Future President Sarah Palin Pals Around with Operating Thetan

[Epic Fail Guy]

http://gawker.com/5175543/future-president-sarah-palin-pals-around-with-operating-thetan


Sarah Palin (http://gawker.com/tag/sarah-palin/) is seeking the advice of a Scientologist as she plots her 2012 presidential run, which just makes sense to us. John P. Coale, a prominent Washington lawyer and power-broker, is secretly running Palin's political action committee and working to "protect the Palin brand," according to the Washington Post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/03/palins_team.html). He is very, very good at doing that because he can walk through walls and read minds and leave his body and never gets sick because he is a Scientologist.
Coale is also the husband of Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren, whom he recruited into the church. Van Susteren's penetration of the Palin clan is total—she's been in Alaska practically every other week burnishing Palin's image in friendly profiles. The church's recruitment strategy has always been to snag high-profile converts like Tom Cruise and Will Smith, and it is well known for dispatching operatives on elaborate covert schemes to draw unsuspecting targets into the cocoon.
Coale is no Scientology slouch; according to a web site that tracks public announcements of Scientology course completions (http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/j/john-p.-coale.html), he appears to have reached OT-VII, the cult's second most powerful level. His most recent training, in 2005, was in how to "detect and handle suppressive persons (http://www.scientology-lies.com/scientology/services/pts-sp-course.html)"—that means you, Todd!
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/2009/03/Picture_51.png

On the other hand, Alaskans don't have a great history with L. Ron Hubbard—in 1940, he reportedly decamped to Ketchican (http://www.scientology-lies.com/event/1940-08-30/l-ron-hubbard-ketchican-alaska.html) on a "radio-experimental expedition," got a loan from a local bank, and split town.
Palin, with her wild-eyed confidence and preposterously healthy skin, already seems vaguely Scientological; "Keep Scientology Working!" isn't a bad rejoinder to "Yes We Can," right?


http://kevinchiu.org/emote/facepalm.jpg

[Yonivore]

Didn't they try to associate Governor Palin with another extreme religous sect during the campaign, as well?

Hey, John Travolta is a damn good actor. This guy could be a damn good "lawyer and power broker," whatever that means.

[Don Quixote]

Wow ... just wow.

And Fail Guy beat Basketball Dan to this important, amazing scoop. I'm impressed.

[Epic Fail Guy]

Scientology is a dangerous cult.

[Don Quixote]

Yes, cult research happens to be one of my fields of interest. I don't think I've ever come across an actual live Scientologist.

I do recall seeing their literature placed in doctor's offices around here, though. I think it is rather insulting -- you're in a doctor's office, perhaps for something serious like cancer or pneumonia, and this group's literature is telling you that your suffering is imaginary, or a result of improper thinking.

But ... what an amazing, excellent, important, relevant scoop, Fail guy. Congratulations!

[Yonivore]

Scientology is a dangerous cult.
So is liberalism.

[Epic Fail Guy]

Yes, cult research happens to be one of my fields of interest. I don't think I've ever come across an actual live Scientologist.

I do recall seeing their literature placed in doctor's offices around here, though. I think it is rather insulting -- you're in a doctor's office, perhaps for something serious like cancer or pneumonia, and this group's literature is telling you that your suffering is imaginary, or a result of improper thinking.

Don't bother chasing after a real scientologist, they will just spew their mantra of "Scientology works and it helps people."

however, if you want to help...

www.whyweprotest.net

[Don Quixote]

So is liberalism.

Hmm. I would stop short of saying that all (modern) liberalism is a cult. Perhaps certain flavors of it -- the Obama Cult, maybe the Clintonistas -- but not all. What it is, is a worldview that seeks to destroy, or at least change significantly, our social, political, moral, and economic institutions, as I'm sure you know.

[Don Quixote]

Don't bother chasing after a real scientologist, they will just spew their mantra of "Scientology works and it helps people."

however, if you want to help...

www.whyweprotest.net

Oh, I know full well about these people. I know people at Watchman Fellowship (www.watchman.org) and at the seminary who specialize in it.

My specialty is flipping Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, one JW with whom I was working renounced the Society just this week and is now a Christian.

But, back to Palin ... I am sure there will be an ethics complaint about her alleged association.

[Wild Cobra]

With a good 90%+ lies about Sarah Palin, are we expected to believe this? Attacks against her are no longer credible, at all!

[Don Quixote]

Totally. I'm open to legitimate criticism of her from the Right. And I'm not saying she should be our candidate in 2012. But this trashing of her has got to stop. And you would think the Left would LOVE a strong, independent woman like her.

[Epic Fail Guy]

With a good 90%+ lies about Sarah Palin, are we expected to believe this? Attacks against her are no longer credible, at all!

This guy is Greta's husband, and she's a scilion as well. Looks like trufax to me!

[Epic Fail Guy]

Oh, I know full well about these people. I know people at Watchman Fellowship (www.watchman.org (http://www.watchman.org)) and at the seminary who specialize in it.

My specialty is flipping Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, one JW with whom I was working renounced the Society just this week and is now a Christian.

But, back to Palin ... I am sure there will be an ethics complaint about her alleged association.

the thing is, we, Anonymous, want more than to flip the ex's...though that is a noble cause.

JCbKv9yiLiQ

[Ignignokt]

the thing is, we, Anonymous, want more than to flip the ex's...though that is a noble cause.

JCbKv9yiLiQ


Say what you will, Scientologist never fainted infront of ron hubbard.

[Epic Fail Guy]

Say what you will, Scientologist never fainted infront of ron hubbard.

what? if that was sarcasm it failed.

and they may not have fainted in front of him, but a few were thrown off his yatch by him...

[baseline bum]

Yes, cult research happens to be one of my fields of interest. I don't think I've ever come across an actual live Scientologist.

I have met a couple of ex-Scientologists, and what they tell me is the church tries to make them confess every skeleton in their closet as early as possible so they can blackmail them. Hence, you never see any rich or famous Scientologists ever leave the church. They always pull people who are down on their luck, at their weakest, and willing to spill their guts.

[Don Quixote]

They are indeed a virulent cult. If someone I knew joined them, I would get in touch with someone who does interventions.

Steve Hassan wrote a book on this, "Combatting Cult Mind Control." It's on my shelf. An excellent resource. I wouldn't do an intervention on a Jehovah's Witness, unless they JUST joined, but there are a couple of good techniques to use on them.

I still don't see what this has to do with Sarah the Arctic Fox. Did this Scientologist ever try to kill U.S. soldiers?

[Cry Havoc]

So is liberalism.

You're right.

The party that nominates Ms. Palin as a VP and perhaps for the top spot in the US is clearly less dangerous than them damn liberals.

And yes, I'm aware that McCain nominated her. They still pushed her. They could have decided not to play the partisan game and said, "no thanks". Instead they treated the Palin nomination like it's a Godsend, something that was an incredibly intelligent decision, instead of an idiotic, high-school drama act of posturing and hype.

[Twisted_Dawg]

"Coale is no Scientology slouch; according to a web site that tracks public announcements of Scientology course completions, he appears to have reached OT-VII, the cult's second most powerful level. His most recent training, in 2005, was in how to "detect and handle suppressive persons"—"

Dang that would come in handy dealing with my ex-wife!

[George Gervin's Afro]

With a good 90%+ lies about Sarah Palin, are we expected to believe this? Attacks against her are no longer credible, at all!

So if 90%+ of criticisms/lies are level against a politician then any attacks are no longer credible?

[Cry Havoc]

With a good 90%+ lies about Sarah Palin, are we expected to believe this? Attacks against her are no longer credible, at all!

Defending Sarah Palin?

You're such a partisan hack. If she was a Dem you'd be ripping her like there's no tomorrow.

[Epic Fail Guy]

I have met a couple of ex-Scientologists, and what they tell me is the church tries to make them confess every skeleton in their closet as early as possible so they can blackmail them. Hence, you never see any rich or famous Scientologists ever leave the church. They always pull people who are down on their luck, at their weakest, and willing to spill their guts.

http://www.exscn.net/
http://www.exscientologykids.com/

Knowledge is free.
We are Anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.

[Epic Fail Guy]

"Coale is no Scientology slouch; according to a web site that tracks public announcements of Scientology course completions, he appears to have reached OT-VII, the cult's second most powerful level. His most recent training, in 2005, was in how to "detect and handle suppressive persons"—"

Dang that would come in handy dealing with my ex-wife!

There's more, which is what concerns me.


In 1986 the Church of Scientology, wanting to get involved in Political Action Committees but knowing they couldn't do that while pretending to be a religion/church, held seminars for scientologists to teach them about the US government, PACs, and how to develop and use contacts in the government to make scientology more amenable to the US government and for scientology to gain more power over the government.

The Church of Scientology wrote "We have been advised by legislative consultants, by allies who are experienced with the government and Congress and even by congressmen themselves that the only viable way to get the attention, assistance or support of politicians is to be in a position to deliver to them either (or both) of their most sought after needs - MONEY and VOTES."

John Coale & John Stanard were the main participants. A seminar and fund raiser was held in January 1986 at the Ft Harrison Hotel in Clearwater Florida, the location of the Church of Scientology's most advanced church at the time.

The Church of Scientology to this day initiates and controls PACs. This was probably one of the earlier ones and the documents are very revealing.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=71PO0WW4

[RandomGuy]

Wow ... just wow.

And Fail Guy beat Basketball Dan to this important, amazing scoop. I'm impressed.

Long time no see.

welcome back.

[RandomGuy]

Say what you will, Scientologist never fainted infront of ron hubbard.

That's because they know that the other Scientologists would eat them.

Raw.

[Epic Fail Guy]

That's because they know that the other Scientologists would eat them.

Raw.

Nah, they'd just use the BRING BACK ALIVE TECH that worked so well on Jett Travolta

[Wild Cobra]

And you would think the Left would LOVE a strong, independent woman like her.
No shit. Just another reason they give me to call them libtards. She is the model for feminism. She has a great job and family both. She has it all. But no. She is a threat to the left, so she has to be destroyed, at any and all costs. Cant have other women striving for what feminism really stood for.


