Right now getting rid of nukes makes sense for all countries to do. The more countries aquire them over the next 50-100 years, the more likely someone's going to have one you don't want them to own.

"I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately," he is expected to say. "The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform limited missions of protecting our diplomatic

Obama was to be introduced by Ted Sorensen, a top adviser to President Kennedy. Sorensen is expected to travel with Obama later today as his delivers the same speech at two locations in Iowa.

Posted by John McCormick on October 2, 2007 11:50 AM | Permalink

John, check what you've written before you publish next time. Dude...

Just who does he propose enforce his brilliant idea? The UN? Now that is funny.
Little wonder people see him as an "empty suit".

RomanB, that is pie-in-the-sky thinking. It would be great if there were no nukes. Unfortunately those that have em, like Russia, China, others will not give them up. And too many other countries like Iran, North Korea, etc. will always seek them, as will the terrorists.
By now, nukes are a necessity, if anything, just as a deterrent.

It is wonderful that Obama wants to rid the world of nukes. Don't people see how this is a good and noble idea ( and by no means a knew one)? It would be great if more of our politicians thought in terms of peace instead of war. It is just plain awful that anyone would object to the elimination of nuclear weapons. Weapons, in general, are not good.

Eliminating nukes? dare I ask... HOW?

"We will not pursue unilateral disarmament," Mr Fluff is expected to say, according to an advance copy of his speech. "As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong nuclear deterrent..."

So in other words, of course we never will.

Obama wants to "boost his foreign policy credentials". Yeah, good luck with that.

Notice that McCormick cheekily says "FURTHER Boost"... chortle!

The Empty Suit delivers an Empty Promise about an Empty Program.

Have fun getting Israel to give up nukes. They are surrounded by millions of Muslims who want to kill every last one of them. Obama's comment just shows his inexperience willingness to say anything to get elected.

Senator Barrack Obama is once again showing the politically informed Americans why he would be a great national security liability. America must build up it's strength and prepare for World War III, which is comming as soon as India and China finishes building a new super aircraft carrier, which Russia gave all of her old aircraft carrier groups to China and India to build a new deadly aircraft carrier able to bring enough bombers and men to completly destroy America. Senator Barrack Obama is such a disappointing 2008 presidential candidate, because he never does his homework before opening his big black mouth. We need to build more Nukes, and new super weapons.

Give me a break. Pols are shameless.

Everybody is in favor of ending nukes...in theory.
Even those who are in favor of building more of them, hopefuly, a minority in the world, will tell you they wish it wasn't so. But there is no
evidence that Obama will be
any better than anybody so far at getting it done.

He's getting desperate.
Bet you won't get Hillary making such simplistic comments. And no, I don't favor her either. But come on...

What the hell is a "State of the World" address?

Obama has a lot of courage to open new issues. These very honorable issues to discuss and resolve, but one thing to learn from Clinton is to say as little a possible. The more you say the more defined you become, as a result less people vote for you

Has any candidate proven to you that they are more qualified to lead our country. It seems to me that both candidates have smeared each other to make us believe that one is better than the other with no real right or wrong, just opinions on how to move forward. Who do you consider has more experience and better judgment? ------>
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=621

Patrick Morgan,

Your "good and noble" ideals are impossibly supressed in the morass of real-world geopolitical contention. You can spin your flower-child idealogy as much as you like. Back in reality-town it's impossible to set down OUR weapons. Mankind has demonstrated at least two centuries of territorial warfare and aquisition by force. To loveingly wish that to change through a pacifist disarming is naive and dangerous. Neither you nor Obama demonstrate a grasp of the impossibility of disarming in our lifetimes. Any assertion that this is a viable approach to affecting world peace is faulty to the core. That a Presidential candidate would issue such blather is particularly frightening.

And too many other countries like Iran, North Korea, etc. will always seek them, as will the terrorists.
By now, nukes are a necessity, if anything, just as a deterrent.

Posted by: John D | October 2, 2007 12:24 PM

RomanB,
Here's a photo of Lil Johnny Dittohead at a "More War & More Nukes" rally:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rapture/241044580/

Bruce,
Did you use any other alter-egos besides Joe six pack on this post?

Complete elimination of all nukes is a lofty and admirable goal, but is it practical? Because of Iraq, the US military is broken, and will be unable to engage in any serious land conflict for a decade or more. Can our military shift from the conventional weapons/manpower model to high-tech distance warfare without having nukes as the ultimate deterent? In the meantime, would nations like India, Pakistan and Israel be willing to give up nukes after all their investments? Doubt it. Many of the leaders in those nations believe that the fact that they have nukes is keeping them out of all-out war from neighbors they distrust. For them Nukes = peace.

Obama is hopelessly naive.

First he thinks he has the ability to bring this nation together (he hasn't even got the guts too stand up to the Moveon folks, much less the corruption of Daley/Stroger/Blago in this state - there is little hope he will be able to do so at the national level) and now he wants us to believe he can convince Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel, India, or even this nation to eliminate theirs and our nuclear arsenal? Please.

He would be better serving this nation if he spoke truthfully about the condition of our military, the threats we face, and how he has absolutely no experience in military matters and is completely unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

Have any of you pessimists heard of the non-proliferation treaty...international law has already taken steps toward disarmament...the possibility of disarmament isn't pie-in-the-sky

Ya know, the more nay sayers Barack stirs up the more I am convinced that America is on the verge of electing another truely RARE GREAT PRESIDENT.
"Empty suit","pie in the sky","empty promises" and "do your homework before you open your big black mouth" all convince me that the gulf between the thinkers (here is an idea that just might work) and shouters (You will never be able to do it, you're stupid)is growing larger and deeper.
Continue on all you who are so negetively grounded. You give me hope in the future of our country!

