2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 11

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

I hope you guys are right because there are some real bad guys out there that look at the U.S. as particularly weak right now in the election cycle and look at Obama as weak.

It's not nice to talk about McCain that way...

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

If Obama is a tough guy and will stand up to enemies then I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't think the western world can take a declining U.S. if all the other superpowers are dictatorships. Of course I can't overlook that when threats become closer or more eminent people tend to perk up and get tough.

If by "tough guy" you mean saber rattling and preemptive wars then you'll probably remain unsatisfied.


Tough guy:

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

I hope you guys are right because there are some real bad guys out there that look at the U.S. as particularly weak right now in the election cycle and look at Obama as weak. If Obama is a tough guy and will stand up to enemies then I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't think the western world can take a declining U.S. if all the other superpowers are dictatorships. Of course I can't overlook that when threats become closer or more eminent people tend to perk up and get tough.

Do you honestly think Obama is just going to roll over if the US is threatened and/or attacked?

[JOFO]

Exactly.
But that's what McCain's whole campaign has been based on.
It's mind-numbing.

[Diemen]

It reminds me of the people saying "thank God it was George Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore."

Because Al Gore would've surrendered?

[Dreadsox]

Actually there is a good deal of eveidence that a response by Gore. Al Qaeda had attacked and attacked over the entire Clinton administration with a week response. 9/11, in my opinion is a prime example of what happens when you ignore the problem for eight years. This statement does not mean the Bush Admin, was not somewhat responsible as well, but I see no evidence that there would have been as decisive action due to eight years of the Clinton/Gore cupation of the White House.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Do you honestly think Obama is just going to roll over if the US is threatened and/or attacked?

It's an actual concern. Al Qaeda looks at the U.S. as a country that doesn't finish what it starts. I'm talking about what the enemy thinks. People on this board are expecting Iraq to fall apart into 3 countries. America may not roll over at first but they might get tired and get tempted to give up. Bosnia was the last success. Vietnam, Somalia, maybe Iraq and Afghanistan are not.

There's this sense that if the enemy keeps piling on the will of the public weakens, especially with a downbeat media. When the U.S. leaves both wars, especially if it is right away, the enemy will be enboldened. Then they will look at that as a victory and all they have to do is perservere by waiting the U.S. out. Conservatives are concerned about that. They fear Jimmy Carter the sequel.

One thing benefiting the U.S. is that the economy in the U.S. is not the only one financially distracted but it is all over the world as well. I hope that it will cool things off with Russia who relies on the high price of oil, and Iran.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

It's an actual concern. Al Qaeda looks at the U.S. as a country that doesn't finish what it starts. I'm talking about what the enemy thinks.

Interesting. I wasn't aware you were a spokesman for Al Qaeda.

People on this board are expecting Iraq to fall apart into 3 countries.

Really? On what are you basing that rather large assumption? Or... name one person on this board who thinks that. Or... perhaps you could try staying away from telling people what their expectations are or what they think.

There's this sense that if the enemy keeps piling on the will of the public weakens, especially with a downbeat media. When the U.S. leaves both wars, especially if it is right away, the enemy will be enboldened.

I agree that if we leave right away there will be problems. However, Obama has already made it clear that he's not just going to pick up and leave - and indeed he's been one of the few leading the push for more troops in Afghanistan, so I don't quite understand where this concern comes from that we're just going to up and leave in both countries.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Dreadsox

Actually there is a good deal of eveidence that a response by Gore. Al Qaeda had attacked and attacked over the entire Clinton administration with a week response. 9/11, in my opinion is a prime example of what happens when you ignore the problem for eight years. This statement does not mean the Bush Admin, was not somewhat responsible as well, but I see no evidence that there would have been as decisive action due to eight years of the Clinton/Gore cupation of the White House.

You're right, Al Qaeda had attacked US interests during the Clinton administration without much in the way of strong responses to Al Qaeda itself, but they didn't attack us at anywhere near the level of magnitude of 9/11.

Though we're clearly delving into some huge hypotheticals here, personally I think that any president, regardless of party, would have responded to 9/11 by going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Clinton, Gore, Hillary, Bush, McCain, etc - there's no doubt in my mind that there would have been similar operations into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden and eradicate Al Qaeda. Where the differences lie in my mind is in what would have happened concurrently with that, and what would have happened after that.

[JOFO]

Originally Posted by Dreadsox

Actually there is a good deal of eveidence that a response by Gore. Al Qaeda had attacked and attacked over the entire Clinton administration with a week response. 9/11, in my opinion is a prime example of what happens when you ignore the problem for eight years. This statement does not mean the Bush Admin, was not somewhat responsible as well, but I see no evidence that there would have been as decisive action due to eight years of the Clinton/Gore cupation of the White House.

This kind of thing drives me up the wall, and I've been hearing it for years now.
Dread, do you know who was president of the United States on 9/11? Bill Clinton? Nope. Al Gore? Nope. Bozo the Clown? Close. But no, it was George W. Bush, who had BEEN president of the United States for a full nine months before the attack. It happened ON HIS WATCH. Even though he constantly likes to say things like "Not on my watch". Therefore, it was HIS responsibility to have prevented the attack. The buck stops here, as Reagan used to say. He was in charge. He was briefed a month before that Al Queda was a threat and was trying to use airplanes and fly them into buildings. Did the president put the country on a red alert? Nope. Did he step up the inteeligence agencies to do everything they could to find the suspects? Nope. Did Bush do ANYTHING regarding Al Queda nine months before the attack? NO.

Did Bill Clinton try to do anything about Al Queda during his presidency? Read for yourself:
t r u t h o u t | Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts

But I digress. Would ANY U.S. President roll over in a 9/11 event and do nothing. Of course not. But let me just remind you of what GWB HAS done:
Started two wars in two countries and yet has NOT CAUGHT Bin Laden.
Mission accomplished.
DO you want me to keep going on this? Because after listening to republican horse manure for the last eight years, I've got plenty.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Interesting. I wasn't aware you were a spokesman for Al Qaeda.

I'm wondering how we know when you are a regular poster, and when you are a moderator?

With respect, of course.

- Bluer White

[Dreadsox]

Originally Posted by JOFO

Dread, do you know who was president of the United States on 9/11? Bill Clinton? Nope. Al Gore? Nope. Bozo the Clown? Close. But no, it was George W. Bush, who had BEEN president of the United States for a full nine months before the attack. It happened ON HIS WATCH. Even though he constantly likes to say things like "Not on my watch". Therefore, it was HIS responsibility to have prevented the attack. The buck stops here, as Reagan used to say. He was in charge. He was briefed a month before that Al Queda was a threat and was trying to use airplanes and fly them into buildings. Did the president put the country on a red alert? Nope. Did he step up the inteeligence agencies to do everything they could to find the suspects? Nope. Did Bush do ANYTHING regarding Al Queda nine months before the attack? NO.

Did Bill Clinton try to do anything about Al Queda during his presidency? Read for yourself:
t r u t h o u t | Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts

But I digress. Would ANY U.S. President roll over in a 9/11 event and do nothing. Of course not. But let me just remind you of what GWB HAS done:
Started two wars in two countries and yet has NOT CAUGHT Bin Laden.
Mission accomplished.
DO you want me to keep going on this? Because after listening to republican horse manure for the last eight years, I've got plenty.

I think you are quite rude. If I thought for a moment you were up for a debate that would result in anything more than rude comments like this, then I would take you up on it.

Instead I will point out that I was participating in a discussion about Al Gore, the sitting president prior to the 2000 election who gave up power in January 2001.

So yes, if I were to examine the hypothetical question about how a Gore President would have responded to 9/11, the historical evidence counts, and not just the "evidence" that you are making your case with. There is plenty of evidence that there was not an effective response to the terrorism issue from the first attack on the trade center. If their responses were effective, then 9/11 may not have happened.

I would also say to you, that when dealing with the hypothetical question, I included a statement about the Bush Administration as well, do you need me to read it to you?

The question was about Gore, not Bush... disagree with my points all you want, your response was uncalled for.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

It's an actual concern. Al Qaeda looks at the U.S. as a country that doesn't finish what it starts. I'm talking about what the enemy thinks. People on this board are expecting Iraq to fall apart into 3 countries.

You've told me how I think, you've told us how liberals think, you've told us how Bono thinks, you've told us how rich people think, and now you are telling us how Al Qaeda thinks. Unless you have any shred of evidence as to how someone thinks, why don't you stick to just telling us what and how you think and let everyone else speak for themselves.

You've been wrong every time, at least this way you can't get it wrong.

[corianderstem]

I'm not Diemen (duh), but I'm going to give my two cents anyway.

As far as I'm aware, mods are able to have opinions and participate in discussions. Yolland participates in discussions as well. Diemen might be a little more sharper with the sarcasm, but that's all he's doing, too.

I'd say he's being a mod when he's warning people about behavior or locking threads. Anything else is just him participating in discussion.

And if he were going around only handing out warnings or whatever to conservative posters and allowing similar behavior to continue from liberal posters, then there'd be an issue.

But I'm surprised some people are acting like he's not allowed to have opinions or participate in discussion (even with a mildly sarcastic comment) just because he gets to step in to close threads or break up a pile-on as a mod.

[martha]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

But I'm surprised some people are acting like he's not allowed to have opinions or participate in discussion (even with a mildly sarcastic comment)

Some of the conservative posters are a little touchy about that, aren't they.

[Dreadsox]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Where the differences lie in my mind is in what would have happened concurrently with that, and what would have happened after that.

Well, I cannot guarentee that Gore would have gone into Afghanistan given there were attacks over an eight year span that were responded to with strategic bombing.

If Gore did decide to go in, I am willing to bet that he would not under any circumstances have brought us into Iraq and then maybe we would have completed the job in Afghanistan.

I truly believe that Bush had determined the correct course of action with Afghanistan at the start. Sadly, the influences in the administration brought us to Iraq before finishing the job.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

I'm wondering how we know when you are a regular poster, and when you are a moderator?

With respect, of course.

- Bluer White

Maybe I should've added a smiley.

My inference there was not that he's a terrorist, of course. But it does seem odd that he's telling us "what the enemy thinks." and then later on telling us what FYM posters' expectations are.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

But I'm surprised some people are acting like he's not allowed to have opinions or participate in discussion (even with a mildly sarcastic comment) just because he gets to step in to close threads or break up a pile-on as a mod.

Thanks for explaining it better than I probably would have.

[A_Wanderer]

Why it it that people think Bin Laden is remotely relevant to the discussion? Or that any "war on terror" begins and ends with Al Qaeda? Or that the Vice President that knew that Saddam had WMD and established links with Osama bin Laden would have reacted dramatically differently?

At least the solid anti-war crowd recognises that both parties backed the Iraq War (and brutal sanctions before that) and the lines put out by Bush matched those of the Democrats during the 1990's (and the insider knowledge that Hillary, Kerry etc. had in 2002).

It will be interesting when Obama is able to pull troops out of Iraq because of conditions on the ground, I wager that the narrative will be that he ended the war without leaving behind a bloodbath. If this is able to occur it will be in no small part because Bush was a second term president who made some very unpopular decisions after listening to his generals that a first term president probably wouldn't make. A narrative of defeat may be required to win an election, but it will change once Obama is in the White House, and frankly that is a good thing.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Thanks for explaining it better than I probably would have.

Glad I could speak for you.










zomg, please don't ban me for daring to speak for you!

[Dreadsox]

Diemen is probably one of the more vocal posters in FYM over the years. I do not envy him transistioning to the Mod Squad. I think that can be a tough position to be in. Conservative posters will respect the mods that show respect in their use of power. Yolland has done it. Pax used to do it and Angie used to do it. It is when people see someone abusing power to further their cause that concerns most. Diemen has done nothing to show otherwise that he cannot be a stand up mod.