We Need a Wartime President

Furhermore, if you've been paying attention to the news, it's becoming general consensus that AQ could very well attack us (or try to anyway) next year in 2009. If you follow the pattern, they attack right after elections in order to test out the new leader (WTC 93, 9/11/2001), even Gordon Brown had to deal with it in England. (Link to the article: http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2008/07/02/us-fears-possible-al-qaeda-attack-next-year/)

I'm not saying Obama CAN'T handle any attack that may happen within months of his presidency, but I do believe McCain is better equpped to do so, and is yet another reason why we need a war time President.

Bush's leadership was stellar following the aftermath of 9/11. That's down to the rally effect - anyone who studied Poli Sci know what that is, but it's pretty self explanatory anyway. But let's not take anything away from Bush and give him credit where credit is due. That's the type of leadership we need in times of trouble - which begs the question why he failed so miserably during the Katrina disaster? 9/11 aftermath exemplified how a President should act, and shows very much why we need a war time President. It's no coincidence his approval rating during that time was the highest EVER of any past president.

Let's just hope, for our own sake, that Bush and co. can do something Clinton faied to do in 1999/2000 and prevent what seems like an impending attack.

Prkov speaks the truth. It's a very strong possibility that the WMDs are burried in Syria. I haven't mentioned it because we're now starting to roam into the land of hypotheticals, which always tends to escelate until we're talking pure nonsense. But I think we should keep an open mind about this notion.

Just think, if we find WMD that Saddam burried just before the war how much that'll change things....it would completly undo the liberals and be a devastating blow to the Democratic party.

Again, 5 years is nothing when put into perspective of the American Revolution which lasted 3 years. By your rationale you would have admited defeat in the Am. Rev. and gone back to England, thus making America pretty much non-existant (cept for the Native Americans, of course). What I'm saying is that you have a long way to go yet before claiming 5 years is too long, let's give up. Yes, 5 years is 5 too long, but to say we should give up because of it is foolish, again look at the American Revolution.

Here's what it comes down to.

Liberals are seeing the short term: Pulling out now brings out troops home, makes everyone happy. But has long term consequences: We lose our credibility, enemies see how we can be defeated, Iraq becomes more chaotic and never a successful nation, AQ has a base again, etc etc

Republicans see the long term at the expense of the shorterm: Staying the course risks more lives along with a few more struggles along the way, but the long term success yields a proper nation, a democratic nation between 2 brutal dictatorships, and makes the world much safer.

To me, it seems like common sense dictates that the long term is more important than the short term.....

Evil will oft evil mars", J R R Tolkien wrote. It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama. As he recalled in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama idealized the Kenyan economist who had married and dumped his mother, and was saddened to learn that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a sullen, drunken polygamist. The elder Obama became a senior official of the government of Kenya after earning a PhD at Harvard. He was an abusive drunk and philanderer whose temper soured his career.

The senior Obama died in a 1982 car crash. Kenyan government officials in those days normally spent their nights drinking themselves stupid at the Pan-Afrique Hotel. Two or three of them would be found with their Mercedes wrapped around a palm tree every morning. During the 1970s I came to know a number of them, mostly British-educated hollow men dying inside of their own hypocrisy and corruption.

Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals - and nothing can be more terrible for the system. Even those who despise America for its blunders of the past few years should ask themselves whether the world will be a safer place if America retreats into a self-pitying shell.

Just as one talking point before I go...

True or false statement: "The Powell Doctrine was fully observed in the decision of the United States to go to war with Iraq." Discuss.

I see your point by saying that we could justify intervention by being paranoid. And I don't think we should ever rush into any sort of military action until it's the last resort. it's important to realize that we tried diplomacy with Saddam for 13 years, and it failed. Something had to give. At the time it was the smart move. A case can even be made that even with the knowledge of hindsight and him not having WMDs he still should have been removed, but only if we could do so with a much more effective strategy.....

I also want to put things in perspective. People claim they''re upset about the Iraq war because it's being faught on false pretenses. That's not really true though. Almost everyone supported the war at the start, but it's only because we're having trouble there now that people have turned against it. If we won the war within 4 years, and Iraq was becoming a democracy now and everything was going smoothly, I doubt very much anyone would care if Saddam had those WMD or not. It's the fact that w'ere struggling over there that's the problem, not the reasons for our intial invasion.

Also, 5 years is nothing. It took 13 years for the violence to stop in America's war of independence. I think we can all agree that it was worth it. Our forefather's didn't die in vain, and nor are our troops in Iraq are either. If it takes another 10 years, then so be it but if it produces a self-sufficient nation, then it's worth it.