"He would be better serving this nation if he spoke truthfully about the condition of our military, the threats we face, and how he has absolutely no experience in military matters and is completely unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief."

Posted by: clawrence | October 2, 2007 1:49 PM

Remember the last time we elected a Commander-in-Chief with no experience - 7 years later, we are stuck in a war in Iraq, and Iran next on his list.

It is just unbelievable how the American public hears, but never LISTENS.
You call Obama an "empty suit"?
Have you even listened (here is that word again) to what he proposes.
How many times has he proposed to put the American public first, even to the speech he made to an investment brokerage firm - how they do not always keep moral business tactics up front. I am sure that caused emenies - but it was the truth!
He wants to change Washington politics, etc.
These are all of the things that Americans want - a path to give the country back to the people.
Yet, you still do not listen.
If basic Americans could understand what bad shape this country is in you would not even say those things regarding Obama.
You are going to have to listen one day. No wonder corporations and politicians do as they please. Any time someone makes a presidential candidate's sexual parts look bigger so he can get votes (as was done with president Bush), they already know of your limited intelligence and exploit it at will!
This country is going in the dirt - unless you let someone come in with peace, determination and loyality to this country.
You can't even understand why there is not money to fix bridges, health care, schools, continuing increase in taxes - the country has no money left.
Why are we borrowing from China??
If Americans do not exert more intelligence toward this country's affairs, we will be making mud pies for lunch!!

It’s disappointing to learn that so many Americans on this posting wall are afraid of new ideas. I congratulate Obama on recognizing that Americans need to focus globally more often and initiating a conversation about a new presidential address concentrating on world issues. I appreciate someone standing out there and saying, “What American is doing in some situations isn’t working and we need changes.” He might not have served in the armed forces, but he certainly is demonstrating a wealth of courage, conviction and heart to not sweep the important issues – such as the safety of our country - under the rug.
When is America going to stop voting for the candidate with whom they want to have a good-time beer because that candidate has bent over backwards to express no opinion on anything and offend no one? Why not vote for the candidate that is straight-forward, intelligent, honest, and interested in change? At a minimum, at least you know what you’re getting.

I'm familiar with Senator Obama's views on nuclear weapons. While he seeks to control "loose nukes," and reduce arsenals, and eliminate the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for weapons-mkaing, HE ALSO BACKS A STRONG NUCLEAR DETERRENT BY THE UNITED STATES and his proposal here would NOT internationalize the fuel cycle for everybody, just for "nations like Iran." Presumbably, he means "nations such as Iran," but grammar aside, he is not talking about having the U.S. (or, I would guess, any of the existing nuclear powers depend on an international fuel bank.

"When shifting paradigms, it is important to put in the clutch." -- Patricia Limerick

Obama is not "hopelessly naive," nor is he an empty suit.

If the choice on the Dem. side is Hillary or Obama I would much rather have Obama.

Why is Hillary supposed to be so experienced? I'll admit she knows how to parse her speech. She was on all 5 of the Sunday shows and evaded, dodged or deflected every question. She never utters an original word, everything is soundbited down, planned meticulously, and totally devoid of meaning.

Does that make her Presidential material? Only if American citizens want a President who lies to them. Given the Clinton administration and now the Bush administration maybe that is exactly what they want.

Why stop at nuclear weapons? Let's eliminate all weapons. Of course that would eliminate our ability to defend ourselves if attacked. But we can trust all of the other countries in the world to keep their word, right?

At this point the image of an Energizer bunny who's walking nowhere face-first into a wall comes to mind. When is this guy going to realize that his constant refrain of "they voted for the war and I didn't" is getting him nowhere at this point? In fact, it's really getting a little annoying and insulting. It's meaningless since he wasn't in the Senate anyway. Hell, I didn't vote for the war either, so elect me president.

Big deal Barack. You've told us one thing you didn't (and couldn't) do as a reason for electing you president. Now tell us what you WOULD do -- in detail, in detail -- as a basis for electing you president. And silly generalities like, "I'll make the world a better place", or "I'll bring people together", or "such and such department is broken (without telling us how or how you plan to fix it)" don't count.

Bob, you couldn't have said it better. All these stodgy political bloggers who think that anyone who promotes anything other than endless continuation of the neoconservative status quo is "naive" are a big part of the reason why Washington is in for a big housecleaning. Most of today's entrenched political class, much like these stodgy political bloggers, are not even interested in TRYING to deliver what the American people really want (and that includes a big part of BOTH parties).

That's why Barack is so scary to them. He actually speaks of trying to deliver upon the wishes of the American people, "naive" bedamned.

So they call him an empty suit, a dreamer, naive... I'd rather have a dreamer who promotes progressive changes than someone who's given in to the same failed ideology of the past because it's the easy route... the paved road.

Barack represents exactly the kind of political leadership we need. The kind that isn't afraid to discuss real changes and float new ideas... despite the fact that the screaming heads on AM radio will try to crucify him every step of the way. And their legion of sheeple will lap up every word of it and spew it out on the Swamp board, word for word. (see above)

Once again Obama shows he doesn`t have a clue about world affairs. Who will verify this. The same group who verified North Korea. Look what they were doing.

