We Need a Wartime President

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Porkov @ 07/02/2008 1:37:37 AM

    Mr. Zakaria does not mention the Cold War in his short list of existential conflicts. Is this deliberate? Certainly we were faced with an adversary who appeared to oppose our way of life implacably, with a vast array of weapons including one of the finest fifth columns ever to lurk in the shadows. Its effects still echo on the left, and the right twitches when it hears those echoes. The fact is that al-Qaida, claiming to represent the distillation of pure Islam in all the places it exists, declared war on all of civilization that fails to adhere to its extreme belief system and then commenced to wage asymetric war fairly effectively. They have not conceded defeat nor have they sued for peace.
    Terror is a reaction to atrocity. It is certainly an incoherent statement of our reaction to this threat to call it a war on terror. There remains much to fear, and the solution is not to stop feeling that way, but to remove its cause.

  • Posted By: Piic @ 07/02/2008 1:28:30 AM

    Obama has no accomplishments - except his ability to give speeches. Put your hope in him if you can ever discern what he stands for - he "changes" his mind everyday. As for me, I refuse to vote for a socialist!

  • Posted By: Genevieve01 @ 07/02/2008 1:21:17 AM

    "In a sense, the warriors are pessimists. In the old days they were scared that communists would destroy America. Today they rail that Al Qaeda and Iran threaten our way of life."

    I do think they can be a threat to our way of life. If we were to leave Iraq before the country has had the opportunity to completely unite and strengthen itself, it leaves them open to be attacked and taken over. This could lead to warring religious factions... the Sunnis and Shiites and it could create an ever larger involvement between the ME nations. Don't forget Iran's continuous threats to Israel which could flare things up more in the region. Now if the ME becomes a hotbed and oil wells are set ablaze, this could lead to a decrease in oil exports.
    If the present oil prices are reflecting the high demand vs. lower supply of oil, would any of you like to guess how much our economy will plunge if this were to happen or to figure out how we will pay $8 - $10/gallon for gas and still be able to commute to work?
    Minimal oil coming out of the region would greatly affect our economy and our lifestyles. Are we really in a position to say we can go it alone using our own reserves without the need of the ME oil? You are correct, we aren't at war we are at their mercy.

  • Posted By: cobalt6 @ 07/02/2008 1:04:33 AM

    HAL: you are right the next president has a mess to clean up, and you are also right about Bin-Laden he is still free and I think that the United States should make it a priority to find him finally!! Also get Afganiistan stable. I just wish we had a better choice in presidential candidates!! I think neither McCain nor Obama will do any better than Bush has!!

  • Posted By: chamay0 @ 07/02/2008 1:00:58 AM

    Do we need a war time president? Maybe, but we need one that can remember who we are fighting against. We do not need a war time president that constantly flip-flops on his stance. Do we need a president that have solid judgment on what position we take concerning trouble times? Yes. I'm all for a president that will try diplomacy and tact before just "Boom, Boom, Boom." Let's get one that can deal with the economy too.

  • Posted By: cobalt6 @ 07/01/2008 11:34:20 PM

    It's not that we need a war time president, but we do need a president who knows what to do in times of trouble!! I don't like the 2 choices we have for president, but if I have to choose who to vote for, McCain is the best choice!! At least McCain has been around long enough to knowwhat to do! Obama has no experience.

  • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/01/2008 2:38:41 PM

    The thing I find telling about the Project for a New American Century and its major signatories (e.g., the prominent personalities of the Bush administration) is that, for all the massive political power arrayed there, it doesn't seem that they ever thought to employ a competent economist.

    Iraq's oil capacity is below what we're capable of increasing production by ourselves, and in any case there's no way that its oil reserves could satisfy the surge in world demand anyway, which would be happening with or without us. Occupation has always been expensive - far more expensive than the PNAC signatories ever expected, but they should have seen it coming - and the cost-plus contractors have probably doubled or tripled the price of the entire operation.

    I really have to think that the PNAC assumed that America's resources were practically infinite when compared to those of any opponent. It's probably going to be the most costly and dangerous overestimation in Earth's history - we're already coming crashing back down from the stratosphere as it is. If the PNAC continues on in its mission to take on Iran as well, the Iranian attacks on the Straits of Hormuz and oil production in the region are going to cause collapse of the entire world economy, and *that* will indeed be the end of America's status as a superpower.

    It's interesting to watch history march on, though.

  • Posted By: garysgary @ 06/30/2008 3:21:55 PM

    A trillion dollar war and a trillion dollar increase in the price of oil because of the trillion dollar war, all because Bush, Chaney, Leiberman and others wanted to protect ISRAEL! Throw the traitors out and dump Israel! What do you call a elected official that puts another country's interest ahead of U.S. interests? A traitor!

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 06/30/2008 6:46:55 PM

      You expect war to cost what?..nothing?..Get ahold of yourself, War is expensive...Always has been and always we be no matter what type of pres is in office....If a Dem was pres and we sent soldiers to Afghanistan after 9/11 would it cost nothing?..Oh thats right a dem would tax the hell out of us then say the money was going one place but its really going somewhere else..And silly you would believe it!

      • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/01/2008 2:25:53 PM

        Even McCain admits the war has been vastly mismanaged.

        Very little of the $600B officially budgeted has gone into strengthening our own Army. It's mostly ended up in the hands of cost-plus contractors. The most powerful nation on Earth invaded a former colonial invention with no military power to speak of, and no significant weaponry, and yet our economy is rushing headlong into recession due to the consequences.

        If you're telling me that this war has been competently managed, somehow you have to account for the discrepancy between the relative power levels of the combatants and the *staggering* economic losses we've incurred as a result of this supposedly minor conflict.

      • Posted By: garysgary @ 07/01/2008 9:51:17 AM

        You missed my point. We (you and me and other Americans) have spent a trillion dollars on the Iraq war to PROTECT ANOTHER COUNTRY! That country is Israel. And this war to protect Israel has cost us another trillion dollars in increased oil costs. ALL THIS TO PROTECT iSRAEL! Of course war is expensive. That's why we should only spend that kind of money to protect the U.S. not ANOTHER COUNTRY! We took down Saddam to protect Israel...he could not have hit us with his best weapon on his best day. If a cost of TWO TRILLION DOLLARS to protect another country is fine with you then vote for McCain....you'll get more of the same and $30 gas.

        • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/01/2008 2:12:56 PM

          I don't think Saddam could have hit Israel with his best weapon after the ten years of sanctions we hit Iraq with. But you're right that factions within the Israeli hawks have been successfully lobbying America to attack all of their enemies within the region. I also find it telling that not a single Israeli soldier served in either Afghanistan or Iraq as part of the coalition forces.

  • Posted By: ikez78 @ 07/01/2008 12:49:24 PM

    wow, the leftist rag NEWSWEEK and its leftist, anti American writer Zakaria are pining for Democrats in office overtly and covertly by lying, spinning and cherry picking facts. Your magazine used to be a decent place for news. Now it is a window into the LEFT WING of the Democrat party. You people are gutless hacks.

    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/01/2008 1:54:26 PM

      It seems to me that the more gutless person is the one who hides behind a screen of anonymity and uses it to spit hatred and insults...

  • Posted By: lalit @ 06/28/2008 4:29:04 PM

    as a muslim zakaria is doing what all muslims do ie trivialise the size of the islamic threat-

    however i agree that just military measures alone will not help. however
    if there are other more effective measures then i certainly dont know of them

    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/01/2008 1:50:37 PM

      You're a bigot. Zakaria isn't religious. Stop lumping everyone with Middle Eastern, Pakistani, or Indian features into a single "Islamic" category.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/30/2008 9:32:44 PM

    KOOL-AID??????..From the kitchen of the obama sheeple!! take one heaping spoonful of an inexperienced elitist white male seeking self validation through exploitation of his african-american genetics. Combine two parts black liberation theology clerics spewing intolerance! With two parts of unrepentant intellectuals committed to the destruction of America. Stir in one cup of militant black wife harboring the overwhelming desire to stick it to whitey and one spoonful of typical white person grandmother mix well. Pour a gallon of anti-patriotism into tall glasses and sprinkle with naïve foreign policy ideations. Serve on a platter of meaningless oratorical hyperbole with a generous dollop of wealth re-distribution. Sprinkle liberally with zest of white guilt flip it and flop it till it tastes right. Serve large portions to the undiscerning and spellbound masses convinced that the Second Coming is upon America and now you have a complete recipe for disaster!

    • Posted By: garysgary @ 07/01/2008 9:29:49 AM

      And what do we have now...if not a disaster?

    • Posted By: muslimsforpresidents @ 07/01/2008 3:02:07 AM

      take a chill pill brother.perhaps you need a little mediation on the side try yoga, it will do your body good and you will have less stress in your life.read fortune cookies for a hobby you are wound up like a top study the bible and quran and live happy

  • Posted By: getzel @ 06/28/2008 8:50:07 PM

    The USA is SCHEDULED to begin drafting teens in 2009. The USA would rather YOU fight than switch away from crude oil and gasoline. That is why Mr. Empty suit Obumer is being promoted to President: all the dopes that vote for him get drafted and then no one to protest. If it were not so pathetic it would be funny. Just keep racing to red lights and driving as fast as you can: stupid Americans; you almost deserve it. Do not delude yourselves that I am wrong; I am right on the money as usual; to bad for you that can only hate the messenger; which is why you are in the boat you are in.

    Intelligence analyst: Getzel

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 06/30/2008 11:57:38 AM

      Oh the parrot again...My name is getzel...My name is getzel...caw caw

  • Posted By: getzel @ 06/29/2008 7:39:27 AM

    The USA is SCHEDULED to begin drafting teens in 2009. The USA would rather YOU fight than switch away from crude oil and gasoline. That is why Mr. Empty suit Obumer is being promoted to President: all the dopes that vote for him get drafted and then no one to protest. If it were not so pathetic it would be funny. Just keep racing to red lights and driving as fast as you can: stupid Americans; you almost deserve it. Do not delude yourselves that I am wrong; I am right on the money as usual; to bad for you that can only hate the messenger; which is why you are in the boat you are in.