So if 90%+ of criticisms/lies are level against a politician then any attacks are no longer credible?
At face value. No. There has to be some rather credible evidence to back up allegations.

She was trashed and lied to over and over. The slander never stopped, and still continues. Nothing said against her in the negative has any credibility for anyone with an IQ above 80, without solid evidence now.

[clambake]

you guys are so wrong.

we absolutely love that dumbass.

[ChumpDumper]

Has she figured out what news periodicals she reads yet?

[baseline bum]

Totally. I'm open to legitimate criticism of her from the Right. And I'm not saying she should be our candidate in 2012. But this trashing of her has got to stop. And you would think the Left would LOVE a strong, independent woman like her.

:lmao

You don't really believe in her, do you? This is some act, right?

:lmao

[Don Quixote]

Defending Sarah Palin?

You're such a partisan hack. If she was a Dem you'd be ripping her like there's no tomorrow.

Well, I'm not saying we can't criticize her. I personally support Sarah Palin because (a) she shares my values - that is, I agree with the substance with her platform, and (b) I have a soft spot for people who get trashed the way she does. I figure, if the Left and the media are that allergic to her, there must be something good about her.

And she doesn't act or talk like a Beltway insider? I say, GOOD! The Republic needs more people like her.

Am I endorsing her for President in 2012? No, we're still too far out. And I'm fine with critiquing her positions on issues (energy, security, et al). But let's leave this appalling treatment of her in junior high where it belongs.

[Ignignokt]

what? if that was sarcasm it failed.

and they may not have fainted in front of him, but a few were thrown off his yatch by him...

:lol, do you care honestly?

if he does his job well who cares, it's unconstitutional to have a litmus test for those reasons.

[Don Quixote]

:lmao

You don't really believe in her, do you? This is some act, right?

:lmao

Actually, I do believe in her, thank you. Alot of us on the Right do. Like I said, I'm not at all interested in perpetuating the Left's image of her, cultivated by the media. I'm interested in (a) her positions, and (b) how effectively she governs. Long story short, she passes both tests, at least for me. Does she lay on the folksiness a bit too thick sometimes? Yeah. But you know where she stands on things. (The President, he's a tougher one to figure out. I still don't know what he believes.)

That said, Palin was misused by, and probably a poor fit for, the McCain campaign. Unlike Obama, she's best off the teleprompter. McCain would have been better off just unleashing her on O-Biden during the "debate," TV interviews, etc., instead of this scripted nonsense.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, I do believe in her:rollin

[Don Quixote]

Long time no see.

welcome back.

Yeah, I sold my soul, again. I don't get interested in basketball until Feb these days, and don't make it over to ST until at least 1 March. And it's better if I stay away from the political forum altogether.

But good to hear from you, probably the smartest lefty here.

[mogrovejo]

Woodrow Wilson was very probably the most educated and intellectually brilliant American president. He was also, IMO, one of the worst. Churchill was a terrible student and what one today would call a "jock" but he basically saved a continent.

I personally don't care for Pallin, but the idea that over-educated cosmopolitans make better political leaders is so naif that it becomes amusing.

[Don Quixote]

You make a great point. Some of our worst leaders have been among the brightest and best-educated. I challenge some of you to read up on the educations of Pol Pot, Castro, Idi Amin, as well as those of the (admittedly less-bloody) American leaders (e.g., Roosevelt, Clinton, Bush, Wilson, and Obama. Throw in Churchill as well.)

I don't mean to be anti-intellectual. Indeed, I am for book-larnin. But we need to dispose of this myth that an Ivy-league education and great rhetorical skills automatically makes one qualified for elected office. What about character? What about one's view of the Constitution? Those things matter too.

And can we not examine the toxic values of many in govt who came from the Ivy League? As my hero William F. Buckley said, I would rather be governed by the first 1000 names in the phone book than by the faculty at Harvard. The issue here is not academic acumen (Obama has it no doubt). It is character and personal convictions that I care about. And Palin has them. I am much more interested in those things than in one's personal style, rhetorical ability, photogeneity (Palin IS photogenic, though).

[Bartleby]

UFBZ_uAbxS0

[baseline bum]

You make a great point. Some of our worst leaders have been among the brightest and best-educated. I challenge some of you to read up on the educations of Pol Pot, Castro, Idi Amin, as well as those of the (admittedly less-bloody) American leaders (e.g., Roosevelt, Clinton, Bush, Wilson, and Obama. Throw in Churchill as well.)

I don't mean to be anti-intellectual. Indeed, I am for book-larnin. But we need to dispose of this myth that an Ivy-league education and great rhetorical skills automatically makes one qualified for elected office. What about character? What about one's view of the Constitution? Those things matter too.

And can we not examine the toxic values of many in govt who came from the Ivy League? As my hero William F. Buckley said, I would rather be governed by the first 1000 names in the phone book than by the faculty at Harvard. The issue here is not academic acumen (Obama has it no doubt). It is character and personal convictions that I care about. And Palin has them. I am much more interested in those things than in one's personal style, rhetorical ability, photogeneity (Palin IS photogenic, though).

We elected an anti-intellectual who only got into Harvard as a legacy to run this country, and look where it got us.

[sook]

http://imagebot.org/debate.jpg

[CubanMustGo]

http://imagebot.org/debate.jpg

I don't care much for Palin but shit like this is about as asinine and uncalled for as it comes.

[Epic Fail Guy]

:lol, do you care honestly?

if he does his job well who cares, it's unconstitutional to have a litmus test for those reasons.

We're not asking for a litmus test, we're asking for an investigation into the criminal activities that the Cult of Scientology participates in and a repeal of the tax-exempt status the cult currently enjoys.

[Epic Fail Guy]

UFBZ_uAbxS0

Great example. $cientology proceeded to try to pressure YouTube to remove this video because it made them look bad. They failed, epically, and unleashed a wave of protests against them which has turned into the Chanology movement you see today.

[Don Quixote]

We elected an anti-intellectual who only got into Harvard as a legacy to run this country, and look where it got us.

Nobody at ST is smarter or better informed than George Bush. Nobody.

Is he plain-spoken? Yes. Wrong on some things? Possibly. But an idiot, or an anti-intellectual? Not even close.

We would all be better served if we just dropped the old conservatives are idiots, liberals are geniuses meme, and be willing to admit that our political opponents are at least as smart, or moral, or honest as we are. That would go a long way.

[baseline bum]

Nobody at ST is smarter or better informed than George Bush. Nobody.

Is he plain-spoken? Yes. Wrong on some things? Possibly. But an idiot, or an anti-intellectual? Not even close.

We would all be better served if we just dropped the old conservatives are idiots, liberals are geniuses meme, and be willing to admit that our political opponents are at least as smart, or moral, or honest as we are. That would go a long way.

Republicans have earned that label with the way they hide behind the bible and shit on science and education. Bush is a fucking retard who only looks smart if you compare him to shitheads like Palin. Oh yeah, Bush is a genius getting suckered into Rumsfeld's and Cheney's idiotic plans to go into Iraq with a force way smaller than the Army wanted. That worked well keeping peace after the invasion. Great call on Chalabi, the INC, and let's not forget the yellowcake. Awesome presentation to the UN where the Bush Administration was using drawings as evidence. :lol Nice cuts to the Pell Grants too when our nation is being killed by China and India in producing engineers. I know; college is brainwashing to the anti-intellectuals and church is Truth. Thanks also for telling Fermilab to fuck off in their search for the Higgs Boson. :tu

[Ignignokt]

Republicans have earned that label with the way they hide behind the bible and shit on science and education. Bush is a fucking retard who only looks smart if you compare him to shitheads like Palin. Oh yeah, Bush is a genius getting suckered into Rumsfeld's and Cheney's idiotic plans to go into Iraq with a force way smaller than the Army wanted. That worked well keeping peace after the invasion. Great call on Chalabi, the INC, and let's not forget the yellowcake. Awesome presentation to the UN where the Bush Administration was using drawings as evidence. :lol Nice cuts to the Pell Grants too when our nation is being killed by China and India in producing engineers. I know; college is brainwashing to the anti-intellectuals and church is Truth. Thanks also for telling Fermilab to fuck off in their search for the Higgs Boson. :tu

First of all, no way are you smarter or more informed than Bush, i know that's something reall easy to say because it's the cool thing to say.

Shit on science and education? LOLOLOL!

While there may be truth to taht , it's not like you're party shits on science by exaggerating global warming, and using scare tactics.

And shitting on education, if democrat policies were more than pumping money into education, maybe no one would have to shit on shit education.

[Don Quixote]

Republicans have earned that label with the way they hide behind the bible and poop on science and education. Bush is a retard who only looks smart if you compare him to dunderheads like Palin. Oh yeah, Bush is a genius getting suckered into Rumsfeld's and Cheney's idiotic plans to go into Iraq with a force way smaller than the Army wanted. That worked well keeping peace after the invasion. Great call on Chalabi, the INC, and let's not forget the yellowcake. Awesome presentation to the UN where the Bush Administration was using drawings as evidence. :lol Nice cuts to the Pell Grants too when our nation is being killed by China and India in producing engineers. I know; college is brainwashing to the anti-intellectuals and church is Truth. Thanks also for telling Fermilab to get lost in their search for the Higgs Boson. :tu

:sleep Got anything new?

Well ... it's good to know what you think of me. And us. We are anti-intellectual fundamentalists who vote for idiots. And I take it libs, then, are intellectuals who would never be unduly influenced by anti-religious, fundamentalist, zealotry. And liberal pols are brilliant. Got it.

[Ignignokt]

*that

[baseline bum]

:sleep Got anything new?

Well ... it's good to know what you think of me. And us. We are anti-intellectual fundamentalists who vote for idiots. And I take it libs, then, are intellectuals who would never be unduly influenced by anti-religious, fundamentalist, zealotry. And liberal pols are brilliant. Got it.

I never said Democrats earned some genius label.

[ploto]

I know for a fact that there are quite a number of people on here who are definitely SMARTER than George Bush.

[Don Quixote]

I never said Democrats earned some genius label.