"Bob", if you and other Obama supporters are going to proclaim yourself "thinkers", shouldn't you first learn how to correctly spell words like "truely" [sic]?

As to the Obama proposal, as he himself admits, the immediate problem is Iran's nuke program. You could scan Obama's speech with an electron microscope and not find any plan on how to deal with Iran and nukes. Must be more of that "unconventional thinking" that Obama claims he does.

I hope Obama keeps making such non-proposal proposals. It gives us something to laugh at.

You'd think, reading the commentary about Obama, that the american people are all a bunch of military experts instead of just peasants, like me. You'd think that alot of you out there actually want to destroy the world instead of making it a better place. Nuclear weapons are not good in any sense. As for those who think peace is naive, well that is the saddest commentary of all. WarWorld is terrible and it will never be otherwise.

BobinATL - I hope BushCo is remembered for everything they have done to this country. If we remember maybe we won't make the same mistakes. It sure would be nice if we could learn from our mistakes instead of making them over and over again.

Why stop at nukes? Get rid of all weapons. End all wars. What a great politician!

BobbilATL asks:

Remember the last time we elected a Commander-in-Chief with no experience - 7 years later, we are stuck in a war in Iraq, and Iran next on his list.

The problem with Bush wasn't just his lack of experience; it was his lack of intelligence.

As far as experience goes Obama is far more experienced than Bush was. Bush was Governor of Texas. The Governor of Texas doesn't do a lot. Bush’s nick name was "Governor Game boy" because even for a position that does little, Bush did less than was expected of him.

I wonder how Barrack "empty suit" Obama would have dealt with Saddam, UDAY and Qusay.

With a nice speech?

A strongly worded letter?

Telling them not to mess with us because we have all our ambulances and emergency personal in place?

What would empty suit have done?

WWESD?

Good stuff, Obama.

You keep up on that note, and you could well be president.

God knows, on this issue, you have it over the hypocrisy of Hillary.

And just so for all the Republicans who've sent others to a pointless war.

Just because an idea is new doesn't mean it is good... although eliminating nuclear weapons hardly qualifies as a new idea.

I wonder how Barrack "empty suit" Obama would have dealt with Saddam, UDAY and Qusay.

With a nice speech?

A strongly worded letter?

Telling them not to mess with us because we have all our ambulances and emergency personal in place?

What would empty suit have done?

WWESD?

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 3:11 PM

Yes, because Saddam, Uday, and Qusay were such huuuuuge dangers to all Americans, what with all those WMD's they had.

Man, some people are just dumb.

Your way has worked out well JD.Just ask all the dead soldiers and the ones missing body parts.But your mommy still tucks you in at night,so everything is good.Not to mention the 700 billion you morons have blown.Conservative my ass!!

Restricting how many nukes there are would make more sense. You can't get rid of them, but the cost of keeping them is astronomical. Each nuclear nation can keep 5 nukes, that would be plenty as a deterent and easier to take care of. As for voting for the war, yes he would have voted for it if he had received the same info we all had. The problem was that info was lies from our administration.

Obama says some seek to rewrite history with regard to their Iraq positions. Here's a piece that I'm sure he would like to rewrite. From an interview in July of 2004 with the NY Times, when he was asked how he would have voted for the war resolution if he were a Senator in 2002 " . . I was not privy to the Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. . ."

This is from a 3/7/07 column of the Times:

"In an interview yesterday, Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, was asked eight times to explain Mr. Obama's "I don't know" remark on Iraq. Mr. Burton repeatedly returned to the last sentence in the remark - that Mr. Obama believed the case for war was not made. Finally, he said Mr. Obama would not comment on a hypothetical about how he might have voted in 2002."

He seems more than willing to comment on it now, when it is politically expedient to do so. I don't know how he can criticize any Senator's Iraq vote when he admits he does not know what he would have done himself.

David K.

They weren't a danger?

Were you in a coma in the 90s?

As far as experience goes Obama is far more experienced than Bush was. Bush was Governor of Texas. The Governor of Texas doesn't do a lot. Bush’s nick name was "Governor Game boy" because even for a position that does little, Bush did less than was expected of him.

Posted by: nisleib | October 2, 2007 3:06 PM

nisleib,

Here's how the Commander Guy endeared himself to the national Republican Party.

Jr Bush set a record for executions while governor of Texas:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670

"So let's be clear: without that vote, there would be no war."

Really? I think they'd have used the media to destroy all who voted against it, get them out of office, then have a new vote with new members. Nothing was going to prevent this war, Bush Co. wanted it from day 1.

Nice work Herbie H.

Hence the term "empty suit"

If I were a Dem I would hope Hillary wins, because it won't take long to expose Obama as an emptry suit once he is in the main spotlight.

The Dems will create their new "karl rove" as a personal defense mechanism to blame everything on.

David K.

They weren't a danger?

Were you in a coma in the 90s?

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 3:39 PM

No JD... .they weren't a danger. Please, enlighten me. How exactly were Saddam, Uday, and Qusay a threat to the United States in 2003. I'd really like to hear this.

Remember the last time we elected a Commander-in-Chief with no experience - 7 years later, we are stuck in a war in Iraq, and Iran next on his list.

