The American Spectator : Who Will Protect America?

Text Size

Who Will Protect America?

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 10.30.08 @ 6:09AM

Father Pfleger's Obama or Charles Krauthammer's McCain?

WASHINGTON -- Last week the dean of conservative columnists, Charles Krauthammer, took a swat at "the wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years." He fell on the "neoconservative" Ken Adelman, the "moderate" Colin Powell, the "genetic/ironic" Christopher Buckley, and the "socialist/atheist" Christopher Hitchens. Insouciant to the charms of Obama, the excellent Krauthammer endorsed Senator John McCain. I can understand Krauthammer's reasoning, but then I have almost never disagreed with him on any important issue.

Our country is at war with terrorists. It faces a grave financial crisis. On both issues McCain is infinitely more experienced than his opponent, Senator Barack Obama. Perhaps it is because McCain is a retired naval officer and a gentleman, but he remains disappointingly reticent about his personal achievements. Sure, he modestly declares that throughout his adult life he has never flinched from answering his country's call, but there is much more to his life's accomplishment than that. I wish he had allowed his campaign to air more of the videos showing him in that cruel North Vietnamese prison. And there is also footage of his leaping out of a burning fighter on the deck of an aircraft carrier, the back of his flight suit aflame. People who have seen these videos have understood that McCain's commitment to duty is more substantial than the inflated claims of the average campaigning pol.

McCain might have made more of the fact that he rebuilt his broken body after being tortured in prison, defied the pessimistic medical prognostications, and flew combat aircraft again. Then he took command of the Navy's largest air squadron, which he revived to flight readiness. That is an act of executive prowess no one in this presidential race can claim. Next, he became naval liaison to the Senate and helped rebuild the American military by working with senators on both sides of the aisle. As a congressman and a senator, he has continued this sort of bipartisan reform. Some of the reforms I have opposed, but no other candidate in this race has his record of constructive legislation and leadership.

In the area of national security he has demonstrated that he knows things that Obama, a novice with but four years on the national stage, can only imagine. McCain knew the surge in Iraq would work, and he had the grit to support it when few would. Once again he was putting his country before his own political ambitions. Nonetheless, McCain is no soft touch for the military. Over the years he has demanded efficiency and economy at the Pentagon and throughout the federal budget. Now in a time of financial crisis he has opted for a proven strategy for economic recovery: low taxes, free trade, and budgetary prudence. Obama's alternatives are the proven recipe for protracted recession. On health care, McCain's policies promise expanded coverage with costs under control. Obama's alternative promises the efficiencies of the Post Office, with the citizenry standing in long lines and costs spiraling ever upwards.

McCain then is a true American hero, probably the most heroic to come this close to the presidency. He is a seasoned political leader. He is the model for good citizenship.

Alternatively, there is Obama's record. People who have worked with him tell me he is a decent man. Yet all he has ever done is run for office though he has only held two: a seat in the Illinois senate and the U.S. Senate seat he won in 2004. Though he is new to politics, his policies are not as new as he boasts. They are a rerun of the failed Great Society with some later-day left-wing extravagances thrown in.

That he has not been honest about this is disturbing, and he has established a pattern of deceit in this election that is still more disturbing. His claim that he offers a tax cut for "95%" of the citizenry is an obvious deceit. So far as I can ascertain it means sending government checks to some 40% of the citizenry who pay no taxes and raising taxes on the rest of us -- yes, tax increases in the midst of recession!

More disturbing is that Obama has not been honest about the radical figures he has associated with. William Ayers is an unrepentant left-wing radical who actually bombed government facilities and caused the injury and death of fellow Americans. That is a cold fact. Obama's association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger put him in company with angry anti-American fringe figures, who, were they on the far right, would have ended Obama's political career long ago. Again, he has not been honest about these associations, and McCain -- officer and gentleman that he is -- has not held Obama to account.

Now we hear that there is at least audio of a 2003 dinner held for Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi (a spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization when it was recognized by Washington as a terrorist organization) with Obama in attendance. Reportedly the Illinois state senator was praising Khalidi. Though the audio is being withheld by the Los Angeles Times, Americans ought to hear it before the election. At this dinner speakers allegedly denounced the United States and Israel. By 2003 Khalidi was a neighbor and friend of Obama at the University of Chicago. Again Obama has been deceptive about this dinner and his relationship with this former spokesman for Yasir Arafat.

I actually know a good bit about people such as Ayers, Pfleger, Wright, and now Khalidi. They are the kind of anti-Americans who thrive on the outer fringes of the left. Whether they really hate America as they boast or are just attitudinizing I do not know. But the consequence of their behavior has endangered this country. By 2003 Obama, green as he is, should have known this. More to the point, he should have been forthright when these friendships were revealed.

At best an Obama presidency would be a return to the Carter years. At worst it would place this country in a condition of peril that we have never experienced in modern times. McCain will protect the country and put it on the road to recovery. He has protected America all his adult life and is ready for another tour of service.

topics:
Election 2008, John McCain, Barack Obama, Conservatism, Neoconservatism

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of the forthcoming The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn't Work: Social Democracy's Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (70) | Leave a comment

Melvin| 10.30.08 @ 8:45AM

It has been a well known fact the the liberal left for years and years has wanted Americans to be punished and made to suffer for our wealth and prosperity.
Barrack Obama will not be the President to foster this wealth and prosperity, he will be the, "Punisher."

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 9:51AM

Mr Tyrrell manages to write an entire column on our national defense that makes not a single original contribution to this on going debate.

