RoR: Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - 7:22pm

Link

Edit

A corollary of this is that the acts of terrorists and KGB agents are not crimes, they are acts of war.

Ted

Post 1

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 10:24am

Link

Edit

Well said by both parties above - sanctioned. About the only thing I like about McCain is his hawkishness.

Post 2

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 2:25pm

Link

Edit

Thanks, Jordan. I've always disliked McCain. He has been the biggest recipient of campaign donations in the Senate, i.e., bribe taker, and he supports unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. He made millions alone in "donations" based on the 1996 telecommunications act, which was one of the worst crafted pieces of regulation ever passed, and which led inevitably to WorldCom's fraudulent business model and the downfall of AT&T. Any oldsters who lost money on that stock should send him a "thank you" note. Likewise, he was just as implicated in the S&L scandals of the late 80's as the Clintons, but got a free pass.

Ted

Post 3

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 6:11pm

Link

Edit

I dislike McCain as well for the same reasons you gave Ted. But I particularly liked this quote and with the issue of Iraq I believe he's on the right side.

Post 4

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 8:25pm

Link

Edit

Well, of course I liked the quote! In fact, I just tried to sanction it, but, unfortunately, I was informed I had already done so.

:)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 6/06, 8:27pm)

Post 5

Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 11:39am

Link

Edit

I believe Presidents can lose wars. The President is Commander in Chief. I don't believe that the President is always at fault in a lost war, but to say categorically that they can never be accountable for a loss is mistaken in my view.

The President is responsible for clearly identifying the enemy to the public, giving a coherent explaination of the goals of specific initiatives, attacking the proper targets, and using the means necessary. These decisions ultimately lie at the foot of one individual for 4 to 8 years.

Post 6

Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 4:10pm

Link

Edit

Pete, I don't believe the quote said a President is never accountable for his performance as commander and chief?

Please see my post here for why losing a war in Iraq through abandonment is not holding the President accountable. Abandoning Iraq to al-Qaeda means we all lose, we will all suffer from that defeat. If the Democrats want to score a political victory by letting an oil nation be taken over by al-Qaeda or some variant Islamo-fascist group, they are simply putting this nation at great risk to satisfy their own quest for power. I would compare the Democrats to Theron in the movie 300. If you haven't seen it, it's a must see.

Post 7

Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 7:43pm

Link

Edit

John,

There are many of the hawkish Objectivist persuasion who make the case that if Bush had swiftly taken action post-9/11 and without reservation unleashed the full might of the military on certain state actors in the Middle East that this war might be over by now. Do you disagree with that assessment?

Post 8

Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 8:50pm

Link

Edit

You are changing the subject Pete. Armaos was right to question your post. It implied a studied misunderstanding of the meaning and context of McCain's statement.

In case there's anyone who honestly didn't get the fact that McCain was criticizing the Press and the Left for actually hurting the country while intentionally trying to harm Bush - that was indeed his point. McCain was not defending the President. John is not, so far as I have seen a defender of Dubya's either. And neither will the outcome of this war, one way or the other, likely be decided within Dubya's presidency, or possibly even his lifetime, unless we ourselves choose defeat. And in absolutely no way will this war - as a military exercise won or lost overseas - effect the material comfort of any of the three presidents, neither GHWB, nor WJC, nor GWB who have sat through it. But America will indeed suffer the consequences of our actions, just as we are still, after nine decades, suffering for Woodrow Wilson's insistence on "Peace, not Victory" in the Great War.

Pete, why not blame GHWB for getting us into this mess? And why not blame WJC for doing worse than nothing for eight irretrievably lost years? If you expect "hawkish" Objectivists to take you seriously, then aim your skeptical gaze beyond the scope of the moment. This specific war has been going on since the day that April Gilespie told Saddam that what he did to "province 19" was an internal matter in which the US would not intervene. And this war cannot be understood within the scope of a news cycle, within the 5 day attention span of an average opinion poll respondent, within the two or four year political cycle, or even within the lifespan of anyone posting here. This is not a struggle of the moment, or for a plot of land. It is a struggle of the centuries, and for Mankind.

Before you change the subject again, like Tariq Aziz saying that the Americans have not invaded and that Iraqi forces have destroyed the invaders, please tell us which president who has served "4 to 8 years" you believe has best "identified the enemy, explained his goals," and, however ham-fistedly, most "acted to achieve them."

Ted Keer