Posted by: BobinATL | October 2, 2007 2:10 PM

And when the Senate recently voted to give this President the fig leaf he needs to justify military action toward Iran, were was Senator Obama? He once again didn't vote against authorization to go to war, not because he wasn't in a position to vote as with Iraq, but because he naively believes he has the judgment to be president.

If you are unwilling to take a stand in the senate, I wouldn't trust you in the Whitehouse. He is not exercising good judgment by continuing to miss crucial votes in the Senate while our veterans are waiting for action to improve the services at Walter Reed and even here in Chicago.

Senator Obama is a great politician. He has shown little leadership, had few accomplishments, and is able to spin his skimpy resume to get the press attention he desperately craves. A great politician who will not be elected president because he doesn't merit the position, and I don't care how many times he says he was opposed to the war in Iraq.

I want to know what you are going to do in the future, and so far I have heard that he is going to meet with dictators and tyrants and naively attempt to get rid of our nuclear arsenal.

There is a crisis in the US Army and the Marines, and we need a leader who recognizes the future threats to this nation and is committed to rebuilding our military. The threat is real, and this nation is ill prepared for it.

Obama doesn't have the experience or judgment to address this most pressing issue.

Obama is an "absurdity." We face a people who want to destroy us and he proposes elimination of nukes. Lord help us all.

My National Guard Staff Sgt. son and his friends are in
100% support of Obama and his Middle Eastern policies. Taking out bin Laden and/or his groupies in those E. Afghanistan/W. Pakistan mountains and talking to all foreign leaders is very respected. He is an honest, intelligent and personable man that has won the crucial independents/moderates in my necessary Tampa Bay area for the general election. Edwards was liked better than Kerry in 2004 but the necessary "Swing" voters are huge Obama fans now.

David K.

They weren't a danger?

Were you in a coma in the 90s?

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 3:39 PM

And did something happen in the 90's that I don't remember? I can't remember Saddamn doing jack squat to America or Americans in the 90's.. or ever, really, for that matter. Please, remind me all the ways that Saddamn and sons were killing Americans (when we weren't occuppying Iraqi soil, that is).

JD, you've been lapping up the coolaid of the neocons. Taking it, hook, line, & sinker. Maybe you should try thinking for yourself sometime. On the list of things that are or were a threat to you, your culture, or your livelihood, Saddam Hussein and Iraq have never been anywhere near the top. The guy tried to grab some oilfields once that weren't in America, as far as I can tell (back when we were supplying his arms to him)... that's it. He never did anything to the US or American people. He just pissed off some oil folk (i.e. the wrong people).

If Obama is an empty suit Hillary is an empty Pants suit.

John E: Bush (as Governor of Texas) had little control over the death penalty. They can offer a 30 day clemency, but that is about it. (Remember, Texas government was set up to give the Governor little power (it had to do with yankee carpetbaggers.))

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/vlibrary/outlines/deathpenprint.html

I take your point though. Bush laughed at Karla Faye Tucker:

According to Tucker Carlson:

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

We have obviously lost that part of our society who would agree with this statement from a one of our greatest Presidents, who said this 44 years ago.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were."

Have we become such a bitter and cynical culture that we can't dream of better world and set our goals high toward that world. What happened to the country for which no problem was too difficult to take on and solve? What have we become?

What we need for a President is someone who will lead, someone who will show us a brighter future and challenge us as a nation and challenge the rest of the world to find ways to make that happen. Does anyone really think Hillary Clinton will do this?

If you want to say that this is pie in sky, rose colored glasses or pollyana stuff, that's fine. I think we can use a little of that right now. The only way things will get better is for someone to propose better things. Perhaps all those cynical naysayers in this post should think about this quote from that same President.

"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."

AuroraResident

"I can't remember Saddamn doing jack squat to America or Americans in the 90's"

Wow, I wonder why Clinton used military force on them multiple times in the 90s or why our official stance was regieme change.

Must be a war criminal then.

I guess that chapter dealing with Iraq in the 9/11 commission report was there for no good reason.

I should have skipped reading that and just listened to David K. on the swamp.

I guess assaniation attempts on a former head of state isn't a threat. I mean, an assasination attempt never had much effect in Sarajevo in the early 1900s. Hasn't had much effect in Lebbanon either.

Damn. Maybe you are right David K. You know...Iran doesn't have WMD and Amadinejad technically hasnt' killed any Americans, nor has Kim Jong Il for that matter.

You're right David K.

OBAMA for President! He'll make us realize that we don't have enemies after all!

Hey kids, you want to know why you shouldn't take drugs when you are young?? Look at W!!! Need any more reasons???

He was endorsing a plan put forth by among others, Casper Weinberger and Henry Kissinger. He was addressing the importance of not letting Iran or North Korea move forward with their nuclear programs. He reiterated our recent failures in foreign policy and he reminded us that he was correct, unlike the other candidates, in 2002 regarding Iraq.
He asserts that the we need to be as careful about getting out as we were careless about getting in. He urges strong diplomacy and to retain a contingent during that process. How is that naive?

I really like Obama. I am almost at the end of his "Hope" book and feel that he thinks a lot like I do about the condition of this country right now. However, I am very disappointed about the disparity between what he thinks and what he does. He writes about being against people "bundling donations" but he has a big fundraiser here with all sorts of bundled cash by powerful people seeking more power through their influence of him.
As to todays story, it fits in with the political strategy to "get headlines no matter what". It is a strategy that lowers the political discourse. It works in that it gets him a ton of free press, but it does not work because it is simplistic. As many of the comments here have indicated, it falls apart with only a little bit of argument. Those of us who tend toward pollyanna thinking will applaud this man of peace, but those of us who think rationally are getting frustrated to Obama's falling in line with current political advisor gamesmanship.
Please find us a coherent candidate somewhere!

