This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

President Obama's Afghanistan Speech

**UPDATE**
Donald Rumsfeld throws the flag on Obama's claim that troops were denied.
****
Transcript
McCain's reaction
Palin's reaction
McChrystal's statement
Ed Morrissey or Hot Air had this to say.
Cadet's reaction
Der Spiegel nails it

76 comments:

guy faulkes said...

Please read my post on this speech placed on the following thread.

Honest Debate said...

Thanks Guy. It was your comments that nudged me to make this thread. I guess I shouldn't need nudging on a speech as important as this but Obama is just so hard to take seriously.

BTW you wrote: "...if Saddam had WMD at one point, he had them tactically at all points...". That's the best I've heard it put.

Sarkazein said...

The Left, after the successful routing of Saddaam, tried changing WMD to mean nuclear weapons. But they only fooled their own.

Sarkazein said...

West point is 274 miles from the WH and Annapolis is
35 miles from the WH. More damage done to the climate by Obowma for his surrender announcement speech.

Simon Jester said...

All you liberals that accuse us of getting everything from Rush and Fox news need to know that both Rush and Hannity said almost the same thing Guy did on their radio shows. Guy said it first. They follow us. We don't follow them.

Sarkazein said...

Simon Jester- You are right. The Rush thing is just another liberal misconception.

Wolf's Head said...

It would have been nice if Obama had announced this 116 military casualties ago. Which is how many warriors we lost while he was fiddling around.

And telling the enemy when we are disengaging is just plain stupid.

But stupid is as stupid does.

Sarkazein said...

Obowma making statements like the Bush administration turned down multiple requests for troops in Afghanistan, and now he's better, divides our country even further. His over-use of the word "I" is unbelievable. Even Clinton in his escapades didn't divide the country the way Obowma has. With Clinton you knew he would be gone soon and the WH would be fumigated. But Obowma is in a burn everything standing mode so it can't be used by the next administration. He has to be doing it on purpose. No one is that stupid.

Anonymous said...

Wolf: How many thousand dead soldiers have we suffered since our mission was accomplished?

Circle jerk on, guys.

Who's the pivot man?

Sarkazein said...

This cadet had better things to do during Obowma's speech.

Sarkazein said...

It is time to search for some replacement liberals. Liberals with a sense of history and not obsessed with homo-erotica. I am sure there are some out there... somewhere... maybe.

Honest Debate said...

Sark,

I agree. I've more than once offered a plea for liberals that could challenge facts and enlighten us. Aside from an esoteric "point taken" here or "I'll give you that" there, we get zip. I'm more than willing to say "You're absolutely right, I hadn't thought of that".

They hide. Look at the global warming thread. Notice, they say the war was for oil while muttering Halliburton but cannot give any justification for that belief when pressed. They hide. There are many examples.

Honest Debate said...

Sark,

Do you think Bridle will scold Nonny for ad hominem attacks?

guy faulkes said...

I believe that most of our liberal friends serve a valuable function on this blog. They put forth their usually ridiculous ideas. Others respond to these ideas. I cannot say that I have learned much from our liberal friends, but I have learned a great deal from the logical and fact supported responses given in rebuttal. As a matter of fact the Wolf once told me he thought that POV was really Blogger trying to stimulate debate because no one could really be as ignorant as POV.

I must admit POV, Anonymous (shyster), and Bridle do a better job than BB. BB seldom puts forth an idea or opinion as he is limited to personal attacks. Anonymous (shyster) and Bridle occasionally are thought provoking, even though Anonymous (shyster) cannot help crude personal attacks either.

Sarkazein said...

H.D-

Maybe, while he (Bridle) is not doing ad hominem attacks, but doubtful.

Sarkazein said...

It seem like RV was rational. Even if she does say so herself.

Sarkazein said...

seemS

guy faulkes said...

Sark, you are correct. RV does do a good job. I have had to give several of her posts careful consideration. My apologies for omitting her.

Honest Debate said...

In the spirit of honest debate, motivated in part by a discussion (on another thread) with Guy Faulkes on bias, I will throw the libs a bone.

Obama has committed over 50,000 troops to Afghanistan since coming to office. That's more than I expected despite his campaign rhetoric. This has cost him dearly with his wacko base. That took a bit of political courage.