Okay, sorry. That's the typical meme -- that conservatives are stupid, against book-larnin, fixated on God, gays, and guns, and liberals are, well, the opposite. But if you can admit that Democrats are not, in fact, all geniuses, then we are at least on step one for a meaningful dialogue. The next step would be to admit that quite a few conservatives are, indeed, quite smart. Very few important conservative thinkers are fundamentalists (I myself am a conservative evangelical, not a fund.), and some don't even believe in God (e.g., Derbyshire, Goldberg, Krauthammer). There in fact a wide variety of approaches to science, education, and public policy in the conservative movement. But what we are NOT is anti-intellectual, and I would appreciate dropping that asinine attitude towards us. Please.

[PixelPusher]

Nobody at ST is smarter or better informed than George Bush. Nobody.

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

ST:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99645&highlight=high+prices

vs.

George Bush:
RCp6woQzU1g

[Don Quixote]

I know for a fact that there are quite a number of people on here who are definitely SMARTER than George Bush.

Better public speakers? Sure. But smarter? I doubt it. I'd be willing to wager that no one on ST is smarter than any of the current living Presidents.

I know this totally screws with the minds of many. It is a first article of faith for most libs (and alot of non-libs) that George Bush is a moron. To them, it is a truism and could not possibly be false, any more than a circle could have corners. But I'm cool like that -- I like to break with convention. I'm not even convinced that Obama is the most brilliant man of the 20th century, or ever. Smart? Absolutely. A great speaker? None better. Possessed of a flawed, toxic ideology that he picked up in the Ivy League (and in the pews of Trinity), which was never challenged and I don't think he thought through? I think so.

[Ignignokt]

http://www.rasmusen.org/x/archives/000268.html

bush had a higher iq than kerry, also his SAT scores were 1206 before adjustment which is above the 85% which was also higher than Bill Bradleys.

If people want to find the SAT scores for Obama, good luck. They're in hiding seeing how the public can only take info on his awesomeness one nugget at a time.

[Ignignokt]

Who was the stupidest U.S. president?
June 22, 2001
Dear Cecil:

I understand that Thomas Jefferson was our smartest president. Who was our stupidest? Second stupidest? A related pair of questions: Did Yale not have an admissions department in the 1960s? If it did, doesn't it owe the country an apology?

Dear Cecil::

I realize there's probably no way the following can be determined with utter certainty. But in the best judgment of presidential scholars, have any of our chief executives--in addition to Ulysses S. Grant and George W. Bush, I mean--been alcoholics?

— Chris Lamb the elder, Baltimore ; David English, Somerville, Massachusetts

I get the feeling you guys are trying to make a point here. But this is no time to be coy. Let's put the question bluntly: Is George W. Bush the stupidest person ever to serve as U.S. president? If not, who is? And isn't he a drunk besides? It's all the fault of those goddamn Republicans on the Supreme Court. Why, I oughta . . .

There, there. Let's take this one step at a time.

(1) Is George W. Bush stupid? We have pretty good data here. In 1999 the NewYorker obtained a copy of the future president's Yale transcript and revealed that he'd had a C average in college and, more interestingly, scored 1206 on his Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)--566 on the verbal and 640 on the math.

To find out how this score stacked up, I called Educational Testing Service, publisher of the SAT, and learned that in 1994, SAT scores had been "re-centered." To offset the steady downward drift of test scores over the years, the scoring scale was adjusted upward so that the mean score for both math and verbal was again 500 (the midpoint on a scale of 200 to 800). Those who took the test before 1994 are now entitled to add a prescribed amount to their scores to see how they compare to students today. Having made the necessary adjustment, Little Ed announced, "I got 800 on my verbal! I'm a direct beneficiary of the stupidity of the American public!" Doing the same for Bush gives him 640 on both verbal and math, good enough for 88th percentile on the verbal and 86th in math were he entering college now. Those scores may not be as high as mine, of course, or even Al Gore's (625 verbal, 730 math unadjusted), but they ain't bad.

Then again, I recall having seen a college guide circa 1970 that listed the average SAT for Yale freshmen as about 670 in verbal, 705 in math. So Bush was well below average for his class. He must have written a great essay.

(2) Is Bush the stupidest president? Doubtful, but here the data is lacking. You can get a book called The Intelligence of Dogs but not The Intelligence of Presidents. I refrain from the obvious jokes. The best I could come up with was a 1926 list in which intelligence researcher Catharine M. Cox estimated the IQs of 300 famous people based on their achievements in childhood and early adulthood. Presidents ran the gamut from John Quincy Adams (165) to Thomas Jefferson (150) to Ulysses Grant (125). She didn't single out stupid presidents, but near the top of everyone's list you're sure to find Warren G. Harding, probably the nation's least competent chief executive, who described himself as "a man of limited talents from a small town. . . . I don't seem to grasp that I am president." Among presidents since FDR, political scientist Fred I. Greenstein (Presidential Difference: Leadership Style From FDR to Clinton) cites Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan as being "marked by cognitive limitations," although even detractors would concede they had their gifts.

Smarts aren't easy to judge. Greenstein gives John F. Kennedy high marks for brains, but according to biographer Thomas C. Reeves (author of the infamous A Question of Character), Kennedy as a kid scored a less-than-brilliant 119 on the Otis Intelligence Test and graduated 65th out of 110 at Choate. And remember Bill Bradley, who everybody considered brainy but boring? His verbal SAT score, according to Slate: just 485.

(3) As for alcoholic presidents . . . define alcoholic. According to The Health of the Presidents (1994) by John M. Bumgarner, the following were heavy drinkers: Martin Van Buren, Franklin Pierce (died of cirrhosis), James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson (appeared drunk at the inauguration in 1865), Ulysses S. Grant, and Chester A. Arthur. The next edition may include George W., who had that 1976 drunk driving conviction. Regarding other substance abuse . . . does it count if you don't inhale?

— Cecil Adams

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2310/who-was-the-stupidest-u-s-president

[LockBeard]

All it takes to be a good president is common sense and principles....and an appreciation of the founding principles for which this country was built upon which Obama certainly does not have.

Brains brains brains....< Common sense.

[baseline bum]

http://www.rasmusen.org/x/archives/000268.html

bush had a higher iq than kerry, also his SAT scores were 1206 before adjustment which is above the 85% which was also higher than Bill Bradleys.

If people want to find the SAT scores for Obama, good luck. They're in hiding seeing how the public can only take info on his awesomeness one nugget at a time.

Not all of us can afford to take expensive KAPLAN classes to teach us the SAT. Even so, 1206 (is it even possible to have a score not divisible by 10?) doesn't do much to support the idea of Bush being smarter than us.

[Ignignokt]

Not all of us can afford to take expensive KAPLAN classes to teach us the SAT. Even so, 1206 (is it even possible to have a score not divisible by 10?) doesn't do much to support the idea of Bush being smarter than us.

It's 1250 after the 1994 SAT adjustment, nuance.

[Epic Fail Guy]

Guiding the thread back to the topic...

http://gawker.com/5185380/sarah-palin-advisers-secret-scientology-plot-to-take-over-washington

When it rains, it pours.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, Palin didn't have anyone to pray with before the debate, so she is now blaming her shitty performance as a candidate on God.

[Wild Cobra]

I have met a couple of ex-Scientologists, and what they tell me is the church tries to make them confess every skeleton in their closet as early as possible so they can blackmail them. Hence, you never see any rich or famous Scientologists ever leave the church. They always pull people who are down on their luck, at their weakest, and willing to spill their guts.
This is possible true.

When I was 18, I was walking in downtown Portland, and struck up a conversation with a beautiful girl. We walked for a few blocks and ended up in "The Church of Scientology." I never knew what it was before, but went there again with her. Needless to say, that was enough for me. I didn't like their methods, beliefs, or strategies. It wouldn't surprise me what you say is true. I never went to the church again, or saw her again either.

[Wild Cobra]

Defending Sarah Palin?

You're such a partisan hack. If she was a Dem you'd be ripping her like there's no tomorrow.
Yes, I rip up democrats all the time. It's too damn easy to do with verifiable facts. I don't need to rip them up with lies and slander.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, I do believe in her, thank you. Alot of us on the Right do. Like I said, I'm not at all interested in perpetuating the Left's image of her, cultivated by the media. I'm interested in (a) her positions, and (b) how effectively she governs. Long story short, she passes both tests, at least for me. Does she lay on the folksiness a bit too thick sometimes? Yeah. But you know where she stands on things. (The President, he's a tougher one to figure out. I still don't know what he believes.)

That said, Palin was misused by, and probably a poor fit for, the McCain campaign. Unlike Obama, she's best off the teleprompter. McCain would have been better off just unleashing her on O-Biden during the "debate," TV interviews, etc., instead of this scripted nonsense.
Well said. I too will criticize her when it is warranted. I'm simply tired of the slander tactics used constantly by the left.

Has there been anything important to criticize her about?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't care much for Palin but shit like this is about as asinine and uncalled for as it comes.
But lies, name calling, deception, and slander is all the left knows how to do. You don't expect them to be realistic do you?

[RandomGuy]

. [george bush] must have written a great essay [to make up for his sub-par SAT scores]

Actually it was the essay that his father wrote that really got him into Yale.

At great personal expense and risk I have obtained a copy of that essay, and can provide, exclusively to Spurstalk, a brief exceprt of the essay that got George HW into Yale.

Here they are, the first few words of the essay that got our last president into Yale:

"Pay the order of..."

[Wild Cobra]

"Pay the order of..."
It's a sad fact of life that such a thing happens. I'll bet that was how Kerry got in good schools as well.

[RandomGuy]

It's a sad fact of life that such a thing happens. I'll bet that was how Kerry got in good schools as well.

It would not surprise me.

What would surprise me is if a pampered rich kid would volunteer to go to a war zone, like Gore and Kerry did in Vietnam. :p:

[Oh, Gee!!]

we can all agree that W was disaster

[Wild Cobra]

It would not surprise me.

What would surprise me is if a pampered rich kid would volunteer to go to a war zone, like Gore and Kerry did in Vietnam. :p:

At least president Bush had what it took to become an aviator...