Lets get rid of all our nukes as contries such as Iran and S. Korea begin to produce theirs.

Great IDEA!

"Bob", if you and other Obama supporters are going to proclaim yourself "thinkers", shouldn't you first learn how to correctly spell words like "truely" [sic]?

No, Bruce, I do not necessarily proclaim myself a thinker, but, rather, I see thinkers as those who have the ability to see the 1/2 of one percent of a chance that a suggestion offered COULD work. The shouter (Bruce)can only offer reasons why "it will never work".

Oh, Bruce, sorry for the mispelled word. Think you can handle it?

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 4:05 PM

Again.... JD. Tell me what Saddam & sons did to America or Americans. There was a bomb plot on George I, which was horrible, but also 1) amateur hour, 2) immediately foiled and 3) avenged by cruise missile. Beyond that, though, 9/11 was primarily accomplished by Saudis based from Afghanistan. The 1993 WTC bombing by a Kuwaiti of Pakistani decent.. but none by Iraqis or ordered by Hussein. Hmmmmm.... I know Osama bin Laden is alive and well, but Saddam & Sons are dead. The bottom line is that Saddam & Sons have done nothing... nothing.. to America or Americans. The first Iraq war was justified because Iraq attacked an ally. But more importantly Saddam pissed off some oil folk... and that's truly why the Second Iraq war happened. Because when it comes to truly defending America, our leaders think of Oil first, not who actually did the act (that'd be 9/11). If we really were going to fight terrorism wherever it hides, then we'd be fighting in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But we're not... we're fighting in Iraq, where terrorism never was.

Pull your head out of your arse and open your eyes. It's pretty easy to see who's lying and who's not if you actually want to.

I guess 9/11 goes unpunished, but Saddam's oil crimes must be forever avenged!

Is that right, JD?

Obama is not ready for prime time- he needs more experience. HRC, I believe is just a Bush lite, and too much in others' pockets. No thanks to both. Please, Swamp, give us more on Edwards, Dodd and Biden.

OBAMA for President! He'll make us realize that we don't have enemies after all!

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 4:05 PM

It's more like he'll be able to perform a basic prioritization of the threats out there and, I dunno, maybe do better than spending a trillion dollars and killing thousands of American soldiers while actually making those threats worse.

Maybe that'd be the non-braindead way to go about attacking issues.

Damn. Maybe you are right David K. You know...Iran doesn't have WMD and Amadinejad technically hasnt' killed any Americans, nor has Kim Jong Il for that matter.

You're right David K.

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 4:05 PM

And in case you haven't noticed JD.. the two threats you cite have gotten much, much WORSE due to Bush's foreign policy, not better. Iran has used the Iraq war as an opportunity. We couldn't have giftwrapped it better for their far right, islamofascist politicians.

And similar with North Korea... when did they crank up their nuclear program??? Oh, right after G-Dubs brilliant "Axis of evil" speech, which he compounded by refusing to engage in diplomacy thereafter.

Again.. Open your eyes, , stop drinking the coolaid, and think for yourself, fool.

I hate Obama, he is naive and just does not know have the world works. You can't rid the world of nuclear weapons because Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea and Iran(once they get them) will never get rid of their nuclear weapons. Oh yeh now is probably the best time to mention that Russia is rebuilding their military and upgrading their nuclear arsenal and China is modernizing it's military and nuclear arsenal as well, so yeh it's just some food for thought. That is why obama is naive and dose not realize that the world has always been and always will be a dangerous place. The democrats really need some decent candidates and not a bunch of stupid morons.

Notice that Obama only says he "didn't" vote for the war but leaves out the fact that he wasn't in the senate at the time. Maybe he's trying to draw attention away from the fact that he didn't vote against the war, just like he didn't vote against the condemnation of Moveon's attack on General Petraeus.

Like all major policy issues in his scant time in office, Obama found a way to not be on the record either way. He bravely ran away, away, bravely ran away... Some hero.

Obama should go back and read Socrates, if he ever did. Socrates said "You must make war to make peace." True then, true now. And people like Obama will continue to do their ostrich act with head in the sand.

JD.. here's the thing...
When it comes to foreign policy, you and your Neocon heroes are a bunch of hamfisted goons trying to muscle delicate situations into your little ideological box.

The perfect analogy for Iraq is that the Neocons saw a bee sitting on a wasps nest and decided it'd be smart to take a swing at it. Was the bee a threat to sting you? Sure it was. But that doesn't mean it's smart to swing at it. In fact, it's downright moronic. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, sure. But he was harmless to the US and taking his power structure out of Iraq just popped the lid on a mess that we have not the resources, understanding, or ability to clean up. AND it drained our military, opening up the door for Iran and North Korea to take more aggressive international stances... AND it gave an entire generation of Middle-Eastern youth a reason to hate us enough to become terrorists... AND it will be the death of many more Iraqis than were dying under Saddam... and.. and... and...

I'm sure we all WISH a world where nobody catches the flu, where the Cubs win the World Series every year, and where nuke weapons magically disappear never to be seen again. But most of us learn in kindergarten that WISHING so doesn't make it so.