One last point, people who bash Bush to the extreme (far left nut cases: Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore type people) need to realize they should be angry at the terrorists who are causing the problems (sounds naive, but hold on a second, my point will be made...). Bush has good intentions, it's just how he's carried out the policies which has been the blunder. My point: If all the terrorists in the world threw their weapons into the ocean right now, all the fighting would stop. If we, the US, did the same thing, we know very well the terrorists would carry on killing us.

That's why I can't stand liberals, for the most part. It's because of them we're so divided. And that's what the terrorist want most....division within our own country. Blaming Bush at every chance, being pessimistic and calling for a complete withdrawl from Iraq, Michael Moore's false documentaries, Cindy Sheehan meeting with Hugo Chaves....all this nonsense hurts us. Why can't we all just unite around the President, admit he's made some mistakes but see his good intentions and give him our support in hoping he carries out those intentions better in the future?

Either way, we need a President who can lead us in this ideological battle. Personally, I'm not a big fan of McCain, I much prefered Romney. But Mac gets my vote because I just don't trust Obama when it comes to the important decisions regarding foreign policy.

This amply supports my biased view that Eisenhower was our last good President.
Though life and conditions had a dark edge to them in the 50's (no, Ethel, it wasn't all Poodle skirts and Richie Cunningham), the American people celebrated the greatest period of growth and prosperity for the greatest number of Americans in any period I know of. Granted, some of that prosperity's costs are only now being felt, but many of the problems not recognized and corrected at the time have been addressed since.

I spoke to yet another of our Army veteran that just got back from Iraq. He said he does not want the troops pulled out prematurely, he said it would negate all that we have tried to accomplish there. He said he believed in what we were doing there now, helping the Iraqi's build a democratic country. He said he liked being able to help the Iraqis.
Don't shoot me I am just the messenger.

You may not think you are at war. I doubt a lot of America does, but for Grunts like myself, we see things very
differently. Some of us know what we are fighting for, the rest of us find a reason once we get there. Frankly, from the day a nation is conceived, a nation is bleeding to death. A true citizen of that country throws everything at the problem, potentially even his life- because he knows what can happen. George may not have made some of the best decisions, but at least something was done. The reason Iraq and Afghanistan have grown in terrorism levels is because the single-most threat to their operation is there, and kicking sand in their collective faces. There is progress in Iraq. I saw it firsthand. There is progress in Afghanistan. However, it becomes inconvenient to our people and they would much rather give up. So that all who fought and died would have lost their lives for nothing. There were dissenters and protesters in every war. I am not going to point fingers and call names- that would look bad upon my organization. But I will say this:

America, many of you have forgotten many things. You've forgotten us, over there. You have forgotten how you came about and the struggles your predecessors have gone through. Most of you do not know the true meaning of "pain", "loss", "suffering", and "sacrifice" . Many of you believe in an ideal, but shirk at every opportunity to defend or advocate it. Many of you dismiss reality with the click of a mouse or the changing of the channel. So what US troops are being killed because they are not allowed to do their job (because war is too "ugly".) , God forbid you miss "American idol".

I blame the world Americans and their counterparts live in today, and the out of control media that affects their judgment.
The ability to escape from reality and abandon responsibility. People can change the channel all they want, but eventually what they see on television will soon be visible from their own window.

Trim, no offense, but it's comments like yours right there that is an uneducated cliche. I was expecting someone to say that.

Of course I don't want anyone to die or be injured. One is too many, let a long thousands. The earlier we can win the war, the better. But would you say 200 hundred years ago that the Patriots should have just given up because over a decade of fighting seemed to be pointless and endless? If so, thrn the America as we know it wouldn't exist.So likewise, they're not dying in vain, that's my point.

The clincher for me is that there's no draft. If there was a draft my opinion would be different ONLY because you would be making people fight in a war so controversial that most would be against it. The fact is, when you volunteer to join the army, you acknowledge the risk of going to war at ANYTIME over ANYTHING. I don't mean that too sound insensitive, that's not my intention so don't read into it too much. But if you're so against situations like the Iraq war, then don't join. It's not a coincidence that re-enlistment rates were at an all time high a coiple years ago. Most troops realize what they're doing is worthwhile and I admire how they risk their own lives to make ours, the Iraqis, and the world's much safer.

That;s the worst conclusion I ever read. This has the potential to be Cold War II or World War III, let's hope for the latter. However, because we're dealing with terrorists and not an actual government, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doesn't come into play. WWIII essentially ends the world. On a slightly lesser extent, several nuclear bombs going off int eh major US cities at the same time would crippled the US. It's imperative we don't let terrorists get their hands on nuclear weapons, because if they did the US's position would be eroded.That;s the worst conclusion I ever read. This has the potential to be Cold War II or World War III, let's hope for the latter. However, because we're dealing with terrorists and not an actual government, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doesn't come into play. WWIII essentially ends the world. On a slightly lesser extent, several nuclear bombs going off int eh major US cities at the same time would crippled the US. It's imperative we don't let terrorists get their hands on nuclear weapons, because if they did the US's position would be eroded. We are at war with Militant Islam, and it's one that will rage on for decades. But if we do what you suggest and deny there's a war going on and simply not fight Al Qaeda, along with like minded dictatorships (Iran), then that would be the mistake.