The idea that Democrats are somehow genetically unable to protect this country is something conservatives only get away with promoting because Americans have become so dumb when it comes to our history.

Democratic presidents led this country to the two greatest military victories not just in our history but in human history. Churchill called Roosevelt "the greatest" man and leader he'd ever known.

What planet do you return from to claim that Republicans are better for our national defense?

Name me the Republican president who has led this county to victory in a just war. There's Lincoln.

I trust Obama to protect this country against terrorists because he is a) smart; b) ready to listen to advisors; c) ready to work with allies; d) capable of making us NEW allies; and e) capable of fostering an environment in which contrary views and solutions are offered and then choosing wisely among them.

Enjoy yourselves, boys. The Reagan Revolution has five days to live.

Ernie| 10.30.08 @ 10:14AM

I understand a newspaper not revealing it's source but I don't know why that would affect revealing the whole story.

Daniel Bowers| 10.30.08 @ 10:25AM

It does amaze me that BO's promise of change is going back to things that don't work (historically proven). I've never talked with a BO supporter that can explain to me how raising taxes, increasing gov. in a time of economic downturn is going to help them or this country. All you ever hear is, only those that make 200,000. Please, explain to me how following Hoover's policies is going to help this country? Is there a BO supporter who can explain this to me?

Ghastlyone| 10.30.08 @ 10:30AM

Tom Paine:

The only thing I can gather from your post is either A) your 14 years old or B) you just now in the last 2 years got TV and internet access.

If you haven't noticed, the present day democrats are a very different party from the past.

You talk about how tough and knowledgable leftists are regarding war, but the only democrat you mention is Roosevelt? from nearly 80 years ago? lol

How come you failed to mention Carter or Clinton? Yeah....I thought so.

Mark| 10.30.08 @ 10:38AM

Tom Paine, FDR sold out Eastern Europe at Malta after the press helped lie to the public about his medical condition. He dragged us into the war by provoking the Japanese and Hitler (FDR lied, people died.) Of course Churchhill loved him, he saved their bacon! And then "the buck stops here" Truman had Alger Hiss and other spies running around spying on us for the Soviets.

Shannon Lucky| 10.30.08 @ 10:46AM

Tom Paine: Does the term "Copperhead" mean anything to you? In case it doesn't, it refers to the Democrats who, starting after First Manassas, wanted the Union to surrender to the Confederacy. When the Democrats regained control of the House in 1871, their first order of business was to slash spending on the Army and the Navy to 1858 levels. Funding for the Army was so bad, the cheapest ammunition had to be purchased, and that was ammo with copper casings, which had a tendency to expand in the breech of a rifle and fail to extract after discharge. This cheap ammunition led to the combat deaths of numerous United States soldiers, and was a factor in the near annihilation of a regiment of U.S. Cavalry in June of 1876.

Our defenses remained weak under Democrat presidents, so much so that a town in New Mexico was attacked by Mexican bandits in 1916. Such an attack wouldn't have been attempted if the United States had been able to field a suitable army for its own defense. Similarly, during another period of glorious Democrat rule, the 1930's, we produced some of the worst aircraft in the world, had no tanks for troops to train on, no machine guns for them to practice with, and officers were resigning in droves because the services were being allowed to wither and die. It's highly likely that one of the biggest defeats suffered by American arms EVER, the Battle of Kasserine Pass, was partially due to the lack of adequate training and poor equipment that emerged from the 1930's. Roosevelt may have been a "great leader" to Churchill, but that "great leader" had all but ignored our armed forces for the first two terms of his presidency.

The only Democrat who maintained a strong military in time of peace was John Kennedy. Harry Truman slashed the Army to bare bones, despised the Navy and wanted to eliminate our aircraft carrier force. Johnson was dealing with a war in Vietnam, but still managed to terminate the XB-70 "Valkyrie" and scale back the SR-71 program. New fighters had to wait until he left office before proceeding to full scale development (F-15 and F-14). Carter slashed the military to levels unheard of...at one point near the end of his sorry four years, half the combat aircraft in the U.S. Air Force were unable to even get off the ground due to lack of parts, and the Navy wasn't able to put full carrier battle groups to sea. Clinton reduced the military to unserviceable levels even while deploying it thirty-three times in eight years!

Now explain how any of that was good for our defense?

I served in the Air Force. I've seen first hand what a president who hates the military does to morale and training. World War I wasn't a great victory, it was an armistice followed by a flawed peace treaty. The sole reason the Allies were able to dictate terms to the Central Powers was because when the United States joined the war, the weight of the AEF tipped the scales of bloodletting in the favor of the Allies. Germany had already defeated Russia, and if the AEF hadn't been sent to Europe when it was, the French and the British would have been overwhelmed. In short, all we did was prevent an Allied defeat, NOT win a "great victory."

World War II was a touch-and-go situation until late 1944. The Pacific war was in doubt until the close of the Solomons campaign, and even with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we STILL had to send a thousand B-29's over Japan and burn another city or two before the Japanese surrendered. Great victory, yes, but at a cost that was made higher due to UNPREPAREDNESS!

Every war the U.S. fought in the Twentieth Century, with the exception of Desert Storm, was entered into in an unprepared state. We were equipped to blast Russia into nuclear oblivion when we went into Vietnam...and ended up having to adapt equipment for a counter-insurgency. Who gave us that strategy? Kennedy and Johnson.