"jdr", "aurora resident" and all, since you seem to be big Obama fans, tell me, tell the world, WHAT (if anything) Obama proposes to do to stop Iran getting nukes?

Obama travels around the country giving speeches about all topics but when it comes time to vote in the senate he is never there. I wonder if he does that so he can claim he never voted for or against anything. He`s a typical Illinoian all talk no action.

"jdr", "aurora resident" and all, since you seem to be big Obama fans, tell me, tell the world, WHAT (if anything) Obama proposes to do to stop Iran getting nukes?

Posted by: Bruce | October 2, 2007 6:04 PM

Ever heard of "diplomacy", bruce? I know it's a strange concept to you Neocons, but things can be accomplished without bombing countries. I know that's real hard for you to fathom, but try it.

Barack has already said he'd be willing to talk to Iran. "Talk" means open diplomatic channels. Start giving incentives NOT to build nuclear weapons. G-Dub, with his "axis of evil" and his Iraq war, has given Iran nothing but incentive TO go nuclear.

"jdr", "aurora resident" and all, since you seem to be big Obama fans, tell me, tell the world, WHAT (if anything) Obama proposes to do to stop Iran getting nukes?

Posted by: Bruce | October 2, 2007 6:04 PM

It's like the neocons can't hear it when anyone proposes a solution to Iran that can't be sung to the beach boys "Barbara Ann".

All they hear is "blah, blah, blah..."

To which, they respond "but, if you didn't say you're gonna go to war with Iran, then you obviously aren't offering a solution".

You are all living in some make believe world not realizing that the acquisition of nuclear weapons is being orchestrated by the industrial/war complex and they will ultimately decide who and when a country will get nuclaar weapons. Get your heads out of the sand, deals are being made as we speak to supply nuclear weapons to some country or another. Maybe even Iran is just a camouflage for what really goes on behind the scenes. We Americans are so brainwahsed to believe in good vs. evil that often the evil is right on our doorstep.

He`s a typical Illinoian all talk no action.

Posted by: John | October 2, 2007 7:06 PM

Yes, we illinoisans are all talk, no action... Abe Lincoln, the Mayors Daley, Coach Ditka... all indicisive pushovers (rolls eyes).

After all, Chicago is known as "the City that talks a big game but doesn't back it up", not something blue collar such as "the City that Works", or "the City of Big Shoulders", or something else pragmatic such as that.

Where are you from there, John?

david K.
I'll put you in the "give a nice speech" category of my original question.

It doesn't sound like you would even be for a "strongly worded letter"

You go on to say:

"AND it drained our military, opening up the door for Iran and North Korea to take more aggressive international stances..."

Oh PLEASE, like you would EVER be for a military action against either of these countries. You'd make the same apologies for them. Who are you kidding? Like that actually matters to left wingers.

"AND it gave an entire generation of Middle-Eastern youth a reason to hate us enough to become terrorists... "

Yeah, they might get so mad that they might hi jack airplanes and crash them into buildings.........oh wait.

Its 2007 and you're still worried about making people mad. David. The gloves have been off for quite some time.

"Ever heard of "diplomacy", bruce?"

What if it doesn't work, then what?

They know Obama would never use force. Left wingers like you would never support it.

Some people refer to Obama as naive. I'll agree with that and add at least one of his supoorters as well.

Are you going to answer me why Clinton bombed Iraq multiple times and was for regiem change even if as you say "Saddam was not a threat?"

Does that make ol Bill a war criminal?

Was it for oil?

Halliburton?

Wag the dog?

If Iraq had succeded in assasinating Bush 41, how would you have dealt with it? A strongly worded letter?

If a Serbian official plots to assasinate Bill Clinton while Hillary is (god forbid) Presient, how do you think she should deal with it? Should we all just make jokes that she is getting revenge for her hubby?

Ever read about how WW1 started?

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 7:43 PM

JD,
Unlike the current comboy wannabe Republican President that you support, Bill Clinton was smart enough not to invade and occupy Iraq, you moron.

I remember when Saddam rocketed the USS Stark killing many US sailors, and Reagan did nothing. He done cut-n-run.

"I remember when Saddam rocketed the USS Stark killing many US sailors, and Reagan did nothing. He done cut-n-run."

Ahhh so Saddam did do something to America. Do me a favor C. Morris....inform David K. of this.

JC. I see you preferred the "stay the course" option with Iraq in the post 9/11 world.

Niiice.

Too bad we can't bring Saddam back for you or continue with oil for food scams. I'm sure another 14 years and few more UN resolutions would have done the trick.

I see Obama wants to get rid of all nukes.

I hear he also likes unicorns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

The empty suit speaks again.

I also heard that he was going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq immediatley if President.

That's not what he said in the debate.

ahhh, poor Barrack. He didn't know he'd get such hard questions after that rock star speech he gave in 04.

That sound you hear is the bubble bursting.

David K. is still hangin' on though.

david K.

"AND it drained our military, opening up the door for Iran and North Korea to take more aggressive international stances..."

Oh PLEASE, like you would EVER be for a military action against either of these countries. You'd make the same apologies for them. Who are you kidding? Like that actually matters to left wingers.