    Intelligence analyst: Getzel

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 06/30/2008 11:44:30 AM

      Good for the sake of the U.S. we should amass a military force like the days of old...Defend God and this country against islamic extremists..Id fight to rid the world of this annoying threat and any other country that wants to push there barbaric ways upon us...Seems you are a little scared that the U.S. would start drafting...That would mean more of us to stand up against these tyrannical regimes should they ever want to or think of setting there foot on our soil again to kill...Believe me there are plenty of up that would fight for our country and family..Despite what the media wants to put on the air (they always love a hater and negative stories) ...Youd be suprised at how fast this country will pull together in a real crisis...

  • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 06/29/2008 7:48:18 PM

    PS, I'm willing to be a countless number of attacks in the US have been stopped by the excellent investigative skills of Scotland Yard and our European allies. Can't you give credit where it's due? The UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany and France have all been applying their best and brightest talent in the forces within their countries to help protect us from any further attack as well...

    I wouldn't give Homeland Security or Bush too much of the credit. Fear mongering, yes; actual prevention? No -- 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. He then proceeded to squander the world's sympathy be starting the war (in Iraq) that he was originally put in place to accomplish - despite the fact that Al-Quaida remained at large.

    Whoever is "happy" with the past 8 years must like war, recession, instability and terror -- that's what the Bush Administration will be best remembered for. That and lying to start a war over oil - perhaps the world's first main war (certainly in the 21st century) to be fought over a natural resource we need to survive in our lives as we know them.

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 06/30/2008 11:33:48 AM

      I dont know about you, but Im enjoying that really cheap Iraqi oil you claim we have.

  • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 06/29/2008 7:33:18 PM

    Ah, darn, you mean we don't have to be super-patriots any more? Just when I was getting the hang of putting my hand over my heart every time a hearse drove by with a military procession in my neighborhood.... shucks.

    Bush calls himself the "war president" because he was put into office by the GOP powers that be specifically to start a war in Iraq --- for the OIL. Goodness knows why we couldn't just buy it on the open market -the price may not have been driven up so fast though... lining the pockets of the Saudis and all of Bush's oil biz buddies. He was put into place to start a war in Iraq because Iraq has the world's second largest reserves and we're hitting peak oil in the next few years (if we haven't already, according to analysts like Matthew Simmons of Simmons & Co, an energy financial investment firm based in Houston).

    It's all about the OIL, that's all it ever was, and the profit potential. So Bush deserves no credit from the people - though his buddies and their sychophants certainly give him a lot of credit.. for what, I don't know. but they still like him, I guess.

  • Posted By: techresmgt @ 06/29/2008 11:55:22 AM

    I think we should adopt a method of governing by 'committee'. The idea of one person with so much self proclaimed and unregulated power has corrupted our system beyond recognition.

  • Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/29/2008 1:20:24 AM

    Eisenhower was the one who created all the problem we have now with Iran, staging with the Brits the coup against the democratically elected leader Mohammed Moussadeq, installing the authoritarian Shah in his place, and making it very easy for the mullahs to later take power and become the US main headache today. I don't think this president, who never really believed in democracy outside the US and Europe, is such a good example for anything.

    • Posted By: mouselion @ 06/29/2008 10:55:12 AM

      "Eisenhower was the one who created all the problem we have now with Iran, staging with the Brits the coup against the democratically elected leader Mohammed Moussadeq..."

      Which is why we hopped into bed with Saddam Hussein and turned a blind eye to his use of chemical warfare, even as the U.N. sought to prohibit chemical weaponry (which Jesse Helms kept the U.S. senate from ratifying).

    • Posted By: Factarereal @ 06/29/2008 6:38:23 AM

      Eisenhower was a killer:

      Eisenhower Ordered the Murder of Patrice Lumumba the first Prime Minister of Congo.

      Forty years after the murder of the Congolese independence leader Patrice Lumumba, evidence has emerged in Washington that President Dwight Eisenhower directly ordered the CIA to "eliminate" him.

      The evidence comes in a previously unpublished 1975 interview with the minute-taker at an August 1960 White House meeting of Eisenhower and his national security advisers on the Congo crisis.

      The minute-taker, Robert Johnson, said in the interview that he vividly recalled the president turning to Allen Dulles, director of the CIA, "in the full hearing of all those in attendance, and saying something to the effect that Lumumba should be eliminated".

      Mr Johnson recalled: "There was stunned silence for about 15 seconds and the meeting continued."

      read the full story at (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4049783,00.html)

  • Posted By: mouselion @ 06/29/2008 5:10:11 AM

    I believe the predominant "liberal" argument against the Iraq invasion was that a major terrorist insurgency would be propagated *in* Iraq, thus causing a quagmirish, out-on-a-limb situation for the U.S. (as has happened). The same is not true of Afghanistan, an insurgency already existed; the difference being that being there is justified, and Iraq was a distraction and competitor for U.S. military resources.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse