What is Obama thinking?

cycloneworld · 08-02-2007, 11:01 AM

If a couple of the reports that I've read saying that Al-Queda is at Pre-9/11 levels are true, then I will officially join the "pull out now" crowd. And I'll wonder what the hell we have been doing for the last 4 years.

I read an article a couple of days ago that the cost of this war will likely top $1 trillion and that we (the taxpayers obviously) will be paying for it for the next 20+ years.

temperflare · 08-02-2007, 11:08 AM

I wonder if this strategy will work for Obama.

Since most republicans have yet to see a republican candidate they prefer and since most, if not all, can't stand Hillary... Obama might be a great option to consider given his views on dealing with countries that support terrorist organizations.

I'll have to look into how he feels about the UN.

Hmmmmm.....

Clone9 · 08-02-2007, 11:50 AM

I applaud Obama for this. If we have very credible information that Al Qaeda is in Pakistan (specific locations), we should hit them hard. These are the true people that hit us on 9/11.....if Pakistan doesn't want to cooperate, then we'll have to do it ourselves. I think Bush and the Republicans should agree with this philosophy.....talk about being tough on terrorism.....Obama nailed it right here. I am actually pleased to hear this from a Democrat....one way the Republicans always had us beat is using strong language when dealing with terrorism.....now Obama has trumped them all.

cycloneworld · 08-02-2007, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by temperflare

I wonder if this strategy will work for Obama.

Since most republicans have yet to see a republican candidate they prefer and since most, if not all, can't stand Hillary... Obama might be a great option to consider given his views on dealing with countries that support terrorist organizations.

I'll have to look into how he feels about the UN.

Hmmmmm.....

I laughed at this. Obama's views on social issues, economic issues, etc. are at the complete opposite end of the political spectrum than a typical republican. Obama is more liberal than Hillary.

And he has 0 foreign policy experience.

Clone9 · 08-02-2007, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

And he has 0 foreign policy experience.

Nobody can be as bad as the current administration with regards to foreign policy.

BryceC · 08-02-2007, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by keepngoal

IHMO:

Barrack may have said it, but he would never do it. And there are many, many reasons why he wouldn't do it.

- keep.

If this is true, then I just lost a lot of respect for Obama. One thing about him, while he doesn't have much of a voting record his record does match his rhetoric as Deace says.

The reason he did this is because he's weak on foreign policy and has zero experience there. He wanted to look tough. I always felt like Barak was somebody with integrity and while I disagree with him politically I thought he would be somebody that I could respect. This was the single dumbest thing he's done and I think it really sets him back.

Splendid · 08-02-2007, 12:07 PM

March 20, 2003 - U.S, Great Britain, Australia, Denmark and Poland invade Iraq.
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 4, 2005 - Barak Obama sworn into U.S. Senate. Barack Obama - U.S. Senator for Illinois

BO was an Illinois State Senator in 2003 when he cast his opposing vote, a far cry from being a U.S. Senator and having your party thugs influencing your every vote. Why doesn't anyone call him out on this? Hillary is more qualified and Joe Biden is the most qualified on that side of the isle.

jdoggivjc · 08-02-2007, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Splendid

March 20, 2003 - U.S, Great Britain, Australia, Denmark and Poland invade Iraq.
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 4, 2005 - Barak Obama sworn into U.S. Senate. Barack Obama - U.S. Senator for Illinois

BO was an Illinois State Senator in 2003 when he cast his opposing vote, a far cry from being a U.S. Senator and having your party thugs influencing your every vote. Why doesn't anyone call him out on this? Hillary is more qualified and Joe Biden is the most qualified on that side of the isle.

A more important observation - the war was declared before Bush's second term. If this was such an unjustified, unpopular war, why did Bush win reelection, with more votes the second time around than the first?

AirWalke · 08-02-2007, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

A more important observation - the war was declared before Bush's second term. If this was such an unjustified, unpopular war, why did Bush win reelection, with more votes the second time around than the first?

Two words: John Kerry.

Incyte · 08-02-2007, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Clone9

Nobody can be as bad as the current administration with regards to foreign policy.

Except Jimmy Carter.

jdoggivjc · 08-02-2007, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by AirWalke

Two words: John Kerry.

DING DING DING!!! Anyone who thinks we've got it bad right now needs to imagine just how bad it could be if Kerry, or even Gore, were running the country right now.

AirWalke · 08-02-2007, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

DING DING DING!!! Anyone who thinks we've got it bad right now needs to imagine just how bad it could be if Kerry, or even Gore, were running the country right now.

Yeah, that was the problem. While I liked John Kerry, the 2004 election turned into a beauty/popularity contest. I disagree that the country would've been better off without Gore or Kerry, but because Kerry's face looked like it was made of wood, everyone didn't like him and elected the more personable, southern talkin' president.

temperflare · 08-02-2007, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

I laughed at this. Obama's views on social issues, economic issues, etc. are at the complete opposite end of the political spectrum than a typical republican. Obama is more liberal than Hillary.

And he has 0 foreign policy experience.

True. But, I have more respect for a guy that is capable of making an unpopular decision that is what is best for the country than a person that makes a popular decision that in the end makes us worse off.

I didn't say I'd vote for the guy. I was trying to reason out why he would go with this strategy.

Anyway, maybe he seems more liberal than Hillary because she is doing what most liberals do, move towards the center prior to election time so she can say she isn't what she truly is: a liberal. At least Obama doesn't try to cover it up. I consider Hillary to be a "compassionate communist". But, that is just my opinion.

travman23 · 08-02-2007, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by AirWalke

Yeah, that was the problem. While I liked John Kerry, the 2004 election turned into a beauty/popularity contest. I disagree that the country would've been better off without Gore or Kerry, but because Kerry's face looked like it was made of wood, everyone didn't like him and elected the more personable, southern talkin' president.

A beauty contest? Wow that's a stretch...

That's like that King of The Hill episode where Hank is scared to vote for Bush because he gave him a weak handshake.

Kerry was a big flip-flopper and never took a solid stance on a lot of issues plus he was somewhat of a hyprocrite too. Gotta love his "stance" about keeping jobs in America but how do you think he and the Heinz family made money? Gee let's see, didn't you own factories overseas at one time Mr. Kerry? I don't care if he sold them off, he still sent jobs overseas at some point and profited from it.

cycloneworld · 08-02-2007, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by temperflare

True. But, I have more respect for a guy that is capable of making an unpopular decision that is what is best for the country than a person that makes a popular decision that in the end makes us worse off.

Sounds A LOT like what Bush is doing right now. Except he gets raked over the coals for it.