That's as far as I can go. He's ticked off both sides. A shallow interpretation of that fact would be to say if both sides are mad then he must be doing the responsible thing. That's pretty shallow thinking. In truth, by trying to split the difference he has chosen the worst option. Courage would be taking a stand one way or the other. If Afghanistan is as crucial as he claims then win at any cost. If not, get out.

Liberal POV said...

HD

Define win?

Do you expect a surrender?

Liberal POV said...

Sark

"It is time to search for some replacement liberals. Liberals with a sense of history and not obsessed with homo-erotica."

Are you referring to the theory that men with small penis often have an obsession for big guns?

Who's the conservative on here that brings up the Clinton scandal at every opportunity?

guy faulkes said...

Sark, on the following thread, HD and I discussed how one can get past his bias with reasoned consideration of facts. Unfortunately, POV is not able to do this. This is why I did not indicate one ever had to consider much that POV said, unlike some of the others. POV is out in left field so far I do not understand the relevance of his questions. Were we discussing guns or Clinton on this thread by some reference that I missed, or is POV changing the subject again? If so for what reason? It seems that all he is doing is proving Sark's original point in wishing for new liberals with some kind of logic.

As to Obama's fence sitting, I have to quote Maverick's Pappy. "All sitting on a fence gets you is a sore straddle."

BikerBard said...

Sark-
Nice propaganda photo, Sark, but this photo was already identified as a cadet WAITING for the speech to start. Nice try - but go for some truth next time. It will be a refreshing change of pace for you.

Simon Jester said...

BB. identified by who? Sources, please. Even if you are right, it sure shows how much the cadet was looking forward to the speech, doesn't it.

Sarkazein said...

POV-

I had left you out of the homo-erotica thing, but you seem to have an affixation on my privates. I'll be more careful to include you in the next time.

Are you now writing that Clinton is a homo-sexual? Not that there's anything wrong with that. Are you writing Bill or Hillary? Hillary I knew about, but Bill too...??

Liberal POV said...

Guy and HD or SJ

" If Afghanistan is as crucial as he claims then win at any cost. If not, get out."

Define win? Do yo expect a surrender?

Should taxes be increased to cover the cost of the war ? Who should be taxed? Would payindg a war tax be patroitic?

guy faulkes said...

" If Afghanistan is as crucial as he claims then win at any cost. If not, get out."

Define win? Do yo expect a surrender?

Should taxes be increased to cover the cost of the war ? Who should be taxed? Would payindg a war tax be patroitic? - POV

We win when we deny the terrorists the ability to train and conduct terrorist acts from Afghanistan.

No, I expect an annihilation of terrorists until they are to weak or scared to continue in their acts.

We have to pay for the war as a matter of self defense. It makes more sense to cut out pork project to pay for it.

There should be no additional tax.

Paying for a war is indeed patriotic.

Any other stupid questions?

Liberal POV said...

Guy

What do we do about the extremist in the rest of the world? More maybe in Pakistan then Afghanistan?

Do you understand all the pork last year wouldn't fund the war for a week.

Do you want to keep funding the war with deficit spending like we have the last eight years?

How do you scare people willing to commit suicide?

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-

Re: Bias

I like bias. Bias protects me from being hoaxed into believing man-made global warming, Obowma, hi I'm from the government and I'm here to help you, I didn't have sex with that woman Ms Lowinsky, guns kill people, the Founders were against religion, Islam is the peaceful religion, women can do anything a man can do only better, I should look for the union label.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

The "homo-erotica" thing is was specifically directed at Nonny's second "circle jerk" comment. Before that I criticized Nonny for using "teabaggers" which is also a homo-erotic term. I think you (and others) have used that one too. It really is over the top. I guess that's just the way ya'll roll.

BTW, the Clinton thing happened. The teabagging, circle jerk thing is just a liberal's fantasy.

Surrender would be nice but there is no nation to surrender. If the Taliban or Al Qaida surrenders it's pretty meaningless. Guy Faulkes explained it well in terms of Afghanistan. The only thing I would add is we will not be safe until no nation on earth gives safe harbor to terrorist.

As far as funding goes, war bonds is a good idea that I've heard put forth but it really doesn't matter. If the stakes are as High as Obama claims (they are)then we must win.

Many liberals are livid about this. What do you think of Obama's plan?

guy faulkes said...

POV, funding the war would be watch pocket change compared to the porkulas package, nationalized health care, or cap and tax.

As far as fighting terrorism is concerned, Machiavelli may have said it best when he said that if one is forced to do violence to another then one should do so much violence that no retaliation will be attempted. The terrorists did not follow that principle, but will now that Obama has surrendered, thereby keeping us from using it.

How do you scare people willing to commit suicide? - POV

Find what they cannot abide and do that to them as did Black Jack Pershing.

Liberal POV said...

Guy, SJ, HD, Sark

Not all pork is bad and even bad pork provides jobs for ordinary American citizens.

War is the big waste but does provide some jobs in the defense industry.

Your comment "POV, funding the war would be watch pocket change compared to the porkulas package, nationalized health care, or cap and tax."
shows how misinformed you are on many levels.

While the pork spending can draw headlines and be ridiculous it is a small part of the American expenditures.

Universal Health Care is badly need by the American people and for American industry to be competitive with other nations.
American lives that would be saved with Universal Health Care would far exceed any possible terrorist attacks n the US.

Terrorism is designed to cause fear and panic, those on the right especially HD are doing their part to intensify the fear factor. Most of the right winger are responding exactly as the extremist want.

20% of the world is Muslim, Obama is doing exactly what should be done and that's to drive a wedge between moderate Muslims and the extremist.
The actions called for by rght wingers like Guy and HD would create recruits for the extremist Muslims as Rumsfelt and Cheney did with their torture policy. We had seven years of the know nothing policy and the extremist just got stronger around the world. Try learning from mistakes, Oh, that's right the conservatives don't make mistakes.

Honest Debate said...

Yea, yea, whatever lib. I knew I was wasting my time by trying to engage you seriously.

Liberal POV said...

HD

"What do you think of Obama's plan?"

I'm supporting it. I also think I understand the history and geography of the region that will limit our goals.
The only hope is Obama's world view and being able to defuse anti American sentiment in that part of the world. His understanding of Muslim culture will be an asset.
The reality is the governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan are weak , corrupt and unpopular.
The fact we have been in Afghanistan eight years already is not helping, so the exit date is a good idea.

Stopping Muslim extremism spreading or growing in other parts of the world should be our main goal, not killing the last extremist in Afghanistan.

Liberal POV said...

HD

"Yea, yea, whatever lib. I knew I was wasting my time by trying to engage you seriously."

This is Honest Debating?

Wolf's Head said...

Anonymous Coward, When was the "mission accomplished"?

If your referring to Bush's comment on the carrier, that was about the war in Iraq, moron.

Just think how badly WWII would have gone if Roosevelt spend 3 months making decisions.

We'd be speaking German and California would be speaking Japanese.

Obama's incompetence regarding matters of state is one thing. Killing our troops thru indecision is something else.

Honest Debate said...

"This is Honest Debating?"

Honest debate requires at least two honest debaters otherwise it's just one person beating their head against the wall while the other asks "Why do you hate walls?".

guy falukes said...

So POV, you are now saying that the entire 20% of the world's population which is Muslim follow the terrorist policy of lesser jihad. When did you change your mind about Muslim being a peaceful religion? I personally believe that the majority of Muslims will welcome the defeat of those that practice lesser jihad, especially those that are in fear of their lives from these terrorists.

I have to believe that your opinion is skewed by your admiration and support of terrorism.

Universal health care is not about health care. It is about power. The Obama administration wants to use this to promote socialism. Universal health care ( government run socialized medicine) will result in the rationing of care, death panels, and cost many lives.

Certainly we make mistakes. Some of us supported big government liberal Republicans like Bush.

Are you ever going to get it through your dense skull that we are not in the government building business. We are fighting a war against terrorists, not supporting or undermining governments. If a government physically supports terrorism then they are terrorists and become valid targets.

Wait a minute! Does this make you a traitor because of your support of terrorists? I think not, at least until you reach the point of not merely verbally supporting terrorism and start doing so physically.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Please answer this question, I'm serious. Do you think the terrorist hatred of America has at it's crux any validity?

Liberal POV said...

Wolf

Troops have been increasing as fast as possible ever sense Obama took office.

What was the number when Obama took office?

What is it now?
How long will it take to get 36,000 additional troops into Afghanistan?

Who removed troops from Afghanstan for Iraq cost us this mess now?

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Your the one helping them (the terrorist )spread fear and panic.

Liberal POV said...

HD

I'm not sure I fully understand the question you're asking?

" Do you think the terrorist hatred of America has at its crux any validity?"


For one thing Its western culture not just America and Its power not just religion. Religion is the tool.

Our action to this point has been counter productive in reducing extremist.

Folks like those here spreading fear, hate and calling for more extreme violence play into their goals.

Simon Jester said...

Answer the HD's question, POV. You are running away again. It looks like you do like the terrorists because you won't answer.

Liberal POV said...

SJ

I have to understand the question being ask?

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

I don't know how I can be more clear. Substitute "western culture" for America if you must. Do the terrorist have a point?

Simon Jester said...

POV, let me translate from English to liberal stupit (your spelling). HD asked if you thought the terrorist had a good reason for their actions against the U.S. Christ, you really do need those remedial reading lessons Guy keeps telling you to get.

Liberal POV said...

SJ

If I thought the terrorist had a good reason for their actions against the U.S I wouldn't be calling them extremist. That doesn't mean terroist suspects shpuld be tortured.
This is the part you don't get right winger fear and hate mongering helps the terrorist's objectives as does torturing suspects.

guy faulkes said...

POV has irrefutably demonstrated on almost every post that he supports the terrorists over their victims. He has decided that the instigators of violent acts against innocent people should not be held responsible, interrogated to stop further acts, or punished for their acts. As this is evident, he has to believe that either the terrorists have a good reason for their actions or a deep hatred of this country and its citizens.

If this is not the case, he reminds me of the old joke that was made during the period the London police officers were not armed. His solution is to shout "Stop or I will shout Stop!" This is the mind set that encourages terrorism. The terrorists have to be made to understand the consequences of terrorism is not something they are willing to risk. Begging and capitulation are the tactics of the Obama left and they do not work.

I recently saw the picture of Obama bowing to the Japanese officials that had "Yassa, Masta, Yassa!" written across the bottom. This is sickening on many levels. It is racist and it also reflects the position in which Obama has placed this country.

Liberal POV said...

Guy
You fight terrorism by making it ineffective that means don't participate in the fear they try to generate. Why can't you get your head around that?

Everyday we get in our cars knowing hundreds will die on America roads that day from auto accidents.
Nearly every year lives are lost to tornados and Hurricanes but we don't panic. Why is the acts of terrorism so different that we have spent close to one trillion dollars and nearly 5000 lives fighting an unknown boogie man hiding some where in the world who knows where? Have we already done more damage to ourselves then they could have possibly have done? Have they benefited from our response? Are they stronger now than Sept 11, 2001? Are we playing the game they want us to play?

You and HD need to resist spreading fear.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

...nevermind.

guy fauleks said...

POV, do you realize what you just said? You are saying if we ignore them they will go away. You think that letting terrorists kill us is just the price of living. As long as they do not come for you personally or for your family, you do not care what they do to the rest of us. Your tactic of capitulation as long as it does not effect you is despicable as are you.

It is useless to try to reason with you. You equate murder by terrorists with natural disasters and auto accidents.

The terrorists may indeed be on the road to becoming stronger than they were on 9/11, due to Obama's political cowardice. Even though Bush was a proponent of big government and not nearly aggressive enough in pursuing the war on terror, he did stop attacks in this country for eight years. Fort Hood is just the start of the terrorism encouraged by tactics like yours and Obama's

We try to reduce the number of auto accidents and the effect of natural disasters, you idiot. If you truly believe that accepting terrorist attacks is no different than a natural disaster or auto accident, please publish an offer to sacrifice yourself in martyrdom to replace some innocent victim that you refuse to protect. Maybe this would save an innocent life, but I would bet the terrorists would prefer to keep an ally like you safe.

guy faulkes said...

Sorry for the double post, but I am infuriated. I rest my case that POV is a not only a terrorist supporter, but is approaching being a terrorist himself.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"POV, do you realize what you just said? You are saying if we ignore them they will go away. You think that letting terrorists kill us is just the price of living."

That not what I'm saying.
What I am saying is we shouldn't do more harm to ourselves than they are capable of doing.
Its like someones irrational reaction to a snake or spider doing real harm to themselve.

guy faulkes said...

By POV's second lame attempt to explain himself, we would never have fought the Second World War, or indeed any war. So depending upon the point which one would start applying POV logic, we would all still be British subjects or blacks would still be slaves.

POV, you are a terrorist sympathizer. You have admitted it. End of story. Your comparison of Muslims to snakes and spiders to reinforces this errs on two conflicting levels. You say one has no reason to fear any of them, but the dangerous ones could kill you if you do not stop them. On the other hand not all snakes and spiders are dangerous. Neither are all Muslims, even though you have claimed all the 20% of the world's population that is Muslim practices lesser jihad and are terrorists because we have defended ourselves form the small portion that really practice lesser jihad.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Is it necessary for you to put words in my mouth to win a debate with me?

Fear is want is needed to make terrorism effective.
I'm asking why the conservative help them by hyping fear?

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

...nevermind.

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep said:

"This is the part you don't get right winger fear and hate mongering helps the terrorist's objectives as does torturing suspects"

Again my liberal socialist sheep of an amoeboid, who was tortured? When did they get tortured? What is your definition of torture?

Since you have been unable to name a person, time or place where torture occured by US troops, then I am to conclude that you are a typically confused socialist who believes in something with factual basis to do so.

Kind of like climate change!!!

LOL!!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS Truth hurts doesn't it?

Sammy

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep POV said:

"Why is the acts of terrorism so different that we have spent close to one trillion dollars and nearly 5000 lives fighting an unknown boogie man hiding some where in the world who knows where? Have we already done more damage to ourselves then they could have possibly have done? Have they benefited from our response? Are they stronger now than Sept 11, 2001? Are we playing the game they want us to play?"


We have already been over this. The reason we have lost 5000 lives in this war is because of YOU and your ilk. YES YOU!!! Liberal feel good policies translate into dead soldiers. Instead of carpet bombing the dirty muslims into submission, in exactly the way we did the Krauts and Japs, we resort to a phenomenon called "precision strikes". This tactic, and I use that term lightly, was propogated by liberals such as yourself to limit so called collateral damage. What has occured because of a lack of collateral damage is that we spend our blood and treasure at unprecedented rates to satisfy some dubious ideal as it relates to war fighting. Liberal sheep such as yourself POV, are to blame for 5000 lives. Perhaps if you weren't such a coward, you might understand this.

Speaking of cowards, what ever happened to Craig Dudley? I must have bashed that idiot into submission on Watauga Watch before they censured me for making the liberals look bad!!!!!!!

So POV, how does it feel to have the blood of young soldiers on your hands, coward?

LOL!!!

Your ole pal
Johnny Rico

Betsy G.

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep POV said:

"someones irrational reaction to a snake"

Glad you mentioned the snake thing Sheep POV. My neighbors were driving by the house several years back and came onto my property to accost me over a deer hanging in the yard. They told me it wasn't right to kill an animal and that I should feel bad. I thought this funny at the time, however I wouldn't know exactly how funny until a couple years later.

In the summer of 1994 I came upon this same couple trying to kill a poisonous snake crossing the road in the neighborhood. They were in a state of panic and wanted that snake dead to say the least. Quite smugly, I asked them why they would want to kill an animal and that they should feel bad if they did kill it. They ended up killing the poor snake, and I found their hypocrisy perplexing to say the least.

Liberals such as yourself are full of perplexing stories such as this. You feel you are right in doing the same things you ridicule others for. Amazing but sadly common for liberal socialist sheep like POV.

LOL!!!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico
PS I won

Heather

guy faulkes said...

POV, I did not put words in your mouth. I returned your words to you. I have to wonder if you are lucid enough to realize what you are saying. You have parroted the party line so long, you have no cognizance of the meaning of your words.

If you were not so despicable in your support of terrorism, I would continue to pity you.

Sarkazein said...

