Back on Defense

I think the auother and Obama, Edwards and Dodd forgot about out troops. The Iranian Gaurd are killing our troops at the behest of Mahmoad Ahmadineajad. Ahmadinejad denies there was a Holocost and wants to kill Jews.
Isn't Clinton's vote more about our troops and a mad man no matter nuclear material or not? He is evil and I consider him a terrorist. Anyone who condones the deaths of our troops are crazier then Ahmadinejad. I think Clinton made the right vote, after all it was to declare him a terrorist. What would the other Democratic candidates call him, friend?
RRH, Connecticut

Agree that Clinton lacks humility. On this issue though I think she does not have to humble herself. She just needs to not come off so defensively. The vast majority of Democratic Senators voted with her on the amendment. She needs to better explain her reasoning on the vote, sum it up to voters in a few senetences and keep it to the point of the amendment, not allow her rivals to tie it so closely to the nuclear arms.

Billary Clinton should be preparing for a lamp throwing tirade and a raging temper tantrum which is well known by immediate friends and family, when Sen. Obama defeats her in the up coming caucuses as well as her ego !!!!
Perhaps she can run to Mother Bush for help !!!!

They really don't get it.... any of them. The majority of Americans aren't an older generation, disconnected, looking for the old bygone days, and easily swayed by phantom promises of a return to such times by disaffected politicians. The vast majority of voting Americans are intelligent, connected, and computer literate independent thinkers who will not be swayed anymore by career, self-serving politicians who don't deliver the goods. These unproductive politicos will either change their courses dramatically and get things done, will resign gracefully (or not), or they will be replaced by honest individuals who truly desire to make America a better place to live.

i must explain the difference in threats to you. 'mutual assured destruction' worked w/ the soviets because they, like us, liked to go to the movies, enjoyed fine meals and loved their grandchildren. in other words, they were rational. in the moslem menace, we have an enemy dedicated to destroying all that is good, holy, honorable and right. they cannot be bribed, coerced, induced or persuaded to join the fellowship of man. understand that political alliances between nations ebb and flow like the seasons, while ideologies remain unchanged.

When politicians realize that the majority of Americans are intelligent, aware, and computer savvy in this instant news techno-world, and have, as a result of the lack of service to the public that career politicians have come to provide across the past several decades, they will either change their approach to the business they should be doing but fail to do, resign gracefully (or otherwise), or they will be replaced by no-self-serving sincere Americans who truly do want what is best for America.

i must explain the difference in threats to you. 'mutual assured destruction' worked w/ the soviets because they, like us, liked to go to the movies, enjoyed fine meals and loved their grandchildren. in other words, they were rational. in the moslem menace, we have an enemy dedicated to destroying all that is good, holy, honorable and right. they cannot be bribed, coerced, induced or persuaded to join the fellowship of man. understand that political alliances between nations ebb and flow like the seasons, while ideologies remain unchanged.

Why would the NIE be made public instead of just showing the data to the House and Senate Intelligence committee and the Executive Branch? Now the international support for forcing Iran to open its nuclear enrichment program to inspection will evaporate and no good can possibly come of that. There is no way Bush could have gone to war with this info in the hands of the House and Senate Intelligence committees. If I were Iran, I would start weaponizing my uranium now that my own enemy's intelligence shot him in the foot. This kind of nonsense never happenned during the cold war, when intelligence estimates consistently showed the the Soviet capabilities to be far inferior to ours.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS FEAR CAMPAIGN OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS SEEMS TO HAVE WORKED. FOR YEARS THE SOVIETS HAD HUNDREDS OF NUCLEAR ARMED MISSLES AIMED AT US. AND WE HAD A MORE THEN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF SIMILAR WEAPONS AIMED AT THEM. THAT WAS A REAL THREAT AND GUESS WHAT, WE SURVIVED IT. NOW , A THIRD RATE COUNTRY, IRAN IS ALLEGED TO HAVE A SIMILAR CAPACITY AND EVEN AFTER WE FIND OUT IT DISCONTINUED IT'S EFFORT TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WEAPON FOUR YEARS AGO OUR PRESIDENT STILL TRYS TO SCARE US TO DEATH WITH TALK ABOUT HOW DANGEROUS IRAN IS. COME ON GEORGE,GIVE US A BREAK AND FOCUS ON THINGS LIKE HEALTH CARE, INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, ELIMINATING TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY, EDUCATION, JOBS, ETC. WE SPEND HALF A TRILLION A YEAR ON OUR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT BUDGET. jUST PARK A TRIDENT SUB IN THE PERSIAN GULF, EXPLAIN TO IRAN THAT IT HAS THE CAPACITY TO WIPE THEM OFF THE MAP IN ABOUT 30SECONDS AND FORGET ABOUT THE IRANIAN THREAT. THEN TAKE SOME OF THAT DEFENSE DEPT. MONEY AND USE IT IN A WAY WHICH WILL IMPROVE OUR COUNTRY AND THE LIFES OF AVERAGE AMERICANS.