We are at war with Militant Islam, and it's one that will rage on for decades. But if we do what you suggest and deny there's a war going on and simply not fight Al Qaeda, along with like minded dictatorships (Iran), then that would be the mistake.

Answer: Yes we need a war time President.

If we pulled out of Iraq right now, just as Obama and the rest of the liberals want to do, not only would that nation spiral out of control, but the world would be at a much greater risk. One of the benefits from going into Iraq was that if it was successful you would have a functioning Democracy in between the two brutal dictatorships of Iran and Syria, which would be huge. Pulling out of Iraq wold enable Al-Qaeda to gain control, making it their new Afghanistan, making their new base and stranglehold.


I'm only 20 and going to be a Junior in college majoring in Political Science, but have already learned that pulling out of wars damages credibility and commitment. Our allies won't be able to trust us to complete situations any more, and our enemies will see that we can be defeated and how we can be defeated.

Obama, or any other non-war time President who doesn't accept any of these ramifications would be a massive mistake. It's ashame that a 20 year old college student understands this situation better than a writer for Newsweek. Shame on you.

GOP '08

You may know more about the different religions of Iraq than me, do you want a trophy or something? I'm no fool, in my political science classes I've learned enough about them to know why it's making this war that much harder to win. And I also know that those 3 groups are the reason why this war is not like Vietnam. Vietnam employed the tactic of Vietnamization - training the Vietnamese to fight and eventually take over. However, we can't do the same in Iraq, we can't use Iraqization, if you will, because of those 3 distinct religious groups. We read a VERY good article about this in Freshman year in my International Politics course, I probably still have it somewhere, but I'm currently abroad and not at home right now so I can't even look for it.

Mind you, I go to GW (not the best ranked, but I don't go by rankings anyway, pretty much useless since they take into account irrelevant factors like endowment), but it was my first choice, and is a very politically active school. I'm not stupid. Give me a little bit more credit.

We attacked Afghanistan because that's where Al-Qaeda's base and training camps were. It doesn't matter where the terrorists were born! It matters where they were trained! And Afghanistan was a huge success, it completly disrupted Al-Qaeda as a group, Bin Laden and his cohorts can't plan a major attack while on the run like this, and nor are they able to function as a group anymore - they lost their organization.

As for Iraq - it has very little to do with 9/11, but paradoxically is connected.....9/11 showed us that we can no longer wait for threats to materialze. Worldwide intel showed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction for several years. It would be a mistake to risk down playing that and assume he didn't have them. Assumptions got us into the mess in the first place - assuming OBL wasn't a threat, etc. Also, Bush didn't lie about Iraq. Clinton himself in 1998 believed Saddam to have WMD, and he even launched cruise missiles into Iraq then! Did he lie too?....Oh wait, he did by committing perjury.

And while we're on Clinton, he's at fault for 9/11. He had 8 years to connect the dots (WTC 93, the Bojinka plot, plan to crash planes into CIA building in 1995, 1998 Embassy Bombing, 2000 USS Cole, OBL's declared war on the US). In fact, CNN has shown video tapes of US fighter planes over Afghanistan a few times where they believe to have spotted OBL (taller, crowded around, etc). But Clinton didn't authorize a strike because he was worried about collateral damage! Done in 1998, killing OBL then would surely have prevented 9/11 and saved 3,000 lives. Ok, Bush may not have executed his policies well, but the fact that he had the courage to act is admirable.

*And because this text box is pretty poor and I can't scroll up to edit my post, i'll put this here: Forget the WMD debate even when talking about Iraq. Saddam did enough himself to warrant going to war -- defying UN resolutions as he did is enough already. But let's not forget about the genocide he committed - and yes, it was a genocide, that's not an exaggeration. What's more, how can liberals be for going into Darfur and Kosovo, but not Iraq? Why isn't it our place to help fight the war for the Iraqis, but it is our place in Darfur? I'm sorry, but Democrats are hypocrites. Furthermore, Democrats like to have things both ways ---> Bush not acting on the August 2001 memo saying OBL prepared to strike (seriously, what could he do 1 month before the attack anyway?) but when he acts on the intel of Saddam having WMD you all criticize him. If Bush didn't act on tha tintel, and Saddam did produce WMD and used them, you would still blame Bush. Unbelievable.

Bush is an average President. Not the best, not the worst. And Carter was a million times worse. Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. Bush Jr. (current), Carter would be my ranking of the 5 most recent presidents.