[Oh, Gee!!]

bush can't spell aviator

[Wild Cobra]

we can all agree that W was disaster
No, we can not agree on that. I dislike some of his proposed policies like Amnesty for illegals, but he was overall a good president.

[ChumpDumper]

At least president Bush had what it took to become an aviator...He was certainly motivated to avoid going to war.

And he was a horrible president. Ignoring terrorism until 9/11 then using as an excuse to start an unnecessary war trumps anything positive he may have ever done.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, we can not agree on that. I dislike some of his proposed policies like Amnesty for illegals, but he was overall a good president.

stfu--don't you have some strippers to pay for acting as though they like you?

[Wild Cobra]

stfu--don't you have some strippers to pay for acting as though they like you?
Like always, you have nothing intelligent to say.

For You Oh Gee... From one of my Bartender/Dancer friends:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/IMAG0221-1.jpg

[exstatic]

Nobody at ST is smarter or better informed than George Bush. Nobody.

I think that's a pretty bold and nonsensical statement. If you know the group of people that founded this site, you'd know that they had been on the internet for some time. Those types of people tended to be from science/research or computer related jobs. I know that I can unabashedly call Dubyah stupid if those mid 80s percentile scores posted for him are accurate. Lest I be mocked like WC, who boasted his shit unsolicited, If there were a MENSA inside of MENSA, I'd only be a couple of percentage points from being eligible for that. For all that (and remember, you started this and threw the challenge down), baseline bum leaves me in the dust. He's a true math/physics/computer genius, and I would guestimate that his IQ is probably in the 150s to 160s range. Sorry if I guessed low, bb. :)

Don't think that there aren't extremely smart people posting here, or that if there are, they are automatically conservative. I hate what the GOP has become: the Christian Taliban. The hypocrisy of the so called Right to Life movement never ceases to amaze me. They fight to save a few unaware cells, but have no problem supporting capital punishment or any war/conflict that comes down the pike. It's OK to sacrifice young men and women to preserve your stock portfolio and way of life, but not to use some embryo that is one of 20 started for a couple, that will never be implanted, to further spinal cord repair research? WTF? That is stupid, and anti-intellectual, and de rigeur for the GOP these days.

[ChumpDumper]

Like always, you have nothing intelligent to say.

For You Oh Gee... From one of my Bartender/Dancer friends:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/IMGP0099small.jpgShe's flipping you off, flaglot.

[Wild Cobra]

She's flipping you off, flaglot.

Except I asked her permission to use this picture for this purpose!

Why are you always so ignorant. You are intelligent enough to know you should know what you're talking about, or am I wrong?

[ChumpDumper]

Except I asked her permission to use this picture for this purpose!:rollin You simply don't realize how lame you are, do you?

[Wild Cobra]

:rollin You simply don't realize how lame you are, do you?
You're the lame one. You talk out your ass not knowing the facts.

I was out with Amanda last night. Her and her cousin. We celebrated her 30th birthday at a couple places. Neither were dance clubs. The picture I posted was taken on the 25th at a regular bar she works at.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, can I post a picture of you to prove that women talk to me? Thx.

[Wild Cobra]

See just how lame you are...

Slanderous bitch.

[ChumpDumper]

See just how lame you are...

Slanderous bitch.:lmao
You're the lame one. You talk out your ass not knowing the facts.You still pull slander out of your ass without knowing what it means.

[ChumpDumper]

[Awaits WC's asking permission of some chick in a bar to post a picture of her holding a dictionary]

[George Gervin's Afro]

Like always, you have nothing intelligent to say.

For You Oh Gee... From one of my Bartender/Dancer friends:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/IMGP0099small.jpg

It looks like you weirded her out... I guess I'm not the only one.

[Wild Cobra]

It looks like you weirded her out... I guess I'm not the only one.
Yea, right. She posed for me. I have more pictures of the 25th and last night. Most certainly not going to post them for you assholes.

[ChumpDumper]

Nobody asked for the first one.

[CubanMustGo]

But lies, name calling, deception, and slander is all the left knows how to do. You don't expect them to be realistic do you?

Don't go holier than thou on me, you asshole. You and your ilk are just as bad as 'the left' you like to lump into a single pot.

[clambake]

Like always, you have nothing intelligent to say.

For You Oh Gee... From one of my Bartender/Dancer friends:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/IMGP0099small.jpg

i fucking knew it.

like i said before, where are all her bullet wounds?

[RandomGuy]

You're the lame one. You talk out your ass not knowing the facts.

Don't make me drag up that thread where you swore up and down that teen pregnacies today are more prevalent than 30 years ago, and I found a compilation of data that showed the exact opposite.

[Bartleby]

I couldn't find any photos of my bartender/dancer friends, but here is a painting of one of them:

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii297/babbalanja/bargirl2.jpg

(If you look closely you can see me in the mirror)

[Cry Havoc]

See, this is the part where I could post a picture of my girlfriend, but I really don't feel the need to prove how cool I am in order to bolster my confidence to talk politics. :lol

This thread is heading for epic status at WC's incredible failboat.

And since we're talking about how Dubya's SAT makes him so intelligent, I scored WELL above Dubya's SAT score, adjusted or not. :lmao Does that mean I consider myself more intelligent than Bush? I have no idea, as I've never met the man or talked to him personally, and I'm not going to say that a higher SAT score means I'm smarter than he is.

I DO think there are SEVERAL individuals on this forum who are much more intelligent than Bush (and I would be willing to throw down a bet that FromWayDowntown has several points on Bush in any measure of intellect you can come up with).

I DO have serious doubts about Bush's ability to discern important data and make sound decisions based on the information he's given.

I wasn't going to post in politics for a while, but Wild Cobra's ridiculousness and hypocrisy is just too hilarious not to take part in.

[LockBeard]

This thread is pretty lame.

[ploto]

It's 1250 after the 1994 SAT adjustment, nuance.

Sorry but my SAT and GRE scores blow that out of the water.

[clambake]

this has morphed into one of the best threads......ever.

thank you wild cobra.

[clambake]

i'm thinking about writing a song.

the title of the song will be "Amanda".

can anyone help me with the lyrics?

[Wild Cobra]

Don't make me drag up that thread where you swore up and down that teen pregnacies today are more prevalent than 30 years ago, and I found a compilation of data that showed the exact opposite.

Did I say pregnancies or unplanned pregnancies...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'd do Palin. Ruthlessly, recklessly, religiously.

[ClingingMars]

He was certainly motivated to avoid going to war.

And he was a horrible president. Ignoring terrorism until 9/11 then using as an excuse to start an unnecessary war trumps anything positive he may have ever done.

lol, bill clinton

[TDMVPDPOY]

nalin palin, google it and dl it....

[Don Quixote]

I think that's a pretty bold and nonsensical statement. If you know the group of people that founded this site, you'd know that they had been on the internet for some time. Those types of people tended to be from science/research or computer related jobs. I know that I can unabashedly call Dubyah stupid if those mid 80s percentile scores posted for him are accurate. Lest I be mocked like WC, who boasted his shit unsolicited, If there were a MENSA inside of MENSA, I'd only be a couple of percentage points from being eligible for that. For all that (and remember, you started this and threw the challenge down), baseline bum leaves me in the dust. He's a true math/physics/computer genius, and I would guestimate that his IQ is probably in the 150s to 160s range. Sorry if I guessed low, bb. :)

Don't think that there aren't extremely smart people posting here, or that if there are, they are automatically conservative. I hate what the GOP has become: the Christian Taliban. The hypocrisy of the so called Right to Life movement never ceases to amaze me. They fight to save a few unaware cells, but have no problem supporting capital punishment or any war/conflict that comes down the pike. It's OK to sacrifice young men and women to preserve your stock portfolio and way of life, but not to use some embryo that is one of 20 started for a couple, that will never be implanted, to further spinal cord repair research? WTF? That is stupid, and anti-intellectual, and de rigeur for the GOP these days.


A couple of quick comments on this. (1) Perhaps I overstated my case. I'm not saying W is a genius. I am saying that he is probably very bright in reality. I know most STers won't accept this -- to them it is an article of faith, a first principle, that he is an idiot.
(2) No, I haven't personally met any STers, let alone the founders of the site. I imagine at least a couple of them could probably stand toe-to-toe with any of the living Presidents. Maybe. Then again, the President has access to classified information regarding national security that the rest of us don't get. So I am positive W would whip us on anything regarding foreign policy

and lastly (3) this GOP = Christian Taliban business is so asinine as to not be worth arguing against. Taliban. Seriously. Wake me up when we start throwing burqas on women and imposing sharia. Second, while I admit that the rank-and-file conservatives need to refine their church-and-state position (when they say they want to return this nation to its Christian roots, I think they mean that moral arguments rooted in the Judeo-Christian should not be exluded merely because they are religious), it's not at all accurate to say that evangelicals control the GOP. If they did ... McCain would not have been our guy.
Also, are you familiar with some of the conservative think tanks, journals? Peruse the articles and papers at National Review, the Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, Weekly Standard, RedState, and you'll find that that evangelicals are actually a minority in these organizations.

Lastly, I agree that our respect for life ought not to be fixated on the abortion issue. The evangelical Jim Wallis (a political liberal) makes this point very clear. I do think that abortion is an assault on the very principle of life, liberty, and the pursuit (among other things), but conservatives and evangelicals ought also to be concerned with the lives of soldiers, prisoners, Iraqi civilians. So ... the Quixote Administration would carefully take these things into account before making the decision to go to war. (That said, I hold to a just-war theory.)
But this business about us going to war to line our pockets, us being anti-intellectual, against science, etc. is just slander.

