
kishnevi (8174b2) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:31 pmkishnevi, not true actually. Among the propaganda points of the Mexican American War was to spread democracy southward.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:32 pmAirport security is a direct result of the actions of 19 men on 9/11/01.
Another Drew (5efac7) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:36 pmDo you intend to say that if we had not gone into Afghanistan and/or Iraq, that air travelers would not be going through metal detectors, and having to remove their shoes (thank you, Richard Reid)?
Well, it is obvious that you advocate that we succumb to the Radical Islamist threat, do whatever the demand, just so you can fly without inconvenience (I personally find many of the security proceedures such a pain, I don’t fly anymore), or can cross the Mexican and/or Canadian borders without being hasselled (except by the Canadians or Mexicans, of course)?
I find your attitude disgusting, and un-worthy of an American!
Good Night!
The things you complain about by and large have nothing to do with the war on terrorism. The wall on the US Mexico border exists because we are tired of illegal aliens
Well I know that’s the REAL reason, but keeping out terrorists is often used as a justification as well — you know, our airports are secure, but a terrorist can just wander across the border.
Of course, that’s just to scare us open-border folks — we know you guys are already as scared of immigration as you are of terrorism.
and people had to stand in line and get searched before getting on aircraft for decades now, do pay attention.
No, it was definitely different before. That’s something I’m very personally aware of because I despise lines and bureaucracy.
Phil (3b1633) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:37 pmOne last point, and then I’m gone…
We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.
Another Drew (5efac7) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:38 pmThank God!
Among the propaganda points of the Mexican American War was to spread democracy southward.
I’m sorry, but there’s just this huge mental disconnect for me with this idea of “spreading democracy through war. “Democracy” means rule by the people. How do you spread “rule by the people” by killing people?
Phil (3b1633) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:40 pmSPQR, the hassles initiated by the Dept of Homeland Security since 2001 are well beyond the quick check-in procedures that were the norm up to 2001. When I flew before 9/11, I had to stand in line to get my seat assignment, and no one ever searched me(except El Al, and they’re El Al. Maybe the only airline you ever flew on before 2001 was El Al? Otherwise I don’t see how you can claim that the situation before 9/11 for boarding a plane is anything like the one that now exists, complete with rules about what size bottles you can take aboard).
kishnevi (8174b2) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:41 pmRe–38
kishnevi (8174b2) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:43 pmThanks for the info. That’s obviously a point that didn’t make it into any book I’ve read.
Phil – Care to cite any actual evidence that anyone here is actually scared of immigration?
JD (5f0e11) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:55 pmPhil, you really seem to be extraordinarily naive at times. This thread is a perfect example of that.
As for going to war to spread Democracy, have you read any history? WWI, WWII … other times when the United States has warred with monarchies, oligarchies and other tyrannies?
Pick up a book some time.
kishnevi, I’ll have to go back and look at my library to remember which historian wrote about the propaganda themes in the Mexican American war.
There were metal detectors in airports before 9/11. Security was tightened after, but not created out of whole cloth.
The liquids restrictions did not come from 9/11. Rather that came from the period when the islamic extremists were bombing London’s Metro and were using liquid explosives based on acids and certain compounds in two part recipes.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/30/2008 @ 8:57 pmSPQR–until Wilson led us into the “War to end all wars” we didn’t fight any wars on a specifically ideological basis. In fact, you can count the number of times we went to war before WWI on the fingers of one hand–1776, 1812, Mexico, Spain. Plus the undeclared war with France under Adams, and the Civil War, which started off (ideologically speaking) as a defense of the Union and only later became a war against slavery. You’re read that prodemocracy ideology was used in the Mexican War, but if it was, it was the oddball. Heck, we even made war on the Filipinos for the express purpose of making them obey us.
And the whole reason for the increased security since 9/11 is the threat of terrorism. And compared to before 9/11, it vastly increased, even before the rules about small bottles.
kishnevi (765df9) — 8/30/2008 @ 9:08 pmKishnevi, I did not say that the Mexican War was fought for spreading democracy. Plaining it was not, the ideological claim for more territory – Manifest Destiny – was more prominent. But my point was that there were pro-Democracy themes in some of the Mexican American war propaganda.