Yeah, but THEY didn't vote for the Bush resolution. SHE did.

1.) Restore American's confidence and integrity in the both the institution and person of the office of President. (i.e. National Security, Civil and Privacy Rights (Patriot Act), Border Security, Foreign Trade (China), etc.)

However, after evaluating all of the democratic candidates, Obama strikes me as the one most capable of being the most successful at delivering what our country needs right now:

Let me get this straight, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard hasn???t aided the terrorists in Iraq, so it was wrong to label them a terrorist organization?

Is it wrong for a democrat to vote with the President, even when it is the right then to do for the country? Does the good of the democrat party come before the good of the USA?

That is the impression I get from these posts.

Awhile ago an opinion piece by Karl Rove was published by Time and most of the posts were about not reading the Times anymore because they had the audacity to print an opinion by a non democrat.

Have the readers of Time become so partisan, they want to refuse to grant non liberals a voice?

If liberals now put the good of the democrat party ahead of what???s good for the USA. I fear for the future of my children and grandchildren.

Let me get this straight, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard hasn???t aided the terrorists in Iraq, so it was wrong to label them a terrorist organization?

Is it wrong for a democrat to vote with the President, even when it is the right then to do for the country? Does the good of the democrat party come before the good of the USA?

That is the impression I get from these posts.

Awhile ago an opinion piece by Karl Rove was published by Time and most of the posts were about not reading the Times anymore because they had the audacity to print an opinion by a non democrat.

Have the readers of Time become so partisan, they want to refuse to grant non liberals a voice?

If liberals now put the good of the democrat party ahead of what???s good for the USA. I fear for the future of my children and grandchildren.

Yes, there are a number of other issues, however I think the ones I mentioned are the most of the major ones that are conisistently discussed. After carefully considering, not only the political accomplishments and abilities of the candidates but their personalities and public personas, who is best qualiifed to lead our nation, I land squarely on Obama. I believe all of the other candidates will play vital roles in helping to accomplish the afore metioned initiatives, but in heart, I think he's the one who can be the catalyst in moving this agenda forward to completion.

Can you tell me what opposing the Iranian help to the Iraq militants has to do with whether they're developing nukes or not? That's what Hillary voted on, and Obama didn't think was important enough to show up for. Tell you what, Obama's new sttrategy may damage Hillary enough, but I for one have gone from him being my close second pick to John Edwards, whose attacks are real and principled, rather than the press-supported empty suit that is Obama.
The press, MSNBC and Newsweek in particular, decided to enter the race in favor of Obama back when Boss Russert pulled the trigger a month or so ago. Al Gore 2000 = Hillary 2008. Everything is spun against her.

IMO - I listened to the entire debate on NPR yesterday and have been closely following most of the democratic candidates. Off the top, if political parties had an All-Star team, this current slate of candidates would make a strong team. Each one brings something of genuine substance to the table:

Dodd - Elder statesman, fluent in several languages, highly respected by both Dems. and Rep.; exceptional analytical skills; extremely knowlegable on foreign policy.

Biden - Another elder statesman, highly respected by both Dems. and Rep.; straight talker; history of strong leadership in the Senate.

Clinton - A politician's politician; polished and calculating (to a fault in some cases); strong in the face of adversity.

Obama - Charismatic; politically ecletic (shows evidence of having elements of the best qualities his opponents have to offer); sincere; unifying (ability to bring opposing sides together)

Richardson - Strong foreign policy experience

Kucinich - Abstract thinker (thinks out of the box)

Edwards - Likeable; fighter; humble yet confident