Johnny Rico-

I might add to your comment about liberals being responsible: the liberals showed a huge crack in our resolve to defeat the Muslim extremists, giving the enemy the will to hang in and fight the US. Ho Chi Min has said the same thing regarding the Vietnam War. They knew they could not defeat us militarily, but they could defeat us in the arenas of public opinion if they waited us out. John Kerry, Walter Cronkite, Jane Fonda, Bill Ayers, helped Ho Chi Mins predictions come true. Nothing has changed, just some of the characters. Many US deaths resulted in the Left's treachery.

Honest Debate said...

I agree that the resolve wasn't there. I think the threat of carpet bombing (with nukes if necessary) must be on the table. Further, that threat must be 100% real.

That's where I jump off the bus. If precision strikes can work then we should make every effort to spare as many innocent civilians as possible. There is of course the very big picture and the argument can successfully be made that nuking Japan saved lives but we have options now that did not exist then. Precision strikes cannot work without indigenous intelligence and that cannot happen without a confidence in our resolve. So we've come full circle, the resolve of the world is lacking to say the least. This is especially true in the feckless UN. The world, and Democrats here talked a big game but it was just words.

If the resolve of the world had been as strong as Bush's things would have been far different. It's even worse than that. The panty-waisted UN, treasonous Democrats, Liberal sheep and even the RINO's turned against freedom. They didn't just object they stood in the way, they sided with the terrorist.

If a war is worth fighting then it is worth winning but there are political realities that cannot be escaped. It's been said that Bush was not nearly agreesive enough in the war on terror. I believe he was as aggressive as he could possibly be given the PC world we live in.

Anyone that thinks that Bush was not aggressive enough needs to realize that there is only one way in hell we will EVER have a leader do more to win, that is if there are simultaneous multiple attacks on our soil that make 9/11 look like a picnic. So, the point that he wasn't aggressive enough is valid but it a point that exist in a vacuum. We don't live in a vacuum.


We have decimated Al Qaida. Bin Laden, if he's alive, is cowering in a cave and crappin' in the corner. We waterboarded the mastermind of 9/11 into submission and prevented the second wave. We ousted two brutal regimes and put the fear of God into others such as Libya. We did this with a world whose resolve after 9/11 lasted about five minutes. Wars cost money, no money no war. IMO Bush accepted the big spending that went with war funding because his resolve was intact. As I said if the war is worth fighting it must be won. Vetoing pork meant vetoing war funding. Bush did what he had to do and is excoriated for it.

Now we have Obama whose got a plan...to leave, not to win. No resolve.

Honest Debate said...

I should elaborate on Bush's spending before Johnny Rico and Guy Faulkes rake me over the coals.

All of Bush's spending is not excused by war funding. I am talking about budgets not programs like Medicare part D or No child left behind. I am mostly with them there.

I also keep TARP in a separate corner. I won't go into that here as I explained my reasoning in a November thread entitled "Former President Bush Speaks At SMU".

guy faulkes said...

HD, I must disagree with your statement that Bush went as far as he was realistically able in the war on terror. He had the authorization of Congress. In the early part of the war he could have used tactics such as carpet bombing. Everyone from Clinton to Kerry was in approval of military action. One must remember that the war was not against Saddam. It was against terrorism. We had been hit with a Blitzkrieg. We should have retaliated in the same manner and continued to do so. This would have put the entire war on a different footing.

However, your point on needing intelligence in order to use precision bombing or surgical strikes was right on the money. As POV and his ilk are against effective interrogation, it would seem that carpet strikes are the only remaining alternative. Therefore the blood of innocents contained in collateral damage is on their heads. Rico is correct.

When it comes to the defense of this country against foreign aggression, I do not car about the opinion of the U.N. or any other country. The flag that screams Don't Tread On Me should still be in use.

As a matter of fact, it would be better if we got out of the U.N. and threw the U.N. out of the U.S.

I have always spoken against Bush's big government spending. I have never said anything about his war spending. Paying for the defense of the country is not a indication of big government waste as are political entitlement programs and pork projects. War spending is a method of self defense. I think we agree on this, if not the definition of big government spending.

Honest Debate said...

Guy I agree with all but two points.

"In the early part of the war he could have used tactics such as carpet bombing."

We did carpet bomb. It was called "shock and awe".