It was George H.W. Bush who took Reagan's military and used it to utterly defeat Saddam Hussein in a just war (if liberating the weak from the strong isn't just, then I suppose the War Between the States wasn't either)...and this was a war fought with a PREPARED and READY PROFESSIONAL United States military, not the draftee armies we'd used in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

Your whole thesis is false. The Democrats have been bad for the United States Armed Forces since 1861, and history shows this quite plainly. Obama's allies ARE terrorists (Ayers, Hamas, the PLO, Iran...just based upon who's endorsed him), and if he's true to Democrat form, he'll surrender the first chance he gets.

The war in Iraq has been won, and the fact the Iraqi government is ready for us to leave shows that their military is willing to take on al-Qaeda on their own. The Taliban is only resurgent in areas of Afghanistan covered by NATO troops...who generally have orders prohibiting them from engaging the enemy first (or at all). Responding to an attack by muslims with overwhelming force, destroying their bases of support, and liberating 25-plus million people from dictators is just in my book. You might hate what we've done, but I sure don't. The United States military is not a force of conquerors...we're a force of LIBERATORS. The only people in Iraq who didn't want us there were al-Sadr's followers, and that's because al-Sadr wanted to use the fall of Hussein to claim power for himself. We thwarted his ambitions, and Fatboy Mookie threw a fit with other people's lives.

Democrats are apparently congenitally hostile to the Armed Forces, and that's a fact. Citing Roosevelt and WWII can't whitewash Clement Vallandigham and the Copperheads, nor can it obscure Harry Truman's desire to scrap most of the Navy, nor Jimmy Carter's bungling, nor Bill Clinton's "I loathe the military" letter and his cutting the Army down to ten divisions and the Navy to twelve carrier battle groups. The record shows that the Democrats are not to be trusted with the defense of this country. Period.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 10:55AM

Mark and Ghastlyone,

Sorry, FDR did not "drag" this country into war with lies. He fought the Republicans who wanted to hide from reality and won. He then led the country to victory.

One reason he was able to lead us to victory is that he could explain why we were fighting, something George W Bush never could do.

Ghastlyone, I think you are little fuzzy on history. Carter instituted the largest increase in defense spending in history up until his administration, mostly on nuclear weapons. Carter hated the Soviets with an intensity not matched by Nixon or Reagan, certainly. It was under Carter that the strategy of outspending the Soviets was developed. Reagan adopted and applied that strategy, and it seems to have worked pretty well.

Clinton has much to answer for when it comes to fighting Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups. You'll get no dispute from me there.

But answer me this. What Republican during the 90s was urging us to invade Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and kills Bin Laden?

The fact is that no one was interested in listening to the experts in the intelligence community about how dangerous Bin Laden was. No one. Clinton didn't, and neither did George W Bush.

None of this proves by the way that Democrats are somehow weak on national defense.

How many vets returned from Iraq and ran for Congress as Republicans. I can't think of any. They all are running as Democrats. Why do you think that is? Do they all hate America and "pal around with terrorists"?

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 11:03AM

Again, I repeat my challenge.

Name me a Republican president that has led this country to victory in a just war in the last 100 years.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 11:19AM

If "Desert Storm" was such a success, why did we have to invade Iraq in 03?

If we have prevailed in Iraq, why are there still 140,000 soldiers there? (Soldiers are still dying there, by the way, too.)

I was in the Army in the 90s. I don't recall there being bad morale due to Clinton being in the White House. It was my distinct impression that men in the infantry didn't really care who was president. I sure didn't.

I know I must seem like a terrorist sympathizer to you because I'm a Democrat, but I assure you, many Democrats have served their country and will again.

Oldpapajoe| 10.30.08 @ 11:24AM

Response to reader Tom Payne's ref Dem's ability to defend America: Dem's are already talking a cut in defense, 25% cut by Barney Frank and John Murtha, forcing a death by suicide or death by hanging option for DOD; returning to a pre-9-11 mind set that confronting terrorism is best done by leaving it to the police and state department. As everyone with minimal knowledge of strategy knows, one can not win by going on the defensive, victory can only be achieved by the strategic offensive--a position the Dem's refuse to take.

Fred| 10.30.08 @ 11:32AM

Sophist. By adding the modifier "just" you leave yourself a hole to reject any answer by subjectively arguing that the war in question was not "just". You do this to preclude the first obvious answer: George W. Bush.

Sam from Atlanta| 10.30.08 @ 11:40AM

Dear Mr. Paine,

In answer to your "challenge"....George W. Bush.

Best regards,

Sam Haldi
Atlanta, GA

ruth| 10.30.08 @ 11:45AM

Reagan, a conservative republican, won the Cold war and liberated Eastern europe, the Ukraine, etc. The Soviet Union was a vicious adversary who would have chewed Obama up. Even Obama's VP knows we're going to get hit with a crisis during their first six months in office--he said so. They are hidin' Biden for his honesty.

Sam| 10.30.08 @ 11:49AM

Dear Mr. Paine,

Your sophomoric, but thoroughly post-modern, questions concerning the "whys" of geopolitical events leave one thinking the state of our infantry is much-heightened by your leaving their ranks. One can almost picture you, head in your hands and fists shaking and banging the kitchen table, as you mumble, to no one in particular, "why, why?".
Why oh why do more civillians die violently in Chicago in a given month than soldiers in Iraq? Why? Why is John McCain within sight of an unheard-of victory, when he finds himself running against not only his Democratic opponent, but most every newspaper editorial board and television network? Why? Why is the sky blue? Why? Why don't people like me? Why?

