The Presidency Is Not An Entry-Level Position
- 07-31-2008, 12:10 PM
The Presidency Is Not An Entry-Level Position
The Presidency Is Not An Entry-Level Position
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Barack Obama’s recent op-ed in the New York Times declares, “It’s time to end this war.” (You remember that Senator McCain tried to respond, but the Times apparently wanted to give McCain his opinion rather than allow him to express his own. Every day I read the New York Times and the Bible just to see what both sides are doing.)
Is Obama right? Is it time to end this war? Maybe it is time to begin drawing down our forces and handing-off more responsibility for security to Iraqi forces. This idea is gaining favor in Bagdad and Washington.
The problem for Obama is that withdrawal, not victory, has always been his goal. Obama wanted to “end this war” when it would have meant an American defeat. The only reason a slow withdrawal is possible now is because President Bush made the unpopular but wise decision to increase our efforts while Obama and the Democrat party tried to get us to cut and run.
This raises a larger question about Obama’s fitness for the presidency. Obama has four positions related to the war which, in my view, disqualify him for the presidency.
First, how can a serious candidate for President of the United States have a long-standing goal to end the war rather than win it? Great presidents don’t end wars—they win them. The only way the American military can be defeated is when American leaders forfeit the fight for them. And that’s exactly what Obama has wanted to do for years.
By forfeiting this war we will embolden Islamic radicals who will be free to turn Iraq into a new oil-rich haven where they will finance and launch a fresh round of terror attacks. We are fighting a suicidal enemy who will stop at nothing to end your freedom and mine. They will not be reasoned with, placated or appeased. They can only be defeated.
Obama seems oblivious to these facts. He has long been more concerned with placating head-in-the-sand liberals than defeating our enemy and protecting our freedom. Government’s most fundamental duty is to protect its citizens from harm, and Obama fails to meet the most basic requirement for the job.
Second, Obama wants to negotiate with the head of state most closely connected to the terrorists we are fighting—Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Other than the goose bumps liberals get when they think they are saving the world by talking with tyrants, there is nothing good that can come out of such negotiations. Not only would they legitimize an outspoken and dangerous enemy, but they would be an exercise in futility. How could we trust any resulting agreement with Ahmadinejad?
Should the United States trust a character who denies the Holocaust and continually threatens Israel with comments such as, “Israel must be wiped off the map,” and “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.”? Obama thinks so. With that kind of judgment he barely qualifies to be the mayor of San Francisco, much less the leader of the free world.
Third, unlike President Bush, Obama will not adjust his position when the facts prove he’s wrong. Bush changed his tactics and instituted the surge. But Obama still has trouble admitting the surge worked and will not give credit to the United States soldiers who made it a success. Apparently, Obama would rather discount the brave actions of our fighting men and women than admit he made a mistake. He also persists with the absurd assertion that America is less safe since the war began. Will someone in the drive-by media ask Obama how a free Iraq and thousands of terrorists dead or on the run make us less safe?
Finally, Obama has shown no capacity to do what presidents must do to protect the country: make the least bad choice when there are no good choices available. In fact, Obama is notorious for voting “present” in the Illinois Senate rather than taking a stand at all. If there’s one thing true about the presidency, it’s that all tough decisions rise to the top. You can’t hide by voting “present.” And in those tough decisions, there are often no good choices just less bad ones.
Take the decision to go to war. Obama proudly claims he would have voted against the war had he been in the U.S. Senate at the time. But should he be proud?
I hate to rehash the facts, but it’s necessary because Obama and the Democrat party either deny or ignore them: Saddam had a terrible record of WMD use and aggressive behavior. And it was he – not coalition forces— who originally initiated hostilities when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. As a result, Saddam was obligated to obey the cease fire terms that left him in power. He had to prove to the international community that he had given up his hostile ways and WMD. It was not our job to prove he hadn’t.
But instead of signaling his repentance, Saddam’s defiant behavior required us to reopen the hostilities that he began. He violated 17 straight UN resolutions, kicked out UN inspectors looking for WMD, and continually broke the cease fire by shooting at coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone. What would a President Obama have done at the time? Passed another UN resolution? (No, that wouldn’t have allowed us to talk. How about tea at Camp David?)
Removing Saddam may have been a bad choice, but it was the least bad of the choices. It was a necessary evil to prevent a greater evil in a post 9-11 world.
Good presidents have the courage to execute the least bad choice and take the heat from the appeasers. Senator McCain has demonstrated that ability, while Senator Obama has done the opposite. He wants to end the war while defenders of freedom know we must win it.
At worst, all of this reveals Obama’s ignorance; at best, his inexperience. In either case, he’s not qualified to be the leader of the free world. The Presidency is not an entry-level position.Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
- 07-31-2008, 01:50 PM
I don't know of too many people who have PoTUS experience before actually serving the position. This election has me where i'm not wanting to vote for either candidate...
On a side note: the candidate offering to limit terms in congress would get my vote
- 07-31-2008, 01:52 PM
I agree J, all presidents dont have the experience prior to entering into office. Except for their second term, and look how well that has done for W.
07-31-2008, 06:07 PM
07-31-2008, 08:05 PM
You are not obligated to read the articles I post. I enjoy them and post them up for others to enjoy, or not.
I chose my avatar because I thought it was a funny picture; you are the only one who has ever complained. I can't figure out why you would take offense to it or consider it an insult. Then in another thread you give me this:
Seems to me that someone needs to grow up.
07-31-2008, 11:11 PM
08-01-2008, 06:56 AM
The intern everyone likes, and the senile AVP that most people feel should have retired years ago.
McCain will be a danger (Obama might not be any different either) in the war and economy when you think about how much the defecit has increased as a direct result of the war. We will never be out of bankruptcy. Now again, Obama will raise taxes, but they will be for those earning $250,000 or more. I dont 100% agree, and think both candidates suck
08-01-2008, 09:30 AM
Taxes on those making over 250k is a bad idea that will hit small businesses harder than any other group. Tack on that a major increase in capital gains taxes and the economy isn't looking any better.
08-01-2008, 10:45 AM
I disagree about the tax issue. Right now the middle class is dwindling from the way it is set up right now. THey are getting hit relatively harder than almost anyone, so there certainly needs to be an adjustment
08-01-2008, 10:53 AM
Im torn on Obama. I don't like him and don't particularly care for some of his plans but I do think having someone 'new' isn't a bad thing. once you're in a system so long you're boud to get caught up in it. Among his faults, I don't see his 1st term in congress as one of them.
08-01-2008, 10:56 AM
I am in the same boat J. I am not a big fan, however he will be a change (good be good or bad of course), but McCain represents the old guard. Now, if Obama is able to get an experienced VP, with either real economic or foreign policy experience, then I will go with him.
please be Joe Biden
08-01-2008, 02:09 PM
08-01-2008, 02:12 PM
Governors tend to have more applicable experience toward Presidency then Senators, IMHO.
Completely Off Topic: President Bush made a surprise appearance on Rush Limbaugh this morning. I thought it was pretty cool.
NSCA - CSCS
08-01-2008, 08:50 PM
I did not post my avatar picture in the body of an estimate that quoted you and I still fail to see what is insulting or offensive about it in the first place. This: is a universal gesture that is typically used to denigrate the recipient. But of course, as you suggested, age is the actual indicator of maturity; so you will be voting for McCain then since he has many years on the "Chosen One"?
08-01-2008, 08:57 PM
08-01-2008, 11:26 PM
08-02-2008, 12:38 PM
this is a many faceted issue
08-02-2008, 10:35 PM
08-02-2008, 10:43 PM
08-03-2008, 03:50 AM
The democrats need this war to stay in power. Think about it, they said the same thing in 2006, and what was the result? Nothing. This war can be the scapegoat of poor economic times for years to come, whether its warrented or not. Both parties have failed, both parties are corrupt. Democrats and republicans are one in the same, have been for years. We need a change, something fresh and new. Obama is terrifying, and Mccain is a sad choice to say the least. What kind of conservative votes to expand the Americans with disabilities act? Anyway, I have half the mind to stay home this election, and pray that a real conservative will come to the forfront sometime in the near future. Mccain thinks that he has the conservative vote locked up, not this right winger. I'd rather let the cards lay as they fall. If we get a one term obama, so be it. It's the only thing that can get the GOP back to some remnance of conservatism. Some say its crazy, but I'd rather have obama sink this economy than Bush III. Any rebuttal is welcomed.
08-03-2008, 07:35 AM
We are on a very slippery slope hear, and it will be tough to climb out, especially with either of these 2 leading the way
08-03-2008, 07:36 AM
08-03-2008, 07:38 AM
08-03-2008, 09:33 AM
08-03-2008, 10:24 AM
08-03-2008, 10:47 AM
And before saying something about his approval rating being the lowest in whatever statistical period, keep in mind that approval rating of the democrat majority congress is less than 2/3 of what bush's approval rating is....
08-03-2008, 03:06 PM
08-03-2008, 04:32 PM
Saw something interesting the other day. In a gallup poll on how satisfied the country is with the congress...it was lower than it has been in the history of the poll. And this is a democrat led congress. hmmmm.
08-03-2008, 04:36 PM
The sad fact is that the game of politics is played to keep a certain party in power. I haven't seen a truly altruistic candidate for an elected position in years if ever. Elections and partisanship will continue to worsen for years to come. An even sadder fact is that IF someone did come along who ran for office because they truly wanted to help the country, they would never be elected by either party.
08-03-2008, 07:26 PM
Life isn't supposed to be fair. If we had everything we ever wanted there would be no incentive to improve ourselves and thereby our status and living conditions. There would be little purpose in life other than existing. Capitalism gives incentive to better ourselves and help others do the same. Those who choose not to do so do not deserve the blessings attained by those who do. Taking even more from those who deserve wealth through their hard work to supposedly make things "fair" is just wrong on so many levels.
And for the record I'm just barely in the middle class making well under the 30k/year mark. But I have incentive to get even more education and work hard to get promoted and am in the process of doing so because I believe in the capitalist system and more importantly myself.
Sorry, rant off. I just hate seeing this argument made on why we should tax the upperclass even more when the top 10% pay something like 50% of the tax burden.
The problem isn't that the government needs more income, it's that they need to stop spending our money on crap projects and initiatives and start running itself in an efficient manner.
08-03-2008, 07:30 PM
08-03-2008, 07:48 PM
Imposing term limits on congress and prohibiting gifts would solve part of the problem, but the rediculous thing is that congress is in charge of regulating itself. With the amount of corruption entrenched so deeply within congress there is no way such bafoons would give up any of their power themselves.
I imagine our Founding Fathers would be glad we are still here as a nation, but would weep at the sorry state of our government leadership.
08-03-2008, 07:56 PM
we have reached the point where it is technically feasible to have a direct democracy rather than a representative republic and i would be happy to see that happen
08-03-2008, 08:12 PM
I do, however, think this might be something interesting as far as Presidential elections go; getting rid of the electoral college would eliminate some of the confusion, but I believe there would have to be an Amendment to change this. Again I think it is an interesting idea, not necessarily a good one. It could become a slippery slope leading to scenarios such as what I mentioned above.
Our Founding Fathers really were geniuses with regards to what they did to build and set up our nation as well as people who cared about the nation they just formed and the survival of it and its rights, privilages, and oportunities for upper, middle, and lower classes.
If you can't tell I really enjoyed studying history and politics.
Last edited by saludable24; 08-03-2008 at 08:24 PM. Reason: one more comment
08-03-2008, 08:24 PM
well, my thought is leaving the republic representative portion as it is, but have the actual voting on bills be direct after a much simplified process in the house/senate
08-03-2008, 08:42 PM
08-03-2008, 08:53 PM
in terms of tax, the saddest aspect is that in this world, the rich get rich, while the rest of us watch. So out of fundamental fairness there is a need to "even" the playing field a bit. Keep in mind that the wealthy class here is roughly the top 3% (give or take) and a slight increase in tax which they would bairly feel, could do wonders for the rest of the country.
08-03-2008, 09:25 PM
The "rich" are not predominantly made up of old money passed down through generations. The majority of the ultra rich now is new money, not old. Innovation coupled with hard work makes the "rich" rich. Its just easier to stay there once you get there...
This class warfare BS is the same attitude that will keep you from wealth.
For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
08-03-2008, 09:27 PM
08-03-2008, 10:08 PM
NO ONE is forbidden from working towards getting a raise or a promotion to raise their income level. NO ONE is forbidden from attaining a higher education to make them more valuable to employers. NO ONE is forbidden from looking for another job that pays better. In that sense the playing field is even enough for anyone with the will and determination to do so can become wealthy.
You know what? Life isn't fair, some of us are born into better circumstances than others. Some of us are not afforded opportunities that others have as a result of their birth and economic status. But NO ONE is forbidden from changing and lifting themselves up from less fortunate circumstances to greatness. This process may take longer for some than others depending on their circumstances, but it is open to all.
Taxing the wealthy even more will not change the fact that opportunities exist for all if we are willing to pursue them. Taking more money to give in the form of ever expanding and extended welfare, medicaid, and other programs to those who have opportunities but won't take the initiative to get themselves out of poverty or raise their standard of living in the first place is a Mockery to the American way. We are guaranteed Life, Liberty, and the PURSUTE of Happiness by the Constitution. We are not guaranteed that the use of our lives and liberty WILL result in our happiness and/or wealth.
Similar Forum Threads
- By R1balla in forum Sports TalkReplies: 11Last Post: 05-11-2011, 05:19 PM
- By Hundatar in forum AnabolicsReplies: 2Last Post: 01-26-2011, 11:16 AM
- By BodyWizard in forum PoliticsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-23-2008, 10:32 AM
- By AM07 in forum PoliticsReplies: 165Last Post: 04-26-2008, 07:58 PM
- By ironbbvip in forum General ChatReplies: 7Last Post: 01-31-2006, 11:38 PM