The point on funding (I realize you have 't criticized war funding) had to do with budgets. The war funding was tied directly to pork laden budgets and the line item veto doesn't exist. I would agree that there was little difference between Republicans and Democrats in that regard. Ironically enough McCain was an exception. For that reason I don't think it's appropriate to criticize those budgets that contained war funding if you believe the war had to be won. It does indeed suck but the fact remains.

Honest Debate said...

"I think we agree on this, if not the definition of big government spending." -Guy Faulkes

Yes we do agree and if we change the wording to "big government programs" we agree even more.

guy faulkes said...

HD, you are correct in your statement on carpet bombing. Our problem was we did not continue to do so, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush capitulated to the complaints of the left. In my opinion, this is not being aggressive.

Your point on line item vetoes is something I had not considered. Bush may indeed have been caught in a Catch 22. I seem to remember his complaints about funding tied to the war now that you bring it to my attention. I do not remember his being adamant in his complaints. If you will forgive the pun, he did not make a big enough "federal case" about it.

He did support the increase in the size of the federal government and its spending on matters that had nothing to do with the war. For this reason, I have not changed my mind in calling him a big government supporting failure.

I stand corrected. I have been debating with POV for to long. Shooting fish in a barrel does n not improve one's aim. Thank you for your thought provoking post.

Honest Debate said...

Guy, the thought provoking goes both ways. I hadn't really considered the extent to which "Bush capitulated to the complaints of the left".

This underscores the importance of integrity and a moral compass in our leaders. That trumps experience in my view as it's hard to imagine what the future holds. It is very possible for a President with no experience to be great if there is integrity, a moral compass and a love of Country.

Unfortunately, Obama possesses none of it.

Honest Debate said...

Just to be clear (gee wiz I sound like Obama) I think Bush is a man of integrity.

guy faulkes said...

I agree Bush was a man of integrity. In my opinion, so was Carter. Unfortunately, integrity is not necessarily an indication of competency. A leader needs both. Both these men were lacking in the competency department, in my humble opinion. Carter had almost none, Bush had little except for his marginal efforts in the war on terror.

Obama is lacking in any department, other than showmanship, of which I can think.

Honest Debate said...

Yea, I too used to think Carter was a man of integrity. Not anymore, I now think he's an anti-semetic race-baiter.

guy faulkes said...

Carter might be what you claim. In my opinion, he has become senile. In either case, he is not what he once was and that was not much.

Honest Debate said...

"In either case, he is not what he once was and that was not much." -Guy Faulkes

I almost feel like I've been nit-picky with you these last few days but I do appreciate and respect your opinions even when we disagree. I think we know better where that is now so I'll let it go (regarding Bush) on the above point of full agreement.

Johnny Rico said...

Honest Debate,

I would not rake you over the coals. You are right on for the most part. We may disagree on the tacitcal level (carpet bombing vs precision strikes), however we agree on the overall strategy needed to bring swift and final conclusion to this war.

It looks though as if the liberal socialist sheep POV and his puppet Cheerleader don't have anything to say at all. Silence is golden, especially when POV and Cheerleaders well worn pie holes aren't jabbering away in pig latin. When the questions become too difficult they do what all yellow bellied, spineless amoeboids do - quit. LOL!!!!!!!

Or maybe POV is taking another duby break to try and rebalance himself after the shellacking Faulks gave him!!!! LOL!!! What an idiot!!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Barby

Johnny Rico said...

Sark said:

"I might add to your comment about liberals being responsible: the liberals showed a huge crack in our resolve to defeat the Muslim extremists, giving the enemy the will to hang in and fight the US. Ho Chi Min has said the same thing regarding the Vietnam War. They knew they could not defeat us militarily, but they could defeat us in the arenas of public opinion if they waited us out. John Kerry, Walter Cronkite, Jane Fonda, Bill Ayers, helped Ho Chi Mins predictions come true. Nothing has changed, just some of the characters"


Sark, you hit on a multitude of things that I either forgot or did not know. Isn't it amazing that we are running into the same ole enemies at home as we did during Vietnam? The Walter Cronkite of our times might be Katy Couric for instance. You would think that POV would be the first to understand this as he is a supposed Vietnam Vet. Probably just another pretender.

John

Sarkazein said...

Johnny Rico-

Obama would have been in that group of war protestors, but I think he was only madrasas age during the Vietnam War.