Best regards,

Sam Haldi
Atlanta, GA

Dennis Hannon| 10.30.08 @ 12:00PM

Look at it this way: When the Big O takes office, we'll at least get to know who financed his campaign--who sent that illegal half-billion dollars or so in $25 bits through his crooked website. Here's how I handicap it: Hugo Chavez: 5/3; Ahamdinejad: 5/2; Putin: 5/1. We won't know until President Obama flies off to points south or east, bows down in obeisance to his benefactor and hands over our sorry carcasses. Gives us something to look forward to. It continually amazes and saddens me what a dirtbag politician (forgive the redundancy) will do for a few lousy hundred million bucks.

Ghastlyone| 10.30.08 @ 12:03PM

Tom Paine:

Carter was doing such a kick ass job fighting the Soviets and "building" our military up, and not to mention the awesome economy has had rolling along , the american people were just fed up with it and had to elect that damned cowboy Reagan into office huh?

I noticed in your love affair post regarding Carter you failed to mention the handling of The Shaw of Iran. Care to explain that one? And how that helped our nation with islamic radicals?

I noticed how you said "just" war. This obviously is your way of not giving props to W, for actually having the balls to do something about these pieces of shit that want to harm us americans.

Personally I think Bush has gone very lightly on these terrorists. If it were me, I would have ordered carpet bombing of every muslim nation over there. After that was finished they would have been paved in black top and Walmarts built in place.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 12:06PM

Sam Haldi,

I'm sure the infantry is just fine without me. The men who serve in the military -- but in the infantry especially -- are the best.

Now, the weird caricature you would like to produce of me sitting at my kitchen table bemoaning low numbers if service men's deaths (I think that is your point) is all very entertaining, I suppose, to people of a certain mentality. But I'm not sure about your facts. Have 4,000 civilians died violently in Chicago in the last five years? Maybe so, but I doubt it.

I ask you all to liberate yourself from the Fox Newsopia in which you dwell and understand that George W. Bush has not led this country to victory in any war.

I assure you, we have a long way to go in Iraq. We have a long way to go in Afghanistan. None of this is because of the inadequacies of our military. But George W Bush has been a terrible "war president." The whole world knows this.

Marc Jeric| 10.30.08 @ 12:07PM

To mention Carter as a good president is a blasphemy. That moron kissed Brezhnev three times hoping to become friends with that coldhearted mass murderer. As for naming a Republican president who led us to victory in a just war, Mr. Payne - let me mention Ronald Reagan who beat the Soviet monster without firing a shot!
Marc Jeric, Las Vegas

Loshooligan| 10.30.08 @ 12:10PM

Tom Paine:

Are you talking about the same intelligence that everyone was listening to that got us into Iraq? One of the biggest lessons we learned from the Iraq war was that our intelligence community, that was gutted by Clinton, could not be trusted. So your "Fact" is only a matter of opinion.

Here's some “facts” for you. Who kept signing the Neutrality Acts of the 1930’s? That wasn't Roosevelt was it? The final act wasn't repealed until just days before the attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR realized that appeasement and peace talks in Europe just didn't work anymore. Do you remember what happened at Pearl Harbor? It was one of the greatest military blunders in our history. Our naval fleet was decimated in one attack because no one thought it to be important to spread them out, because we were neutral. Just a week before we were in peace talks with Japan. Will Obama make the same type of rookie mistakes as his New Deal processor? How long will he appease evil before it’s too late for us, if he can not recognize the evil of the people he associates with?

By the way, it was Harry Truman who put an end to WWII. There isn't a Democrat today that has the testicular fortitude to make the decision he had to make. Why don't you call him the Devil? Unlike Truman, the Democrats of today are modern day contemporaries of Neville Chamberlin. Chamberlin tried to talk to Hitler, tried to reason with him. Seen as how you are no steward of history it will be later, than sooner, before it is painfully obvious to you, and your modern day Neville Chamberlin’s, that appeasement of evil will lead to more deaths, than just fighting a just war to stop it spreading further. I guess history does really repeat itself.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 12:15PM

Ghastlyone,

You say Bush has been soft on "these terrorists." Which terrorists do you mean?

The problem with your whole approach to national defense is that you see "the terrorists" or "these terrorists" as a single, organized, monolithic entity. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the sooner we get out of a "war against terror" mentality, the better we'll be able to protect ourselves and our allies from actual terrorist threats.

Now, Carter inherited an economy that careened out of control after the massive waste and expenditures of a long, pointless war. (Sound familiar?) In addition, there was high energy costs and a widespread culture of political corruption from the previous administration. (Sound familiar?)

I think you are mixing up your Shaws and Ayotollahs, but I get your point. The fact is, Iran has always been ready to be our ally, and we have missed every chance we had with them. The government of Iran nurtures crackpots and extremists, but the people love by and large are sympathetic with the west.

They are, however, a proud, nationalistic people and resent our constant interference in their domestic politics. We installed the shaw you refer to against the consent of the Iranian people, and the Revolution, whatever else it was, in part responded to that offense.

The hostage crisis was a terrible situation. Carter worked until the last day to have them released and won that release.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 12:22PM

Loshooligan --

Comparing the notion of "talking" to Iran to "appeasement" of Hitler betrays a lack of historical understanding.

Hitler demanded the concession of land -- actually of entire sovereign nation -- in exchange for peace. Britain gave in to that demand to avoid another European war. That decision is called "appeasement."

Now, the many Republicans and Democrats who have favored talking to hostile nations -- including Nixon and Reagan -- are not appeasers. Talking does not mean conceding or giving in to a hostile nations demands. It just means talking.

We will be a better, stronger nation more capable of projecting our power if we engage in diplomacy with Iran than if we sit around referring to them as belonging to an "axis of evil." There's no such thing as diplomacy with friends. You do it with enemies, and you fight if it doesn't work.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 12:25PM

Obama Rules --

Honestly, I don't remember anyone talking about Clinton at all. I was in when the Oklahoma bombing happened and I remember soldiers watching his speech to the nation after and being moved by it. People in my unit were disappointed he wouldn't send us to Bosnia, but I don't remember the hatred or disdain people claim was there now fifteen years later. Maybe I was just drinking too much beer to have noticed. That could be true.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 12:28PM

As for Ghastlyone's desire to "bomb every Muslim nation" --

I don't know how you conservatives live with people like this.

I cannot think of anything more evil or stupid than urging that we bomb more countries of any religion.

If Ghastlyone knew anything about war -- or anything about anything at all -- he would not say such foolish things.

Sam| 10.30.08 @ 12:39PM

Dear Mr. Paine,

Not every veteran who has served this great country in wartime feels the need to broadcast it on a blog or message post.

Face facts sir; the Iraq war is won and is a strategic success. It will, with time, become a politcal success. And, also take note of the strategic shift emerging from the entire Middle East where we now number former enemies among our strategic allies.

Yes, there is much hard work left to do; there always is.

And I am speaking of this country also, not just Iraq.

I am sure you see the Vietnam war as a "defeat." Your side of the philosophical divide loves to revel in self-loathing and recrmination. However, Vietnam was a defeat only politically and was a resounding military success and will, eventually, be a success of an even more enduring and lasting nature.

Yes there is much left to accomplish in Iraq. But, have you stopped to think and realize that they are now a firm strategic ally and are a Muslim nation actively engaged in hunting down and killing radical Muslims?

I personally, watch little television so I am not afflicted with this Foxopia of which you speak. But I beg you man to leave that dark and dreary place your mind occupies and step out into the light.

'Tis a beautiful thing indeed.

Regards,

Sam Haldi
Atlanta, GA

ruth| 10.30.08 @ 12:49PM

You just don't get it. Reagan's strategy was 'trust but verify'. He negotiated through strength not weakness. We outspent the USSR upgrading our military and crippled their economy. Reagan never took SSI off the table. And please--do not ever compare Obama to Reagan--it makes me sick.

ruth| 10.30.08 @ 12:56PM

See, Obomber Rules, I told you if you took your meds you would feel better and see the light. Obamania is a mental illness after all!

ruth| 10.30.08 @ 1:02PM

I'm sorry to digress a little here, and I do know this is off topic, but I just wanted to salute the recent Connecticut ruling that gay couples have the right to marry, thus making this state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions through the courts.

The concept of freedom and the right to marry whomever you choose is an alien concept to the fascist right-wing conservatives of America. To paraphrase the aging and ailing Sen. John McCain, "They still don't get it."

So, listen up, you anti-freedom loving, conservative pieces of scum: GOD CREATED EVERYONE EQUAL. This means that God loves us all the same, regardless if we're straight, gay, bi, black, white, yellow, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist.

And, yes, God even loves those Southern Baptists (although, personally, I can't imagine why; that is why God is love).

Freedom implies choice. The choice of schooling, the choice of career, the choice of doing whatever the hell you want. The choice of living in a small town, or the choice of living in a big town. The choice of buying a Detroit-made car, or the choice of driving a Honda.

Freedom is a God-given right. If America is truly to be a free country, then it must be free for all of us. And that means that lesbians and homosexuals also have the right to marry.

The fascist right-wing Republican conservatives of America have hated the concept of equal freedom since it was first introduced by our Founding Fathers more than 200 years ago.

The fascist right-wing Republican conservatives of America can't stand anyone who is different, anyone who doesn’t fit the mold of what they perceive to be “the acceptable American.”

Thankfully, the freedom-loving liberals of America are willing to extend freedom to anyone, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, and national origin. And, yes, even political affiliation.

This is the real God- and freedom-loving America that I will continue to fight for until the end of time.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 1:06PM

This is a weird site. But fine.

I can't figure out if conservatives look at Iraq as an ally or a country we should carpet bomb.

Maybe one of you can clarify that.

And I wasn't broadcasting my service to brag. I'm sick of being referred to as an enemy of my country just because I disagree with Bush.

It's stupid and un-American to suggest that Democrats don't love their country or wish to serve it. If Republicans didn't spend so much time trying to impugn my loyalty or my patriotism, I assure you I would find no reason to discuss my military service.

About victory in Iraq: I honestly hope Iraq becomes a stable democracy in the years ahead. That would be a great thing for the Iraqi people and for the region. I've never said otherwise and wouldn't dream of saying otherwise.

If I were you, I'd set aside the caricatures you hear about Democrats on Sean Hannity and try to grow up. The world is a more complicated place than you imagine, and there are more people of good will in this country than you would ever know listening to cynical right wing nonsense on the radio or on Fox.

ruralcounsel| 10.30.08 @ 1:08PM

Tom Paine wrote: The problem with your whole approach to national defense is that you see "the terrorists" or "these terrorists" as a single, organized, monolithic entity.

Wouldn't this be an argument to keep on our "war mentality"? Our enemies are many and diverse, our dependable friends and allies are few.

Most international incidents that test the mettle of presidents are "terrible situations". I don't see that changing any time soon. And that Carter flailed about helplessly and impotent to resolve it speaks more to his detriment than benefit. Weakness like that, no doubt, helped encourage the long string of attacks carried out by our "diverse" collection of islamic terrorists.

the real ruth| 10.30.08 @ 1:16PM

Obomber, is that you posting under my name? You are using dirty tricks just like your god Obama. That's the only way liberals can win--by cheating. No, I don't support gay marriage (love the sinner not the sin) and prop 8 is going to pass--thank God! And I mean the real God not your Messiah. No gay marriage in the Golden state.

The Real Obama Rules| 10.30.08 @ 1:19PM

ruth/real ruth/fake obama rules:

Perhaps you shouldn't play these silly games, oh you of little IQ.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 1:20PM

Rural counsel --

What exactly would you have had Carter do? Terrorists stormed an embassy and took dozens of civilians hostage. It was an impossible position to be in.

I freely admit trying to liberate the hostages was a mistake, but at least he was trying to do something. Exactly what went wrong on that mission has been an object of some controversy.

Anyway, I'm not holding up Carter as a model president. I'm just saying he was not as "soft" as people now imagine. (He was in the Navy for many years, by the way, and he was much more conservative on most issues than people now remember.)

Reagan pulled troops out of Beirut after the tragic bombing of the Marine barracks. I don't hear people complaining that Reagan was soft.

As for "winning the cold war" without firing a shot, Reagan NEGOTIATED with the Soviets. He didn't carpet bomb them or threaten to invade them.

About the so-called "War on Terror."

What does that phrase even mean? I understand that we cannot be in a defensive posture, but does that mean that we have to base our foreign policy on an inadequate metaphor?

Whatever it is that you mean, I hope the so called "War on Terror" is more successful than the "War on Drugs" was. There was a time when drug dealers were the nameless, faceless Orwellian enemy that the government used to justify its growing militarism.

Just saying.

ruralcounsel| 10.30.08 @ 1:22PM

Tom Paine wrote: It's stupid and un-American to suggest that Democrats don't love their country or wish to serve it.

Yes it is, but I don't think that's what's going on here. It is the Democratic leadership that is being hammered on, not the rank-and-file. And for some reason, you can't make the dissociation, and feel you have to defend them.

I grew up in heavy Democratic union territory ... steelworkers, coal miners. And those people were some of the most patriotic folks you could ask to know. But they have virtually nothing in common with the current image of the Democratic Party that I see today.

They hated most taxes and government interference in their lives. They volunteered and served in the military at astounding rates, even when John Kerry was tossing his medals away. They worked tough dangerous jobs, and they believed in helping people who couldn't take care of themselves. But they sure didn't believe in taking care of people who WOULDN'T take care of themsleves, or were lazy or stupid. They didn't expect government to come solve all their problems; where thier families had come from, government caused most of their problems. They were some of the most libertarian Democrats you ever saw.

That doesn't describe any major Democratic Party figures I see today.

And if it makes you feel any better, I get tired of being called a fascist, un-American, stupid, and a host of other things just for questioning Obama positions ... and I'm not even a Republican!

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 1:28PM

Troll posted at 12:22 under my good name.

Lozel, get your own monicker. Write your own stuff. Have a little dignity.

ruralcounsel| 10.30.08 @ 1:28PM

Obama Rules wrote:
Then. let me ask you, why alienate our European allies with the "if you're not with us, you're against us" cowboy policies of President Bush?

You are making the presumption that they are all really allies. Questionable decision-making skills on your part.

Or alternatively, just because they are allies doesn't mean that you have to adhere to their positions ... sometimes you need to act in your own national self-interest (like they were doing).

the real ruth| 10.30.08 @ 1:33PM

Looks like i got under your skin, Obomber. Can't take a little needling from a girl? Not much of a man are you? But how could you be, you are a liberal after all. Have a nice day. Go McCain/Palin!! The Hero vs the Zero

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 1:33PM

Rural Counsel

I understand that there have been more conservative Democrats in the past -- back when the Republicans were mostly just the party of Wall Street and country club types.

But I reject your caricature of Democrats today. It's true that Vietnam did make Democrats squeamish about armed conflict. I'd say the experiences of Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq for good reason make us reluctant to fight wars.

Wars in the modern world are costly and destabilizing. It spawns terrorism and insurgencies that are extremely difficult to fight.

In SE Asia the US did tremendous damage to its standing in the world, and we lost 58,000 soldiers. In addition, millions of civilians were butchered -- by us and by the communists -- in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The bombing towards the end of that conflict was horrendous, brutal, and pointless.

It may be that Iraq will succeed. Again, I certainly hope it does. I reject the idea that I am somehow not a "real American" because I did not support that war. But I do hope it succeeds.

Loshooligan| 10.30.08 @ 1:34PM

Tom Paine says: [ Comparing the notion of "talking" to Iran to "appeasement" of Hitler betrays a lack of historical understanding.

Are you high on dust? What the hell do you think Iran is doing right now? I guess when Iran says they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and giving their land to the Palestinians sounds nothing like what Hitler did? The difference really is that Hitler wanted to trade land for peace vs. Iran will just completely inhalator Israel to achieve their mid east peace.