The reason for aircraft security before 9/11 was terrorism. Hijacking aircraft was not invented in September of 2001.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/30/2008 @ 9:10 pmOh, kishnevi, the Spanish American war was purely ideological. What interests did we have in Cuba other than opposing european colonialism? You need to rethink your comment.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/30/2008 @ 9:12 pm“I’m sorry, but theres just this huge mental disconnect for me with this idea of ‘spreading democracy’ through war. ‘Democracy’ means rule by the people. How do you spread ‘rule by the people’ by killing people?”
A reader writes:
Patterico (216c49) — 8/30/2008 @ 9:13 pmPatterico, I wanted to write that about Phil but I restrained myself.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/30/2008 @ 9:14 pm“The idea of a “war on terror” implies that there can eventually be a surrender, an end to terrorism. That’s as stupid, in my opinion, as having a “war on accidents.””
Phil constructs a ridiculous argument that no one has made or implied and then proceeds to argue against that. It’s a classic Phil tactic.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/30/2008 @ 10:17 pmBecause just like people will continue to make mistakes behind the wheel, people will continue to murder innocent people for political purposes. It’s one of those things you just can’t help.
Brilliant, Phil.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/31/2008 @ 6:22 amHappen to come across this old post, but rather aprapo for today.
U.S. commandos attacked Pakistan today.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN0445305020080904
Looks like Obama is already president.
Oiram (983921) — 9/4/2008 @ 10:57 amLOL!!!!
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/4/2008 @ 11:04 amI’m glad your laughing Scott 🙂
This is taken from the original post here (above)
“Obama’s plan is to escalate the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a military solution that is at odds with the desires of his liberal supporters and that makes me leery he will follow through.”
Apparently Patterico is afraid of attacking Pakistan, we could see from today’s news that Bush is not.
I know McCain is afraid because although he “Will follow Bin Laden gates of hell” he wont go into Pakistan where Bin Laden most likely resides.
McCain is the man to protect us from Al Queda???
Oiram (983921) — 9/4/2008 @ 11:13 am“John McCain has experience that will help him deal with the challenges of terrorism but Barack Obama also thinks he has the answers. Obama’s plan is to escalate the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a military solution that is at odds with the desires of his liberal supporters and that makes me leery he will follow through.”
DRJ, are you at least “leery” of Bush’s decision with Pakistan?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26735196/<a
Oiram (983921) — 9/16/2008 @ 4:33 pmOiram,
I’m not sure how I feel about American action in Pakistan. I’m sure the Bush Administration has ongoing diplomatic and back-channel discussions with sources throughout the region as well as intelligence on what is happening on the ground.
I don’t need to know everything – no one can know everything – but I need to know more about current discussions and intelligence to form an opinion. Specifically, I’d like to know if there is good intel about bin Laden, Zawahiri, and/or their support structure. If so, it may be worth it.
I think the Bush Administration decided long ago to use the carrot of diplomacy in dealing with Pakistan’s tribal regions rather than opting for the stick of military solutions. I think we’re finally seeing the stick.
DRJ (0754ed) — 9/16/2008 @ 4:47 pmUnderstood, DRJ. And I think after the billions on top of billions we have thrown at Pakistan, it is definitely “about time we see the stick”.
Time to give Obama some props over McCain on this one.
Oiram (983921) — 9/16/2008 @ 4:53 pmNo. It’s not clear how long the US has been going into Pakistan or the tribal region. Covert operations may have been occurring for months or years, but the Bush Administration didn’t publicly state it would invade Pakistani territory as Obama did. Public statements back Pakistan into a corner, putting its leaders in the position of having to attack something they may have privately agreed to.
Obama handled it in a clueless manner, and I’m not giving him props for that.
DRJ (0754ed) — 9/16/2008 @ 5:01 pm