Sunday, August 17, 2008

NO REALLY. IS HE KIDDING?

Last night, between my niece's birthday celebration and hanging out with a visiting distant relative, I was able to catch bits and pieces of the first Presidential "debate" of 08'. Less of a debate and more of a job interview conducted by Rick Warren of Purpose Driven Life fame, it was a pretty good opener to the campaign season. I'm not a big fan of Warren's, or his follow-up free approach to the questions he asked, but he probably did as well as could be expected for someone masquerading as an evangelical.

Being the kind of guy I am, I was trying to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and in the back of my mind I was actually hoping that he would say something that would calm my fears that he is totally clueless. I think I was hoping he could give me something to hold onto in the event that he actually wins the Whitehouse. Right out of the gate, I realized that there is no virtue in giving this man the benefit of any doubt...he truly is clueless.

Warren asked Obama if he believes in evil, and if so, how to deal with it. This is how our favorite "hope-monger" decided to answer the question.

Obama: “The one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, but you know a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil,” Obama added. “Just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we’re going to be doing good.”

Humility? Is he kidding? Are we supposed to bow our heads or ask permission before defending our nation? Was Patton humble? Were we humble when we stormed the beaches at Normandy? Are our enemies humble when they ram our planes into office buildings?

"Claim that we are trying to confront evil"? Would he say that to a Marine who just walked off the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan?

His defeatist answer to Warren's question explains why he didn't take the time to visit with the wounded soldiers in Germany a few weeks back. After being given the opportunity to at least look like someone who would be capable of protecting America from the terrorist threat, Obama decided to give the USA yet another verbal kick to the crotch.

He went on to cite Darfur and inner-city crime as examples of evil in our time. Not Al-Queda. Not the Taliban. Not Hammas. I suppose it was too much for Obama to actually throw our troops a bone for once by acknowledging that the monsters they battle for us every day might actually be evil after all.

I'm actually glad that I was not able to focus on the debate because I'm sure that me putting my boot through my father-in-law's television would have been quite the mood killer for my niece's birthday party.

14 comments:

Mista Jaycee said...

Hey Roadhouse,
First the best thing America can do is acknowledge when it has made mistakes. Osama Ben Laden is our mistake. The Taliban is our mistake! The fact we sat by as they blew the thousand foot Buddhas off the planet and did nothing, the fact the Taliban oppresses Women and we sat idly by, the fact that when we went into Afganistan we have not and did not secure/destroy the main cash crop which is Opium is our mistake. Our so called world policy has been a joke, going back to Eisenhower! Time for a change how about we do something different since we can now see the results of our mistakes. We gave those Bastards Money, Weapons and training. We gave the Taliban 90 million dollars 3 months before 9-11! We kept that butcher Musharraf in power while Sam Ben Laden as his Merry Men ran all through the Paki border! Open your eyes man!
Have you swallowed so much so called conservative garbage that you can't admit error anymore even when it comes from your own side of the line?
That's what's truly wrong with the so called right! Rumsfeld was a hack! Dubya is a hack too and Cheney always planned if he ever got power to bash the constitution in favor of an imperial Presidency. He's had a hard one for that since 1973. By the way Rick Warren is an right wing evangelical but he's just the light version not like that hack/apostate Falwell, and Robertson
Jaycee

Roadhouse said...

Jaycee,
Really, I must insist that you read my posts before you comment on them.
Obama was not asked what mistakes America has made in it's foriegn policy. He was asked about evil in the world. Of all the options available, he chose AMERICA as his example of evil.

I never took you to be an imperialist, but your post implies that you are. "We" did not "keep" Musharraf in power. He was the leader of Pakistan, not a United States Governor. He was not "ours" to control. Pakistan is not part of the US.
Like it or not, Pakistan has helped us quite a bit since 9/11. Invading them like Obama has suggested would be a mistake of global proportion. Especially since we have no solid evidence that Bin Laden is there...or alive for that matter.

As for pre-9/11 foreign policy...what do expect when liberals from team Clinton slash the budgets to our intelligence gathering and military forces?

It was not our mission to destroy Opium fields in Afganistan. I too disagreed with not burning them to the ground, but the theory was sound. We were trying to destroy the Taliban, not the economy of Afganistan. To destroy the fields would have ruined any chance of locals helping us root-out the Taliban. They would have seen us as imerialists and joined the enemy.