You say I betray a lack of historical understanding? No its you who lacks the intellectual capacity to make a clear argument. The fact that you fail to see similarities between the actions of Hitler, and the Islamo-facists of today shows that comprehension is not one of your finer skills. Iran sends troops to kill US military personal, but I guess that’s not an act of aggression. Iran threatens to destroy a nation, but I guess that’s not an act of aggression. Iran defies the world community about its nuclear proliferation, but I guess that’s not an act of aggression. So when should we consider Iran’s actions as aggressive deserving a response? Maybe not until you need a mop to clean up the urine at your feet.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 1:52PM

Loshooligan,

As persuasive as your argument that I am "high on dust" is, and as stirring as your intellectual prowess seems to be given your ability to repeat what you hear on Sean Hannity, I suppose you win.

Let's remember something about Iran, however. We currently have troops stationed on both of their boarders. We have made noises about regime change. We have called them members of the "axis of evil." I don't doubt that their feeling a little hostile towards us and our allies in the region.

What you don't understand is how the Iranian government works. The wackos who threaten Israel are figure heads the government uses to direct the anxieties and fears of the people at convenient exterior enemies. (Sound familiar?)

The actual mullahs who run Iran have no interest in war with Israel or the US. I think that's pretty clear to everyone who knows what they're talking about.

Iran (or Persia) has not invaded another country in centuries. They're not a very warlike people, actually.

If we keep our heads, work patiently and carefully, and act intelligently Iran could one day be our ally and friend in the region. Believe it. The nonsense you hear about bombing Iran is just a distraction.

Remember your Shakespeare? "Busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels..."

the real ruth| 10.30.08 @ 1:54PM

Hero-McCain Zero-Obama as if that had to be said. And about my redneck boyfriend, he's got nothing to worry about because you and I both know you don't play with girls.

Sam| 10.30.08 @ 1:58PM

Dear Mr. Paine,

This will be my last post (hurrah!) as this has become tiresome. No one is speaking of carpet-bombing Iraq; we will let the Clinton war cabinet take that strategy in Bosnia. The present administration prefers to attempt to foster constitutional and consensual government in one of the most troubled regions of the world. Time will tell and nothing is certain except for the notion that the Left in America never met a tyrant or a dictator that they did not like (I am already bracing for the "but we supported Saddam" or "but we supported the Shah" replies....Why? Why?).

From the bogus Lancet report overshooting the number of Iraqi civillians killed by some 1000 - 1500 percent, to the execrable John Murtha and Dick Durbin convicting our men under arms before due process and likening their actions to those of Nazi Germany, the American left, while embedded in television studios or in university classrooms, has taken great pride and glee in any supposed American setback, most certainly any military setback.

All wars are a series of mistakes and learning from said mistakes. It is bloody, gruesome and quite often unfair, to use one of the most useless words available in our language. But warfare, as practiced by the West, can exemplify both the best the human spirit has to offer and the most noble of ambitions. It took Lincoln years to find his Grant and Sherman and it took your beloved FDR (thanks for the socialism sir) years to wade through his Mark Clarks before latching on to his Eisenhowers, Marshalls and Bradleys. It took our president a few years to find his Petraeus and Odinero, but find him he did.

If you think 4,ooo men who choose to exhibit free will and defend their country from savages is a great and tragic waste, would you please, at some point, say a small prayer for 40 million unborn who, through liberal "tolerance" and the statndard or there being no standard, never had the chance to exercise their will and, or not, defend their country. Just a brief prayer for them please as you gnash your teeth and view 4,000 war casualties as "the biggest blunder" in US policy history.

And once the rest of us stop laughing please, since the left loves to obsess over the numbers of those killed save for the ones they kill, please compare the casualty rate to any conflict in history. Perhaps then you may reach the conclusion that the heroes of the Left, from Lenin to Che' to Stalin to Mao are the actual butchers.

By the way, to add to your list...
Mr. Reagan
General Eisenhower (when Supreme Commander)
Teddy (San Juan Hill and gunboat diplomacy)

So, with GWB I guess that makes 4.

Have great days and fruitful lives...this, however, grows tiresome.

Best regards,

Sam Haldi
Atlanta, GA

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 2:00PM

And no, Loshooligan, there is no comparison between Hitler's Germany and any terrorist organization that exists today.

Hitler commanded the largest Army in the world (for a time). He invaded countries throughout Europe and Africa, including our closest allies. He built concentration camps in which millions of people were murdered.

The difference is huge -- so huge that for any minute you spend talking about their similarities, you'd have to spend hours talking about their differences.

And no, there's nothing like appeasement being proposed by anyone, and no, Iran is not demanding territorial concessions in exchange for peace.

Iran is attempting to project its power in the same region of the world we are trying to project our power. (Only that region is their back yard.) Iran is not threatening to invade Israel or (need I say it?) the United States.

Todd| 10.30.08 @ 2:09PM

Tom Paine,

Here are the homicide stats for Chicago for the past 5 years which are the highest in the country. They will probably exceed 600 this year at their current rate.
2003: 598
2004: 448
2005: 449
2006: 467
2007: 442

It only adds up to only 2,404 so you can feel good about that, not quite as dangerous living in Chicago as fighting a war in Iraq. This statement you made regarding Carter "Carter hated the Soviets with an intensity not matched by Nixon or Reagan, certainly." has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Reagan made it his life mission to defeat the Soviets which he accomplished with no help from Carter that is for damn sure.