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 7:43 PM

JD... you obviously don't take the time to read anything.... you just bust out tired kneejerk responses.. As I said, the first Iraq war was the correct thing to do morally and strategically. Yes, I was wholly in support of it (gasp... a liberal in support of a war. Imagine that) even though it was a president from the other party leading the charge. It was a moral war in defense of an ally nation against an aggressor nation that just happened to be armed with American weapons (oops). See, unlike you, I'm not a partisan hack. I'm an American. And I don't blindly follow my party or blindly think everything the other party does is wrong.

Any opinion anyone has other than all-out war against the "axis of evil" must mean all we want is a sternly worded speech, eh? If that's where you're at, then you're a hopeless fool. And it's that thought-disease that you and the president share that is the problem. You see. Our military is a finite resource. It actually has limits. Our military leaders know this. Iran knows this. North Korea knows this. Everyone seems to understand this except the neocon ideologues.

Ever heard the phrase "speak softly and carry a big stick"? It's a deterrent theory. It doesn't mean declare all-out war on everyone. It means keep your military strong and use diplomacy to get shait done. Your president has widdled down our big stick to a twig and refuses to engage in diplomacy. And the predictable result is that despots the world over (Kim jong Il, Admadenijad, Chavez) are jumping all over the opportunity to spit in our face, kick start weapons programs, or score political points at home while we're weak.

But go on.... keep supporting the Chickenhawks while they weaken our position in the world.

Yeah, they might get so mad that they might hi jack airplanes and crash them into buildings.........oh wait.

Its 2007 and you're still worried about making people mad. David. The gloves have been off for quite some time.

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 7:43 PM

JD. Idiot.

"The gloves are off"? What are you, a b-western character? We don't have enough cruise missiles to blow up a noun. Terrorism doesn't have a border and it doesn't wear a uniform... Christ... most of the terrorism acts performed in this country are done by White American males... But that's besides the point... With regards to Middle-easter terrorism. You're playing whackamole and the problem is that, every time you whack a mole, you create 3 more. It's a net loser. The war on terrorism is a war of IDEAS. And we played right into Osama Bin Laden's hands when we went into Iraq. The guy couldn't have asked for a better recruiting tool. I'll tell you what, if you sat down George Bush and Osama Bin Laden in 2000 and showed them a glimpse of the state of the world in 2007, your ears would have burst from the sound of Osama Bin Laden's laughter.

He woulda said "Let me get this straight.... I knocked over the world trade center and hit the Pentagon, you gave a buncha blustery speaches about 'dead or alive', then you got rid of that infidel Saddam for me, then you gave my friends a live training ground where we could kill thousands of American soldiers. You've wasted coming up on a trillion dollars, while driving up the price of Oil for my Saudi friends at the expense of your people. Al Qaeda recruiting is through the roof.... AND I'M STILL FREE IN PAKISTAN!!!!!?? ROTFLMAO!"

(yes, Osama uses blog short form)

Seriously.. could you imagine a series of events that could possibly make the guy more happy than that? And the sad thing is that, with the exception of the home-run hit by a few dudes with box cutters, our President is to blame for it all. He's done more damage to us and more good for them than Osama and friends ever could have accomplished.

Your heroes are tools. They're being played like fiddles. What does that say about you and your support of them?

"As I said, the first Iraq war was the correct thing to do morally and strategically. "

So Gulf War 1 was ok when it seemed to help someone else's best interest (Kuwait, Saudi) but Gulf War 2 was about our own self interest and.....its a bad thing?

Nice David k./ Anonymous.

This explains the "out of Iraq and into Darfur" liberal cry.

The collective self hatred of the left is no way to conduct foreign policy.

"Ever heard the phrase "speak softly and carry a big stick"? "

Yeah, Obama's phrase is "speak nicely and carry a purse" ...and make sure all appropriate emergency personel are in place.

Do you honestly believe that N.Korea, Iran, and Iraq only became enemies/threats to this country after Bush's speech?

Are you really this silly?

This is why I put you in the "give a nice speech" in my original post.

...and OBL has been reduced to still photos, grechen formula and spouting generic left wing rants.

[quote]
I wonder how Barrack "empty suit" Obama would have dealt with Saddam, UDAY and Qusay.

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 3:11 PM
[/quote]

Maybe he would have treated them just as Ronnie Raygun did - send Donnie Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddma so he could sell them hundreds of millions of dollars of war supplies, INCLUDING whole missiles capable of hitting Israel.

"As I said, the first Iraq war was the correct thing to do morally and strategically. "

So Gulf War 1 was ok when it seemed to help someone else's best interest (Kuwait, Saudi) but Gulf War 2 was about our own self interest and.....its a bad thing?

Posted by: JD | October 3, 2007 11:39 AM

Yes JD. I know someone as morally bankrupt as you might have a hard time understanding this, but there's a huge difference between going to war to defend an ally from an aggressor nation and going to war as an aggressor nation, as you put it, in "our own self interest" (which in itself is extremely debatable, given the facts). Self interest is not justification for war to those that have morals. The Nazis went to war in pursuit of their perceived self interests, does that make them moral in your mind?

It might be in the US's self-interest to attack Canada for oil sands someday. Would that be a moral war in your world? After all... it's in our self-interest, right?

"Too bad we can't bring Saddam back for you or continue with oil for food scams.

Posted by: JD | October 2, 2007 10:38 PM"

So you're saying that corruption within the oil for food program was a justifiable reason to invade a country, remove the leader of its governmental, trash its infrastructure, and break open religious divisions into a civil war?