[baseline bum]

I think that's a pretty bold and nonsensical statement. If you know the group of people that founded this site, you'd know that they had been on the internet for some time. Those types of people tended to be from science/research or computer related jobs. I know that I can unabashedly call Dubyah stupid if those mid 80s percentile scores posted for him are accurate. Lest I be mocked like WC, who boasted his shit unsolicited, If there were a MENSA inside of MENSA, I'd only be a couple of percentage points from being eligible for that. For all that (and remember, you started this and threw the challenge down), baseline bum leaves me in the dust. He's a true math/physics/computer genius, and I would guestimate that his IQ is probably in the 150s to 160s range. Sorry if I guessed low, bb. :)

Don't think that there aren't extremely smart people posting here, or that if there are, they are automatically conservative. I hate what the GOP has become: the Christian Taliban. The hypocrisy of the so called Right to Life movement never ceases to amaze me. They fight to save a few unaware cells, but have no problem supporting capital punishment or any war/conflict that comes down the pike. It's OK to sacrifice young men and women to preserve your stock portfolio and way of life, but not to use some embryo that is one of 20 started for a couple, that will never be implanted, to further spinal cord repair research? WTF? That is stupid, and anti-intellectual, and de rigeur for the GOP these days.

I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but that description fits Extra Stout way more than it does me, although I'll admit to destroying W's score on the SAT. I totally agree with your second paragraph though.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Except I asked her permission to use this picture for this purpose!

I hope she gave you permission to have her pic in my sig

[baseline bum]

I hope she gave you permission to have her pic in my sig

:lol

[Don Quixote]

I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but that description fits Extra Stout way more than it does me, although I'll admit to destroying W's score on the SAT.

Bud Light is pretty smart. And I have no recollection what my SAT scores were. But, like most 17-year-olds, I didn't really study that hard. But one's SAT scores are not exactly a great measure of how one will end up anyway. Augustine woke up intellectually from reading Cicero. I woke up, ironically, AFTER college. W ... I don't know.

The author of the defininite biography of Bush probably hasn't even been born yet.

(And ... I would LOVE to read what Lincoln's contemporaries thought of him. Or, I dunno, Kennedy. Or Washington.)

[baseline bum]

I don't think W's such a bad guy as much as he is a sucker; the way he was manipulated by Rumsfeld and Cheney was disgusting. No way history remembers him well unless that history is written by Ann Coulter though.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't think W's such a bad guy as much as he is a sucker; the way he was manipulated by Rumsfeld and Cheney was disgusting. No way history remembers him well unless that history is written by Ann Coulter though.

if ann coulter writes it, it will truly be history

[Don Quixote]

Hmm. Coulter is pretty partisan, but no more than Olbermann, Maher, Schlesinger, and co. But she is not a historian anyway (Schlesinger is).

Truth is, we have NO idea how the stuff Bush put in motion is going to affect things 50-100 years down the road. He could quite possible be lauded for his foresight in democratizing the Islamic world. He could be respected for his work at stemming AIDS in Africa. Or he will be known as the one who failed to secure our borders. The point is, we have no idea.

I know this violates the sentiment of ST Politics Rule #1: Bush is in no way smart, wise, decent, or competent.

[baseline bum]

You can't possibly believe he handled the Iraq War well, independent of whether we should have been there in the first place.

[Don Quixote]

You can't possibly believe he handled the Iraq War well, independent of whether we should have been there in the first place.

Well ... the initial charge went very well. You don't want to get into a hot war with the U.S. military, because you will lose very quickly.

Also, after Rumsfeld was let go, the surge helped considerably. Iraq is much, much safer now. (How long will this be? Who knows? If I'm a terrorist, I'm waiting for Obama's announced pullout date before I start moving. Until then, I lie low and train. And plan.)

But the middle part went very badly. I agree with you. That was not handled well, as many of us on the Right were saying (and writing). Were we just too nice? Too desirous of being seen as benevolent?

[baseline bum]

The initial charge? You mean the one that was massively undermanned and led to huge riots in Baghdad when there was no one to keep the peace?

[Don Quixote]

The initial charge? You mean the one that was massively undermanned and led to huge riots in Baghdad when there was no one to keep the peace?

That's how wars go sometimes. No, it wasn't close to perfect. But the military accomplished its first mission very quickly -- toppling Saddam's govt.

Would you have preferred a massive land invasion? With 100,000 or more soldiers & Marines on the ground in Baghdad? Would you (and the American media) have been willing to live with the casualties that would have surely caused? We had enough as it was! Air power, for all it does in winning a war quickly, DOES have that weakness in that there aren't as many troops on the ground to keep order.

Military doctrine is a constantly changing and fascinating field. I wish I knew more about it -- I am only a military chaplain. Are you a student of modern warfare? Tactics?

[baseline bum]

So Bush had a good first few days? In the best case, the guy had no plan. He didn't listen to a word Colin Powell told him, letting Cheney and Rumsfeld neuter the state department. He made a bet that the people of Iraq would love him for the invasion and he lost bigtime. Yes, there should have been enough troops to keep law and order in Baghdad. No, he shouldn't have just gone to the craps table with a stack of chips thinking it was his lucky day. He left Iraq in a state of chaos and didn't give a damn what his military commanders told him. What does it tell you when every general in the invasion thinks your strategy is stupid and quits?

In the most favorable analysis of the situation (for Bush), he was gullible, easily manipulated, and was in way over his head. You don't go to war on a hunch; you better have a damn good reason why you're putting Americans in the line of fire. There's no way going to war based on the alleged yellowcake was anything more than a hunch, because everyone was telling him that bad intel was bad. Any history that paints him as anything other than an incompetent president is major revisionist propaganda.

[baseline bum]

Bud Light is pretty smart. And I have no recollection what my SAT scores were. But, like most 17-year-olds, I didn't really study that hard. But one's SAT scores are not exactly a great measure of how one will end up anyway. Augustine woke up intellectually from reading Cicero. I woke up, ironically, AFTER college. W ... I don't know.

The author of the defininite biography of Bush probably hasn't even been born yet.

(And ... I would LOVE to read what Lincoln's contemporaries thought of him. Or, I dunno, Kennedy. Or Washington.)

BTW, what's up with the dig on ES? Do you have these childish names for everyone? Am I baseline cum? Or baseless scum? Either way, none of those are as insulting as calling someone Bud Light. That's uncalled for and deeply offensive to anyone who likes beer in the least.

[ChumpDumper]

lol, bill clintonYou need to look at the record to see just how badly Bush dropped the ball on terrorism that was handed to him by the Clinton administration.

Just compare the frequency of cabinet meetings regarding terrorism of the last eight months of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the bush administration.

Let us all know what you find, and then lol if you can.

[ChumpDumper]

Would you have preferred a massive land invasion? With 100,000 or more soldiers & Marines on the ground in Baghdad?Yes, dumbass. That's exactly what we would have preferred if we were going to invade.

[Ignignokt]

Yes, dumbass. That's exactly what we would have preferred if we were going to invade.

Calling don a dumbass is lame. Guy is one of the nicest and most cordial people around.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, since he pretty much described a Powell/Shinseki invasion plan to a T without realizing it, I see little to apologize for.

[Blake]

Truth is, we have NO idea how the stuff Bush put in motion is going to affect things 50-100 years down the road. He could quite possible be lauded for his foresight in democratizing the Islamic world.

what's not to laud about invading a country and shoving a political style down their throats telling them it's good for them.

[LnGrrrR]

Nobody at ST is smarter or better informed than George Bush. Nobody.

Is he plain-spoken? Yes. Wrong on some things? Possibly. But an idiot, or an anti-intellectual? Not even close.

We would all be better served if we just dropped the old conservatives are idiots, liberals are geniuses meme, and be willing to admit that our political opponents are at least as smart, or moral, or honest as we are. That would go a long way.

I don't think Bush was stupid, per se. I think he is weak in character. I think he can be easily led into doing something that he 'feels' is right, without doublechecking the facts on how successful it can be. Sometimes that leads people in the right direction... people who win in the stocks game, inventors, etc. But sometimes it goes horribly wrong.

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.rasmusen.org/x/archives/000268.html

bush had a higher iq than kerry, also his SAT scores were 1206 before adjustment which is above the 85% which was also higher than Bill Bradleys.

If people want to find the SAT scores for Obama, good luck. They're in hiding seeing how the public can only take info on his awesomeness one nugget at a time.

1206? That's it? Shoot, I maganed to get a 1360 on my SAT... though if I took it today, it'd probably be something like 1200... I haven't done high school level math in quite a while lol

[LnGrrrR]

bush can't spell aviator

lol :rollin

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Don't make me drag up that thread where you swore up and down that teen pregnacies today are more prevalent than 30 years ago, and I found a compilation of data that showed the exact opposite.


Did I say pregnancies or unplanned pregnancies...

Puh-lease. Don't try to weasel your way out of it like that.

It makes you look worse than copping up to the fact that you were talking out your ass and got caught doing it.

[LnGrrrR]

1206? That's it? Shoot, I maganed to get a 1360 on my SAT... though if I took it today, it'd probably be something like 1200... I haven't done high school level math in quite a while lol

And THIS is the post in which I put up an egregious typo... *facepalm*

[LnGrrrR]

Puh-lease. Don't try to weasel your way out of it like that.

It makes you look worse than copping up to the fact that you were talking out your ass and got caught doing it.

Cmon Randomguy... you know that "unplanned pregnancies" are well documented :D lol

"Just one last question before we help deliver your baby ma'am... did you plan to have this child? Just doing this survey, ya know...."

[RandomGuy]

That's how wars go sometimes. No, it wasn't close to perfect. But the military accomplished its first mission very quickly -- toppling Saddam's govt.

Would you have preferred a massive land invasion? With 100,000 or more soldiers & Marines on the ground in Baghdad? Would you (and the American media) have been willing to live with the casualties that would have surely caused? We had enough as it was! Air power, for all it does in winning a war quickly, DOES have that weakness in that there aren't as many troops on the ground to keep order.

Military doctrine is a constantly changing and fascinating field. I wish I knew more about it -- I am only a military chaplain. Are you a student of modern warfare? Tactics?

Actually the main problem was that US troops didn't know what to do after the shooting stopped, because they had no orders/training/guidance about it.

It wasn't the fact that there weren't enough troops, it was simply the fact that those that were there essentially stood around waiting for orders.

The Bush administration had A1, absolutely, positively, without a doubt, no clue as to what to do in Iraq after the shooting stopped, and that confusion began on day one after the war, when the ONLY security force in the country, the US military, didn't know what it was supposed to do.

[Wild Cobra]

Puh-lease. Don't try to weasel your way out of it like that.

It makes you look worse than copping up to the fact that you were talking out your ass and got caught doing it.
I specifically made that distinction in the thread.

You are weaseling your way out!

Just like that other thread where you were not distinguishing between smog and ozone.

[DarkReign]

I don't think W's such a bad guy as much as he is a sucker; the way he was manipulated by Rumsfeld and Cheney was disgusting. No way history remembers him well unless that history is written by Ann Coulter though.


Absolutely agreed. Bush was a far better President after he was forced to clean his Cabinet out in the final year.

Bush could be the smartest man to have ever lived and it will never make up for his lack of spine and vision. He was manipulated, a puppet, the patsy, the fall guy, a figurehead of the real power.

Rove, Rumsfield and Dick fucking Cheney had a great 8 years. Bush was just along for the ride.

SAT scores or not, the guy was/is a douche bag for trusting so many cretins with all his heart and soul. Even worse, he trusted them with his elected powers wholesale.

Un-fucking-forgivable.

[Don Quixote]

BTW, what's up with the dig on ES? Do you have these childish names for everyone? Am I baseline cum? Or baseless scum? Either way, none of those are as insulting as calling someone Bud Light. That's uncalled for and deeply offensive to anyone who likes beer in the least.

As a matter of fact I do. I happen to think the world of the guy you all know as Extra Stout, but to me is Bud Light.

I happen to like the childish versions of your name personally. You saved me some work.:toast

[Don Quixote]

what's not to laud about invading a country and shoving a political style down their throats telling them it's good for them.

You're right. We should be ashamed of ourselves and our constitutional, democratic, free way of life. An Islamic govt surrounded by Wahhabi Islam to its west (Saudi Arabia) and a radical Shia nation (Iran) to its east couldn't possibly be in any danger whatsoever of falling into any worse tyranny. And Saddam -- what a guy! I know I am ashamed of myself, our affluence, and way of life.

[Don Quixote]

Actually the main problem was that US troops didn't know what to do after the shooting stopped, because they had no orders/training/guidance about it.

It wasn't the fact that there weren't enough troops, it was simply the fact that those that were there essentially stood around waiting for orders.

The Bush administration had A1, absolutely, positively, without a doubt, no clue as to what to do in Iraq after the shooting stopped, and that confusion began on day one after the war, when the ONLY security force in the country, the US military, didn't know what it was supposed to do.

Perhaps true. I am not a military strategist. I need to study up on it. But we can all agree that the American public (and media) would never have stood for the mass casualties that having that many boots on the ground would surely have caused. We chose Air Power, for better or for worse.

But that's over now. The question now is ... will Obama see us through Afghanistan? (Another thread ... this one is about Palin and her close 20-year association in the Church of Scientology, whose local chapter is rabidly anti-American. Right?)

[LockBeard]

Is Obama going to do anything about the United States Military being in over 100 countries?

[Don Quixote]

So Bush had a good first few days? In the best case, the guy had no plan. He didn't listen to a word Colin Powell told him, letting Cheney and Rumsfeld neuter the state department. He made a bet that the people of Iraq would love him for the invasion and he lost bigtime. Yes, there should have been enough troops to keep law and order in Baghdad. No, he shouldn't have just gone to the craps table with a stack of chips thinking it was his lucky day. He left Iraq in a state of chaos and didn't give a damn what his military commanders told him. What does it tell you when every general in the invasion thinks your strategy is stupid and quits?

In the most favorable analysis of the situation (for Bush), he was gullible, easily manipulated, and was in way over his head. You don't go to war on a hunch; you better have a damn good reason why you're putting Americans in the line of fire. There's no way going to war based on the alleged yellowcake was anything more than a hunch, because everyone was telling him that bad intel was bad. Any history that paints him as anything other than an incompetent president is major revisionist propaganda.

Hmm. Again, I don't think you can have revisionism until you have a defininite history to begin with. And we simply don't know the dynamics in the White House all that well. Everyone involved is still living, and working. Give it 20 years.

I have heard this debate from the Left. Was Bush the driving force, the evil malevolent personality behind this whole mess? Or was it Cheney? Rumsfeld? Why is Powell the good guy? That is far from settled itself. What if Bush was not being suckered and made these decisions himself? I know, again, this violates ST Politics Rule #1: Bush is in no way competent, intelligent, or moral.

There's more to say here, but the Iraq argument is tiresome to me.

Lastly, I personally object to the characterization of our casualties (I'm former Air Force, now Army, set to deploy next year) as victims. Not that you do this. 100% of us volunteered. All of us joined because we wanted to be in. Not all of us agree with Iraq or pretty much anything coming out of DC, but we're in because we believe in our way of life, freedom, and defending it. It is worth fighting for. It is worth dying for. So the brave men and women coming back in bags were not helpless victims. We all know full well what going to war possibly involves.

[baseline bum]

You're right. We should be ashamed of ourselves and our constitutional, democratic, free way of life. An Islamic govt surrounded by Wahhabi Islam to its west (Saudi Arabia) and a radical Shia nation (Iran) to its east couldn't possibly be in any danger whatsoever of falling into any worse tyranny. And Saddam -- what a guy! I know I am ashamed of myself, our affluence, and way of life.

You don't really believe this garbage do you? Explain Chile to me if we give a crap about freedom and democratically elected leadership.

[baseline bum]

Hmm. Again, I don't think you can have revisionism until you have a defininite history to begin with. And we simply don't know the dynamics in the White House all that well. Everyone involved is still living, and working. Give it 20 years.

I have heard this debate from the Left. Was Bush the driving force, the evil malevolent personality behind this whole mess? Or was it Cheney? Rumsfeld? Why is Powell the good guy? That is far from settled itself. What if Bush was not being suckered and made these decisions himself? I know, again, this violates ST Politics Rule #1: Bush is in no way competent, intelligent, or moral.

There's more to say here, but the Iraq argument is tiresome to me.

Lastly, I personally object to the characterization of our casualties (I'm former Air Force, now Army, set to deploy next year) as victims. Not that you do this. 100% of us volunteered. All of us joined because we wanted to be in. Not all of us agree with Iraq or pretty much anything coming out of DC, but we're in because we believe in our way of life, freedom, and defending it. It is worth fighting for. It is worth dying for. So the brave men and women coming back in bags were not helpless victims. We all know full well what going to war possibly involves.

There is absolutely no way to argue that the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney plan was anything but a disaster. Why should we give something 20 years? No matter what happens in the future, the initial execution of the war was either idiocy or criminal, depending on whether our leadership was stupid or malevolent. I don't see how invading Iraq is defending our way of life. They never attacked us. It's wholly equivalent to me seeing a black man running out my house with a TV so I go to the Eastside with an AK and start spraying the neighborhood.

As for Powell, he's the good guy because he was the highest voice of reason telling those morons their plan was stupid, that Chalabi was a massive fraud, that all of the bad "evidence" for WMDs was bad, etc. I mean, why listen to the four star general about war when you can instead follow the guy who served in the Navy for like 3 years?

[ChumpDumper]

Hmm. Again, I don't think you can have revisionism until you have a defininite history to begin with. And we simply don't know the dynamics in the White House all that well.Those who have chosen not to be ignorant know the dynamics are already well-documented.

[Blake]

Lastly, I personally object to the characterization of our casualties (I'm former Air Force, now Army, set to deploy next year) as victims. Not that you do this. 100% of us volunteered. All of us joined because we wanted to be in. Not all of us agree with Iraq or pretty much anything coming out of DC, but we're in because we believe in our way of life, freedom, and defending it. It is worth fighting for. It is worth dying for. So the brave men and women coming back in bags were not helpless victims. We all know full well what going to war possibly involves.

100% of enlisted men/women volunteered but not all of the enlisted men/women are in because of a belief system....

There's no way to determine a percentage, but many are in because of the hard core advertising and recruiting done by the armed forces and because many kids coming from poverty stricken areas want a way out.

I know I'm not the only one here that has talked to someone in the military that has talked about how the recruiters lied to them.

IMO, those are the victims.

[Don Quixote]

100% of enlisted men/women volunteered but not all of the enlisted men/women are in because of a belief system....

There's no way to determine a percentage, but many are in because of the hard core advertising and recruiting done by the armed forces and because many kids coming from poverty stricken areas want a way out.

I know I'm not the only one here that has talked to someone in the military that has talked about how the recruiters lied to them.

IMO, those are the victims.

You're right. The country is a soup kitchen. And these poor kids joined to escape.

Sadly, I think there are a few in the military who only joined for the bennies. I know some who were like that. I counsel new recruits that the call to military service is just that, a call to service. If they are not willing or able to be called upon to fight, and quite possibly die, in the name of our freedom and way of life, then the military is not for them.

That said, the overwhelming majority of Army and Air Force people I've been around around are not that way.

[Don Quixote]

You don't really believe this garbage do you? Explain Chile to me if we give a crap about freedom and democratically elected leadership.

I'm not sure what the garbage is. I am not ashamed of, nor will I ever apologize for, our Constitution, our democracy, our way of life, and our capitalism. If that's garbage, then I'm sorry.

This does not mean I support everything the U.S. gummint has done. That is asinine. Of course not! I'm not up on the Chile situation but I am aware that the U.S. propped up a dictator there. Do I support it? Probably not. But we're not talking about Chile anyway. I was responding to an angry post about us imposing our way of life on Iraq & Afghanistan. Having heard that old argument before, many times, I responded, sarcastically, that of course, a despotic (secular) Islamic govt is light-years better than freedom and constitutional democracy.

So I don't apologize for Western democracy. In fact, I believe the British Mandate was the best thing that ever happened to that region of the world. The Ottoman Empire, which collapsed in 1922, left it without any sort of modern infrastructure. The British came in, built roads, schools, hospitals, developed its natural resources (oil), and put these nations on the road to prosperity. Now left to their own devices, we are seeing how well these Islamic govts function.

[clambake]

you should apologize.

[baseline bum]

I'm not sure what the garbage is. I am not ashamed of, nor will I ever apologize for, our Constitution, our democracy, our way of life, and our capitalism. If that's garbage, then I'm sorry.

The garbage isn't our way of life; the garbage is thinking we go to wars to give everyone else our standard of living.

[Don Quixote]

I assure you that the Americans of the WW2 generation did not think that way. That, too, was a sloppy war, often poorly planned and executed, particularly the first two years. Japan attacked us, but Germany did not. Really, it took Pearl Harbor to wake up the U.S. to the fact that imperialists in Germany and Japan were busy imposing their way of life (and gummint) on others, except in their case it was fascism.

Up until 1941, America had shown little interest in meddling in world affairs. The point is, the whole American philosophy is a commitment to freedom, that it is worth fighting and dying for. Does this mean war every time? No. Sometimes, however, it is necessary. And I guarantee you that Western Europe is happy that (how many?) American boys died so that they could have "our" standard of living now, rather than the alternative. (Its present situation -- marked by a rising Islamic population and an unsustainable welfare state -- is a different matter.)

What is debatable, of course, is whether Iraq II fit the bill. Was war the last option? I'm agnostic on the matter. Saddam had been misbehaving for many years. But America's specialty is freedom, and we should aim to export that as much as possible.

[ChumpDumper]

So we invaded Iraq just to export freedom via killing 100,000 Iraqis and making 4,700,000 of them refugees, and you are saying we should do this as much as possible.

[Blake]

But America's specialty is freedom, and we should aim to export that as much as possible.

N Korea, get ready to import some freedom from Team America.

[LnGrrrR]

Hmm. Again, I don't think you can have revisionism until you have a defininite history to begin with. And we simply don't know the dynamics in the White House all that well. Everyone involved is still living, and working. Give it 20 years.

I have heard this debate from the Left. Was Bush the driving force, the evil malevolent personality behind this whole mess? Or was it Cheney? Rumsfeld? Why is Powell the good guy? That is far from settled itself. What if Bush was not being suckered and made these decisions himself? I know, again, this violates ST Politics Rule #1: Bush is in no way competent, intelligent, or moral.

There's more to say here, but the Iraq argument is tiresome to me.

Lastly, I personally object to the characterization of our casualties (I'm former Air Force, now Army, set to deploy next year) as victims. Not that you do this. 100% of us volunteered. All of us joined because we wanted to be in. Not all of us agree with Iraq or pretty much anything coming out of DC, but we're in because we believe in our way of life, freedom, and defending it. It is worth fighting for. It is worth dying for. So the brave men and women coming back in bags were not helpless victims. We all know full well what going to war possibly involves.

You went blue to green? Why? Whhhhyyy? lol :D

[LnGrrrR]

I assure you that the Americans of the WW2 generation did not think that way. That, too, was a sloppy war, often poorly planned and executed, particularly the first two years. Japan attacked us, but Germany did not. Really, it took Pearl Harbor to wake up the U.S. to the fact that imperialists in Germany and Japan were busy imposing their way of life (and gummint) on others, except in their case it was fascism.

Up until 1941, America had shown little interest in meddling in world affairs. The point is, the whole American philosophy is a commitment to freedom, that it is worth fighting and dying for. Does this mean war every time? No. Sometimes, however, it is necessary. And I guarantee you that Western Europe is happy that (how many?) American boys died so that they could have "our" standard of living now, rather than the alternative. (Its present situation -- marked by a rising Islamic population and an unsustainable welfare state -- is a different matter.)

What is debatable, of course, is whether Iraq II fit the bill. Was war the last option? I'm agnostic on the matter. Saddam had been misbehaving for many years. But America's specialty is freedom, and we should aim to export that as much as possible.

You have a good point about freedom. However, the problem I see is determining the line that we should draw. Obviously, it's impossible for us to allow freedom in every country. We don't have the ability. Should we do as we did in Iraq, and start changing countries one at a time? What responsibility do the citizens of that nation have to actively overthrow their government, as we once did?

I don't have any easy answers; I do lean on the side of non-intervention in most cases though.

[Don Quixote]

N Korea, get ready to import some freedom from Team America.

There is a very thoughtful column about the Norks in the new Weekly Standard.

And, no, I am not suggesting going Team America on them. For one, a war would immediately create a huge refugee crisis for China and S. Korea. Second, there are still the nukes to worry about. That said, the starving and deprivation that the people have had to endure for 3 generations is taking its toll. Might we see a revolt against this Stalinist régime sometime in the next 10-20 yrs? We can only hope, and pray for it.

[Don Quixote]

You have a good point about freedom. However, the problem I see is determining the line that we should draw. Obviously, it's impossible for us to allow freedom in every country. We don't have the ability. Should we do as we did in Iraq, and start changing countries one at a time? What responsibility do the citizens of that nation have to actively overthrow their government, as we once did?

I don't have any easy answers; I do lean on the side of non-intervention in most cases though.

Yeah ... and I don't mean to suggest that we should always go to war. Or primarily. But Americans must keep in mind that what makes America America is our freedom, our way of govt, our economic system, and way of life. And it is what every person on the globe wants (except hard-core commies and jihadists). And we should be actively engaged (through diplomacy, economics, and other tools) in spreading freedom.

While I am ashamed of certain aspects of our culture (e.g., porn, rap music, Dancing with the Stars), I do not apologize for our way of life or system of govt. It is worth defending. Now ... was Iraq an appropriate use of force? I go back and forth on it. I don't know. I am pleased that we have a budding democracy in a volatile part of the world. They have a long way to go, but if they succeed, perhaps Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will be next?

I have friends in those countries. It is not easy to practice Christianity there right now.

[Don Quixote]

You went blue to green? Why? Whhhhyyy? lol :D

That wasn't my original plan. 10X more go the other way. But I'm a contrarian. I'm cool like that.

Actually, I never had much to do in the Air Force. The Army is much more challenging.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah ... and I don't mean to suggest that we should always go to war. Or primarily. But Americans must keep in mind that what makes America America is our freedom, our way of govt, our economic system, and way of life. And it is what every person on the globe wants (except hard-core commies and jihadists). And we should be actively engaged (through diplomacy, economics, and other tools) in spreading freedom.

Agreed. However, I think it's much more effective to spread the idea of America CULTURALLY than through military means. I see them as a last resort.


While I am ashamed of certain aspects of our culture (e.g., porn, rap music, Dancing with the Stars), I do not apologize for our way of life or system of govt. It is worth defending. Now ... was Iraq an appropriate use of force? I go back and forth on it. I don't know. I am pleased that we have a budding democracy in a volatile part of the world. They have a long way to go, but if they succeed, perhaps Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will be next?

Porn? Cmon now... that's not an American culture... that's universal right there. Rap music? Well sure, most of it today is garbage, but there's some good insight there, and have you listened to some of the better stuff? Take a liston to Grandmaster Flash's "The Message", or "Changes" by Tupac or other iconic rap songs. They had strong messages, and while not always uplifting, it wasn't just about gangstas and hos :)

Edit: Also, rap music can trace its roots back to Blues, which is one definitely American contribution to the world. :) Along with comic books and basketball heh.

I won't defend Dancing with the Stars lol.

I haven't seen strong enough evidence yet to believe in a "domino diplomacy" effect.


I have friends in those countries. It is not easy to practice Christianity there right now.

True enough that, and certainly it does suck. But again, America can't fix all the world problems. It's the fine line of figuring out how much we can and SHOULD help.

[LnGrrrR]

That wasn't my original plan. 10X more go the other way. But I'm a contrarian. I'm cool like that.

Actually, I never had much to do in the Air Force. The Army is much more challenging.

What base were you at? I'm a 3C2, and I've been stuck at Keesler AFB for the past 5 years. Finally getting to Hickam.

I can understand that the army might be more challenging, but I think my wife would kill me if I applied. I can't imagine how families deal with 15 to 18 month long deployments, a 6 or 12 month turnaround only to do it again.

[Don Quixote]

I was a 3C2. Tech control beeyotches. Trained at Keesler, went to Altus, then they sent me to OTS and Barksdale. Now an Army chaplain. We're slated for a year's deployment. A year is long enough. (Another example of poor planning on the military's part -- nothing new there. You should read about the logistical issues during WW2!) But I never said I endorse everything our gummint, or Bush, or the GOP do. I support freedom, conservative values, and whatever advances those.

Lucky dog, getting Hickam. There's actually Tech Control work there. Altus had nothing. And it's Hawaii!

[Don Quixote]

Agreed. However, I think it's much more effective to spread the idea of America CULTURALLY than through military means. I see them as a last resort.


True enough that, and certainly it does suck. But again, America can't fix all the world problems. It's the fine line of figuring out how much we can and SHOULD help.

Yeah. I think we were hoping that Europe would join us. But ... with these countries facing declining populations, crippling welfare states, a real lack of belief in Western democracy, and above all, surging Islamic populations, I don't think they're going to be of much use. Obviously, no one can do it all by themselves, be it by war or anything else. I'm not sure who else will be able and willing to fight to advance freedom.

[LnGrrrR]

I was a 3C2. Tech control beeyotches. Trained at Keesler, went to Altus, then they sent me to OTS and Barksdale. Now an Army chaplain. We're slated for a year's deployment. A year is long enough. (Another example of poor planning on the military's part -- nothing new there. You should read about the logistical issues during WW2!) But I never said I endorse everything our gummint, or Bush, or the GOP do. I support freedom, conservative values, and whatever advances those.

Lucky dog, getting Hickam. There's actually Tech Control work there. Altus had nothing. And it's Hawaii!

Ha! I doubt I'll actually do Tech Control. I think I'm getting stationed up at the NOSC Det. Blah. I was trying to work a special duty for an Intel/Surveil/Recon squadron at England, but a coworker whose wife is also pregnant and due around the same time as my wife is going as well, and my wife would kill me if I tried to change these orders. Plus, like you said... it's Hawaii. :D

At least I've done actual tech control in my deployments. Got back from Al Dhafra in UAE last year... was a fun deployment. I'm hoping I'll go for about 6 mos every 2 years at Hickam (I've gone about 4 1/2 every 3 years since I've been in, 1999.)

[Don Quixote]

You came in around the time I came in, in 99.

When you're in Hawaii (lucky), visit Obama's birthplace for me. I'm sure it's a holy site. I live in New Orleans, which is the birthplace of .. Lee Harvey Oswald. That counts for something, right?

Anyway ... I agree that everyone would much rather spread freedom through peace, all that. But my pacifist friends (and some liberals -- Jimmy Carter leaps prominently to mind) forget that much of the world does not operate that way. The murderous thugs who run places like Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq before the invasion, Gaza, Libya, and much of sub-Saharan Africa can only be dealt with by force. You give them food aid, they give it to their warlords. You develop their nuclear energy, they build bombs. You give them $$, and there is a corresponding swelling in certain Swiss bank accounts. And it's wrong. It sucks. But that's reality. And sometimes you just have to fight these thugs.

So, no, I'm not angry we went into Iraq in 03. I'm disappointed in the execution, certainly in the administration's handling of some aspects of it, their communication with the media. But I'm glad that it was not in vain. These people are on the road to freedom now.

[ChumpDumper]

The murderous thugs who run places like Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq before the invasion, Gaza, Libya, and much of sub-Saharan Africa can only be dealt with by force.We didn't deal with Libya by force. Ask our ambassador.

[LnGrrrR]

You came in around the time I came in, in 99.

When you're in Hawaii (lucky), visit Obama's birthplace for me. I'm sure it's a holy site. I live in New Orleans, which is the birthplace of .. Lee Harvey Oswald. That counts for something, right?

Anyway ... I agree that everyone would much rather spread freedom through peace, all that. But my pacifist friends (and some liberals -- Jimmy Carter leaps prominently to mind) forget that much of the world does not operate that way. The murderous thugs who run places like Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq before the invasion, Gaza, Libya, and much of sub-Saharan Africa can only be dealt with by force. You give them food aid, they give it to their warlords. You develop their nuclear energy, they build bombs. You give them $$, and there is a corresponding swelling in certain Swiss bank accounts. And it's wrong. It sucks. But that's reality. And sometimes you just have to fight these thugs.

So, no, I'm not angry we went into Iraq in 03. I'm disappointed in the execution, certainly in the administration's handling of some aspects of it, their communication with the media. But I'm glad that it was not in vain. These people are on the road to freedom now.

Ah... I'll miss New Orleans. Biloxi hasn't had anyplace good to go (if you don't like casinos) since Katrina, so I end up visiting N'awlins once every three months or so. (What's the point of visiting Mobile?)

I agree with you that warlords and whatnot suck. Where I differ is in the need to reform those countries with our own resources. Call me cynical, but if the country does not pose a risk to us, then I'm willing to let it go through turmoil. (There are some exceptions... for instance, if the local populace is being slaughtered wholesale.)

Where our difference lies, I think, is that you recognize the fact that there are these warlords, evil people, etc etc, but you don't think it will fall back into that same pattern of corruption when we leave. :D Honestly, I don't know for sure, but I usually don't think America should be policing the world without a sufficient force helping us.

[Winehole23]

I agree with you that warlords and whatnot suck. Where I differ is in the need to reform those countries with our own resources. Call me cynical, but if the country does not pose a risk to us, then I'm willing to let it go through turmoil.

(There are some exceptions... for instance, if the local populace is being slaughtered wholesale.)Pick one.


Where our difference lies, I think, is that you recognize the fact that there are these warlords, evil people, etc etc, but you don't think it will fall back into that same pattern of corruption when we leave. :D Honestly, I don't know for sure, but I usually don't think America should be policing the world without a sufficient force helping us.A great power in decline looks inward. It's age appropriate behavior.

*What's a sufficient home force?* and *what should it do?*would be the politically sensitive questions apart from the continuing international projection of power.

[LnGrrrR]

Pick one.

A great power in decline looks inward. It's age appropriate behavior.

*What's a sufficient home force?* and *what should it do?*would be the politically sensitive questions apart from the continuing international projection of power.

Pick a country that wouldn't be a threat? Logistically, we can probably leave out any countries that can't reach us without an intercontinental ballistic missile, and don't have the technology to do so.

Allies that are friendly to us can be left out as well.

I'm for the "attack only if you've been attacked, or are about to be" group.

A sufficient home force? I'm not sure what that would constitute that we don't already have. Police, national guard, coast guard, FBI/CIA etc etc should be enough I would think.

[Don Quixote]

I'm for the "attack only if you've been attacked, or are about to be" group.



Hmm. I think most of us would LOVE to be in that group. I just don't think that is a philosophy that would work in the real world. Hell ... Saddam wasn't attacking us in 1990. He invaded Kuwait. And the U.S. and other countries, knowing full well what this entailed (for one, despotism in Kuwait, and two, this poop would eventually hit us at home one way or another) went in and stopped him. And now Kuwait is (mostly) free.

Germany did not attack us in 1940. They overran France, Belgium, Poland, and Czechoslovakia in about two seconds flat, and were knocking on the door of Britain. The U.S. did what it felt was its duty -- to defend freedom.

I can cite more examples. But you get my point. In theory, yeah, I agree with you. I'd love to wait until we had reliable info that we were about to get attacked before we struck. But we can't take that chance. And if we waited around waiting to get hit, alot of people in other countries would be in world of poop. (Not to mention us, eventually.)

[clambake]

every decision i make is based off of something that happened a jillion years ago.

[Don Quixote]

Where our difference lies, I think, is that you recognize the fact that there are these warlords, evil people, etc etc, but you don't think it will fall back into that same pattern of corruption when we leave. :D Honestly, I don't know for sure, but I usually don't think America should be policing the world without a sufficient force helping us.

I wish we could rely on the "world community" too. But who's going to help us, outside of Israel?

The Western European nations? Their defense forces are too withered/pussy to help much. The U.S. picking up the tab for their defense after WW2 had a lot to do with this. And their state depts are unreliable anyway. Are they for Western democracy? Or will they become Islamic states soon?

Latin America? None of them are powerful enough, and they've got their own problems. Drug cartels and communism are two big ones.

Africa? Tons of people, but riddled with AIDS and thugs.

China? They're happy to trade with us, but they'd just as soon let jihad be our problem as long as possible. (China will eventually have to deal with jihad themselves.)

Russia? They have the trifecta -- a declining male population, AIDS, and a thugocracy. And did I mention they have nukes?

I hate to say it, but this group is unreliable at best and not to be trusted.

[clambake]

what's the KIA count of israeli troops in afghanistan and iraq?

[ChumpDumper]

Don forgot Poland.

[LnGrrrR]

Hmm. I think most of us would LOVE to be in that group. I just don't think that is a philosophy that would work in the real world. Hell ... Saddam wasn't attacking us in 1990. He invaded Kuwait. And the U.S. and other countries, knowing full well what this entailed (for one, despotism in Kuwait, and two, this poop would eventually hit us at home one way or another) went in and stopped him. And now Kuwait is (mostly) free.

See, here's what I don't get. How would "the poop" hit us? If you're talking about saving them for their oil, realpolitik stuff like that, I'm willing to give you some leeway. If you're just saying we should help the Kuwaitis because Saddam is bad... well, there's a lot of bad people out there. Life sucks. :)


Germany did not attack us in 1940. They overran France, Belgium, Poland, and Czechoslovakia in about two seconds flat, and were knocking on the door of Britain. The U.S. did what it felt was its duty -- to defend freedom.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. We were fine not entering the war until Japan attacked us. Japan was allied with Germany, and that's why we got involved. If it were the case that you mentioned, why didn't we join the war in 1940?


I can cite more examples. But you get my point. In theory, yeah, I agree with you. I'd love to wait until we had reliable info that we were about to get attacked before we struck. But we can't take that chance. And if we waited around waiting to get hit, alot of people in other countries would be in world of poop. (Not to mention us, eventually.)

If we can't take that chance, why aren't we going to war with N. Korea? Venezuela? Iran?

Obviously, we CAN take chances with countries, otherwise we'd be warring everywhere. We have to decide risk/reward ration. I just think our risk to reward ratio for starting countries in foreign lands is very slim.

[LnGrrrR]

I wish we could rely on the "world community" too. But who's going to help us, outside of Israel?

The Western European nations? Their defense forces are too withered/pussy to help much. The U.S. picking up the tab for their defense after WW2 had a lot to do with this. And their state depts are unreliable anyway. Are they for Western democracy? Or will they become Islamic states soon?

Latin America? None of them are powerful enough, and they've got their own problems. Drug cartels and communism are two big ones.

Africa? Tons of people, but riddled with AIDS and thugs.

China? They're happy to trade with us, but they'd just as soon let jihad be our problem as long as possible. (China will eventually have to deal with jihad themselves.)

Russia? They have the trifecta -- a declining male population, AIDS, and a thugocracy. And did I mention they have nukes?

I hate to say it, but this group is unreliable at best and not to be trusted.

Here's what I don't get. Republicans are totally fine with the free market when it comes to economics. "If people are poor, they need to get off their ass and work!"

But they aren't willing to take that thought process to the international level. Why should we expect poor people to get off their ass to work for a living, but not expect poor countries to band together and defend themselves?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Scientology is a dangerous cult.

So is conservatism.

[ClingingMars]

You need to look at the record to see just how badly Bush dropped the ball on terrorism that was handed to him by the Clinton administration.

Just compare the frequency of cabinet meetings regarding terrorism of the last eight months of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the bush administration.

Let us all know what you find, and then lol if you can.

it's simple, bill clinton fucked things up, reducing the military and dropping the ball on Osama when he had the chance. i don't give a shit how often he "met with his advisers"

[ClingingMars]

So is conservatism.

not really, and your sig is hilarious.

[ChumpDumper]

it's simple, bill clinton fucked things up, reducing the military and dropping the ball on Osama when he had the chance. i don't give a shit how often he "met with his advisers"Are you saying Bush did a better job against terrorism before 9/11?

Yes or no.

[Cry Havoc]

Here's what I don't get. Republicans are totally fine with the free market when it comes to economics. "If people are poor, they need to get off their ass and work!"

:lol

This comment is utterly hilarious.