When asked about evil, I need my President to point fingers at countries committing EVIL. Not countries who are always first on the scene in earthquakes and sunamies, or who give billions of dollars to Africa to fight AIDS. If on a list of Russia, Syria, Iran, or North Korea if you chose America as the evil one, you can't be my President.

Mista Jaycee said...

I do read your posts and Musharaff was not the leader of Pakistan, he took over by the power of the gun in 1999. He was not elected. President Select Bush did not even know the Musharaffs name until at least 2003. He refered to him only as the General and it was not until this hypocrisy was pointed out that Musharraf was then referred to as President and not the GENERAL. This is fact!
Now Terry, I am not an Imperialist in fact If I was to accuse someone of that it would be you. I do not avocate nor will I avocate that America take over another country which is what an Imperialist believes. I believe that we should concentrate on our own country and work with other countries even if we do not like their economic or socialogical belief. I do not believe you share that belief but I could be wrong. I feel America has meddled in the affairs of other peoples countries, Cuba, Chille, Panama, Puerto Rico and a few others, with the rest of Europe meddling in the rest to the detriment of the people.
Jaycee

Roadhouse said...

Jaycee,
I never claimed Musharaff was elected. I mearly pointed out that he was the leader of Pakistan. How he got to that position is really not our concern unless he threatens us. In that case, it wouldn't matter if he were fairly elected.

My point about you being imperialist is the fact that you lament that we "did nothing" about the Taliban or Musharaff until later, yet offered no other way we could have dealt with them short of invasion and regime change.

You seemed to regret that we didn't invade Afghanistan sooner, or invade Pakistan at all.

In one post, you lament our "meddling", yet in another you lament our lack of intervention. That alone puzzles me.

"Concentrating on own country" is all well and good until other countries threaten us, fly planes into our buildings, coward bomb our docked ships in peacetime, or blow up sleeping Marines.

The litmus test I and my fellow conservatives use to decide which countries to invade is as follows: If you treaten us or our alies even after exhaustive diplomatic efforts, we may have to drop some bombs on you. Then we will spend tons of time, money and blood trying to give your country back to it's people.

An imperialist's litmus test is as follows: If we want your country, we're going to take it and keep it.

If you're not a conservative or an imperialist, then what litmus test do you use before going into another country uninvited?

DJ Black Adam said...

@Roadhouse:

You wrote:

"He went on to cite Darfur and inner-city crime as examples of evil in our time. Not Al-Queda. Not the Taliban. Not Hammas. I suppose it was too much for Obama to actually throw our troops a bone for once by acknowledging that the monsters they battle for us every day might actually be evil after all."

Oh come on. By citing the genocide in Darfur (Where US inaction shows a blatant contradiction in US policy regarding "Human Rights" which was one of the so-called reasons why we went to Iraq) he is not understating any other evil.

Unlike McCain, who is a veteran, Barack threw more than a bone when he voted for changes in the GI Bill (which McCain opposed) as well Barack actually addressed the VA Hospital and miltary hospial systems, whereas the war hero / pow McCain hasn't done much in that area over his many years in the congress.

Roadhouse said...

Adam,
No one has denied the travesty in Darfur. Are you suggesting that we invade and occupy Darfur and every other oppressed nation on the globe? Our priorities are in protecting the U.S. from nations that pose a threat to us first, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Russia, North Korea, Lebanon, etc, etc. In the meantime, there is little that can be done about Darfur that we are not already doing.

Rape rooms, torture (real torture), mass graves and murder by chemical weapons are not "so-called" human rights violations.

You guys on the left are going to have to decide if you want us to intervene in other countries or not.

McCain opposed the veteran bill because it was flawed and full of unrelated pork. It was an old-school trick by libs in Congress to try to make McCain look like he doesn't care about veterans. I'm suprised that you guys fell for it.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@Roadhouse:

“Are you suggesting that we invade and occupy Darfur and every other oppressed nation on the globe?”

Generally, occupation is not necessary, one MAGTF (MEU) could handle Darfur. Genocides should be dealt with, since I have no problem with unilateral military action, I see no contradiction.

“priorities are in protecting the U.S. from nations that pose a threat to us first, such as Iraq,…”

Not quite sure how that protects the US, Sadam wasn’t a threat to the US, sure he was a jerk, and I don’t miss him, and really my only problem with our military expedition into Iraq was that it was not executed properly, Powell’s doctrine of overwhelming force, Thomas Barnett’s theories of occupations that require infrastructure and social support should have been enacted.

“Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Russia, North Korea, Lebanon, etc, etc. In the meantime, there is little that can be done about Darfur that we are not already doing.”

Roadhouse, I am a former Marine, I have three honorable discharges, two from the Corps and one from the Air Force, served in the 1st Persian Gulf war, like I said, ONE MAGTF could handle Darfur, Genocides should be stopped, when we can stop them, simple as that.

”Rape rooms, torture (real torture), mass graves and murder by chemical weapons are not "so-called" human rights violations.”

I don’t recall saying that, you have mixed up with someone else.

”You guys on the left are going to have to decide if you want us to intervene in other countries or not.”

Again, you got me pegged wrong there, I believe in unilateral military action whole heartedly, I just would like to see a bit more consistency.

“McCain opposed the veteran bill because it was flawed and full of unrelated pork.”

No, he opposed it because he felt that only people with longer military obligations should get the benefits, which is bull, because everyone knows that any soldier, airman, sailor or Marine has an 8 year obligation regardless of what their active duty enlistment is, he tried to make it a retention tool as opposed to letting it be what it is, that is aid to veterans, veterans who are coming from these two wars we have.

“It was an old-school trick by libs in Congress to try to make McCain look like he doesn't care about veterans. I'm surprised that you guys fell for it.”

I’m surprised you so-called conservative who support this war and who talk about your troop support, but fight tooth and nail against any benefits or pay increases, all the while giving away my tax dollars to Dick Cheney’s contractors friends, don’t see the forest for the trees…

Roadhouse said...

Adam,
First, let me say thank you for service.

Yes, we DO have the power to intervene unilaterally in most of the third world nations that oppress their people.
The question is whether we want to become the world's policeman and be seen as an imperialist country?
The second question is what to do with these countries after we liberate them?
That's why I brought up the concept of "priority". As Congress, both Clintons, the U.N. and the rest of the world's intelligence agencies had stated at the time, Saddam Hussein was a threat to us and the rest of the free world. He had used WMD's against his own people as well as invaded other's countries all while refusing to live up to his obligations that allowed him to stay in power after Desert Storm.
That made him a priority.

Adam Said: "I don’t recall saying that, you have mixed up with someone else".

Adam Said: "Where US inaction shows a blatant contradiction in US policy regarding "Human Rights" which was one of the so-called reasons why we went to Iraq"

Hence my comments about "so-called" human rights violations.

McCain's comments on the veterans bill are a matter of public record, and so are the details of the bill itself.

"Dick Cheney's contractor friends" are currently feeding and supporting our troops as well as rebuilding Iraq. Would you have our troops doing their own laundry and supplying all their own chow facilities? Maybe you would have Iraq fend for themselves to rebuild their infrastrucutre. I have contractor friends too. Is that wrong?

It is Democrats in Congress that have used troop funding to score political points and make headlines for the past four years. They have consistantly used military appropriation bills to try to sneak in pork of their own to advance their agendas.

DJ Black Adam said...

Roadhouse:

“First, let me say thank you for service.”

Thank you.

“Yes, we DO have the power to intervene unilaterally in most of the third world nations that oppress their people. The question is whether we want to become the world's policeman and be seen as an imperialist country?”

We are already seen as an “imperialist country”, at least we could do some good while we have that image, and maybe change it.

“The second question is what to do with these countries after we liberate them?”

Open up McDonald's, factories and help build the infrastructure, as we make money while they make money, win-win.

“That's why I brought up the concept of "priority". As Congress, both Clintons, the U.N. and the rest of the world's intelligence agencies had stated at the time, Saddam Hussein was a threat to us and the rest of the free world. He had used WMD's against his own people as well as invaded other's countries all while refusing to live up to his obligations that allowed him to stay in power after Desert Storm.
That made him a priority.”

I can concede he was a priority, if you can concede that potential if not ACTUAL genocides are a problem.

Adam Said: "I don’t recall saying that, you have mixed up with someone else".

Adam Said: "Where US inaction shows a blatant contradiction in US policy regarding "Human Rights" which was one of the so-called reasons why we went to Iraq"

Roadhouse said: “Hence my comments about "so-called" human rights violations.”