Whatever drugs you're on, they gotta be more powerful than snorting whole kilos of cocaine every morning. Where can I buy whatever you're on?

Nice selective history BC.

Keep reading about that time in the mid east....you might learn something.

Maybe read about Carter in 1979?

Nice selective history BC.

Keep reading about that time in the mid east....you might learn something.

Maybe read about Carter in 1979?

Do you honestly believe that N.Korea, Iran, and Iraq only became enemies/threats to this country after Bush's speech?

Posted by: JD | October 3, 2007 11:39 AM

No, JD. I'm saying there's a smart way to handle these enemies/threats and there's a dumb way.

In my humble opinion, threatening these countries with an "axis of evil" speech, then bogging down our military in Iraq (making your tough-guy speeches toothless), and then refusing to engage in diplomacy is the dumb way. If you put yourself in the shoes of a leader in Iran or North Korea, I'd think that series of events would give you ample incentive to, I dunno... start up a nuclear program?

Eh.. what do I know. You've obviously got it all figured out. We can always just declare wars of aggression on everyone. After all, that's what's good for the US. That's a MAN's foreign policy, right JD?

"The Nazis went to war in pursuit of their perceived self interests, does that make them moral in your mind?

It might be in the US's self-interest to attack Canada for oil sands someday. Would that be a moral war in your world? After all... it's in our self-interest, right? "

What a weak analogy/argument Davidk. I would expect more from an attorney.

What?? Gulf War 2 wasn't for our own self interest??

I thought it was for oil, Halliburton, Bush's revenge, Isreal, Nazi like imperialism, greed, and the Military Industrial Complex?

Get your conspiracies straight!

Bush is not a dictator. He made the case for war, the Dems voted for it too, and "new" Europe agreed and helped us.

Can't change those facts.

The funny thing is now Canada, Germany and France have all leaned right with thier elections.

So much for the "world" hating us.

I'll go back to my original point: The collective self hatred of the left is no way to conduct foreign policy.

BC, your posts have no social redeemeing value.

So Sorry Barack, and I mean it. You flipped flopped on the the issue of the war. You should have held a very strong position. You should have never feared, what you truly stand for.

Now all is said and done in the next two to three weeks Hillary Clinton will have rapped up the Democratic Nomination. The Polls are significantly starting to show huge gaps. It is unlikely that Obama can narrow this lead significantly; he has lost a lot of credibility by not standing firm on the issue of Iraq.
In your opinion do you believe that the Democratic race is already over? http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=631

"start up a nuclear program?"

Start? David K. N.Korea and Iran didn't START they're nuke programs in 2002.

Also, I'm not saying only an agressive policy will work. I'm saying that taking agression off the table will not work at all.

Say what you want about our "military being bogged down"

I can guarantee you that Obama and the left wing, would NEVER support agression against either of these countries. N. Korea and Iran know this and play toward that.

If anything, they are sabre rattling because they know the US (Bush) will be agressive if need be. We have almost 200K troops surrounding Iran, and bases to launch from. I bet that make them nervous and not giddy. I bet the image of Saddam being hung from the gallows had an effect on Kim John Il.

I find it amazing that you bring up the Nazi's where appeasement led to WW2. The very same appeasment Obama and the left still thinks will work and is the only option.

Hey BC, what missles did we "give" to Iraq to hit Isreal?

Come on BC, back your claim.

Bush is not a dictator. He made the case for war, the Dems voted for it too, and "new" Europe agreed and helped us.

Can't change those facts.

The funny thing is now Canada, Germany and France have all leaned right with thier elections.

Posted by: JD | October 3, 2007 12:34 PM

Again.. JD. I know you understand only partisan hackery. But I'm not like you. I'm not a partisan hack. Just because some dems voted for this war doesn't make it any less dumb in my eyes. And "what about Poland" sending a couple dozen troops doesn't make it any smarter either. Go ahead and blame Clinton (I know you do somehow), it still won't somehow make this war any less moronic and immoral.

The REAL funny thing is how you "freedom fries" conservatives are so flip-floppy on how you view other countries. Your so quick to point to them when there's some extremely weak tangential support for your war, but when they don't support your war, you've got no patience for their opinions on things.

Must be nice having your cake and eating it too all the time.

I'll go back to my original point: The collective self hatred of the left is no way to conduct foreign policy.

Posted by: JD | October 3, 2007 12:34 PM

That actually explains a lot. You equate doing things the smart way as self-hatred. Now your world view, although dumb, has perspective.

I guess if you don't want to bomb every problem away, you must hate yourself. Strange outlook you've got there, JD. I don't exactly follow, but it is certainly interesting. You'll make a good case study someday.

The REAL funny thing is how you "freedom fries" conservatives are so flip-"floppy on how you view other countries. Your so quick to point to them when there's some extremely weak tangential support for your war, but when they don't support your war, you've got no patience for their opinions on things."

How so?

Its not the amount of troops, its the opinion that what we are doing is correct and any support is appreciated.

You started this whole thing about how Iraq was not a threat and did nothing to us in the 90's. The only reason I brought up Clinton is because he had issues with Iraq and used military force multiple times.

Does that make him a war criminal?

DavidK. I've read a lot of your posts, and for you to claim that you're not a partisan hack is laughable.

"start up a nuclear program?"

Start? David K. N.Korea and Iran didn't START they're nuke programs in 2002.

Posted by: JD | October 3, 2007 1:16 PM

I know that, idiot. Their Nuclear prog