So-called because they are no worse than the “human rights violations” that we conveniently ignore everywhere else they happen. Look, my problem is honesty and openness, if we just came out with the real reason we went to Iraq (I.e. the Saudis' request and / or the circumvent Iran's ability to exploit the internal tension in Iraq), my point is that we should do what we can when we can.

“McCain's comments on the veterans bill are a matter of public record, and so are the details of the bill itself.”

I am a member of the Marine Corps League and the American Legion, we are always informed on the details of Veterans bills, and what I stated about McCain's opposition IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD and a piss poor excuse, which is one of the main reasons I ultimately decided against voting for him.

"Dick Cheney's contractor friends" are currently feeding and supporting our troops as well as rebuilding Iraq. Would you have our troops doing their own laundry and supplying all their own chow facilities?”
Yes I would, we did it before and pretty well, Navy chow halls were much better with military chefs, and Air Force chow halls were damn near 5 star...

“Maybe you would have Iraq fend for themselves to rebuild their infrastrucutre. I have contractor friends too. Is that wrong?”

You are joking right? Their infrastructure is shot to hell, which is the primary problem. Gen. Patton and Gen. McCarthy wrote the books on how to deal with a civil population after armed conflict, sure civilian contractors are a part of that, but oversight is essential and absent in this expedition.

“It is Democrats in Congress that have used troop funding to score political points and make headlines for the past four years.”

I'm sorry, as an independent, it is very evident to me, that sword cut two ways in that regard.

“They have consistantly used military appropriation bills to try to sneak in pork of their own to advance their agendas.”

Like the Republicans didn't?

JMK said...

“The one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, but you know a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil,” Obama added. “Just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we’re going to be doing good.”
<
<
It’s called “moral relativism,” and it goes right along with the inane bastardization of Christianity called “Liberation Theology,” that claims that “Christ was a Marxist.”

Moral relativism is rooted in the idea that “EVERYone believes they are doing right”...and yes, even the likes of Hitler and Mao THOUGHT or BELIEVED they were “doing the right thing,” BUT confronting aggression/evil is not nearly the gray area that Obama’s worldview would make it out to be.

There were outright America-haters on the extreme Left who opposed Afghanistan as well as Iraq! Obama claims to support the Afghanistan invasion, while cuddling up to those enemies within our gates.

It’s a strange and difficult tightrope for anyone to walk.

Roadhouse said...

Adam siad: "We are already seen as an “imperialist country”, at least we could do some good while we have that image, and maybe change it."

We are seen that way because of the liberal media, not because we actually are imperialistic. Otherwise Iraq would be the fifty first state by now. If we invaded every oppressed nation and set up interim governments at each one, we would be what the left accuses us of right now.

Adam said: "Open up McDonald's, factories and help build the infrastructure, as we make money while they make money, win-win."

We're working on that right now in Iraq. Glad that you're on board.

Adam siad: "I can concede he was a priority, if you can concede that potential if not ACTUAL genocides are a problem."

I thought I mentioned that in my first response to you...first line to be exact. Genocide anywhere is an abomination. But you must remember that we are living in a "war is not the answer" culture now. Obama is going to wave his hand and resolve these genocides without firing a shot. He is going to accomplish with words what Bush has been struggling to do with bullets. With his message of "hope and change" he is going to end thousands of years of conflict and tyranny.
Face it...that's what he's trying to sell us.

Adam said: "oversight is essential and absent in this expedition".

Government oversite is an oxymoron. Now you are starting to understand why I am a "small" government conservative. When a massive beuracracy such as ours is left to it's own devices, you end up with crap. This is the exact same beuracracy that Obama proposes to run our healthcare system.

Democrats Tom Daschel, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rengal, John Mertha, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden have a well documented history of delaying war funding and threatening it in order to make Bush look bad and grow anti-war sentiment.

Many of these same people were responsible of the massive cuts to military and intelligence budgets in the early nineties under Clinton. Many are also guilty of false accusations of military atrocities that never happened.

Anonymous said...

Being the kind guy I am? wow you sure do think highly of yourself. I guess modesty isn't a "conservative" value......

Roadhouse said...

anonymous,
How do you get "think highly of yourself" from being the kind of guy who would give an opponent the benefit of the doubt?

Maybe I could comment on your blog. Oh, that's right...you anonymous. AKA cowardous.