Todd| 10.30.08 @ 2:16PM

Thanks for the statistics. I don't know what they prove, or even what the point of discussing them is, but thanks anyway.

It's true Reagan wanted to defeat the Soviet Union. But so did Carter, and so did JFK, and so did Johnson.

My point was that Democrats were not the softies on communism the right now claims.

Your caricature of Carter just doesn't stand up to history.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 2:19PM

And I take it that we're discussing Chicago murder rates for a reason?

SO you hope to imply that Obama is somehow responsible for ... the Chicago homicide rate? Is that it?

Because that would be just the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

I know Obama is a terrorist, and a communist, and that he wants to show pornography to school children, and he's a real estate crook, and a celebrity, and he doesn't wear lapel jewelry, and he tried to put lipstick on a pig (or something).....but now, what are you saying, he also murders people in Chicago?

Howard| 10.30.08 @ 2:24PM

Tom Paine makes a point about the success of Democratic presidents in various wars. That is well and good. But, I believe it is fair to say that the Democrats world view has changed considerably since the assent of the McGovern wing to control of the party. The "Scoop Jackson wing" of the party has been defeated. I go no further back than the first Gulf War as a proxy for each parties stand on force vs. negotiations. However, this is all past tense. What I am concerned about is smart decisions. This involves military force when needed, diplomacy, QUALITY intelligence gathering and disbursement, and image building. I prefer McCain, but we are all Americans, so if Obama wins, I hope he throws Ayers, Wright, and the other cretins into the pit. We need to be vigilant and purposeful in our efforts in a very dangerous world.

Capt GR DeBoer| 10.30.08 @ 2:27PM

Iran is indeed not threatening to invade Israel, merely to incinerate it.

Some see the world as they wish it were, some as it is.

ruth| 10.30.08 @ 2:37PM

Capt GR DeBoer: Meanwhile, Israelis are bombing the crap out of Palestinian land and slaughtering innocent Palestinian kids. But that's OK, right?

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 2:42PM

Howard --

I see only one reason to argue against a vote for McCain (other than I prefer Obama). McCain is a war hero and a good man.

However, his choice of Sarah Palin as Vice President was foolish and rash. If McCain, God forbid, were to die in office, we'd be stuck with yet another chief executive who is incapable of articulating difficult or challenging ideas to the people of this country.

Notice I'm not picking on Palin's intelligence or her politics. I am not. My problem is with her inability to inability to explain her reasoning -- about almost any topic.

I was shocked by her performance during that Couric interview, when she failed to answer easy, open questions.

A conservative of all people should be able to discuss a Supreme Court case other than R v W. Watching her I felt like as a liberal I understood her politics and her cause better than she did.

loshholigan| 10.30.08 @ 2:43PM

Tom Paine says: [And no, Loshooligan, there is no comparison between Hitler's Germany and any terrorist organization that exists today.]

You just keep telling yourself that. You must have graduated from the Bill Ayers school of terrorist thought to not be able to see what is really going on in the middle east. Make sure to call your dope dealer after this post. He obviously sold you some bad shit.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 2:47PM

Captain --

I don't think it's accurate to use the metonymy "Iran" when referring to Ahmadinejad's insane threats.

He does not control the Iranian military. It would be like Iran reacting to something Tom DeLay said. I'm not saying it doesn't matter or that Iran ought to be given a Nobel Prize.

Iran is extremely dangerous, and they do support terrorism. I'm just saying it's not as easy as some claim to simply settle in with the idea that Iran is Nazi Germany and we therefore ought to just consider them an enemy and go from there. It's just more complicated than that. With respect.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 2:50PM

Loshooligan --

You're right. You got me. Clever you. I did. I did "graduate from the Bill Ayers school of terrorism."

How'd you ever figure it out? Wasn't I hiding it well enough? You sure got my number.

Congratulations. You win. I surrender.

Ghastlyone| 10.30.08 @ 3:41PM

Tom Paine:

Here, take a little gander at this article from Michael Ledeen regarding Iran [which you seem to think doesn't pose a threat to the big bully US]
You going to say this guy doesn't know what he's talking about either?

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

the real ruth| 10.30.08 @ 3:43PM

Obomber Rules is posting under the name ruth because he is too chicken to use his own name. The little thug has to pick up his astroturf check from Obama's fellow thug, David Axelrod.

megapotamus| 10.30.08 @ 4:07PM

Skipped a lot of the above so perhaps this was said but Tom Paine, if you maintain that Carter (Carter!) was not only a fervent anti-communist but such a one as to put Reagan in the shade you demonstrate yourself to be delusional at best. Carter? What a laugh. By the way, Carter is on the record denouncing the American Revolution as an unnecessary outburst of violence. Can we call him un-American? And just to get it on record, Democrats ARE anti-American. When they did all they could do to have us defeated in Iraq and actually were successful in getting us defeated in Viet Nam they show this and they do it again and again. Democrats ALWAYS want the US to lose regardless of the foe. FDR of course wanted us to lose, but to the Soviets rather than the Nazis. Roosevelts aspirations for a "soft convergence" of the American and Soviet systems are well documented and, of course, as documented in Venona and The Sword and the Shield, his New Deal was shot through, not merely with CPUSA agents or ideological marxists but with agents specifically loyal to Stalin. Harry Hopkins comes to mind as the most prominent.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 4:16PM

Megapotamus --
70 million Americans are going to vote for Democrats next Tuesday, and you'll sit here now saying they're un-American?

What makes you so wise?

Ghastlyone --

I read the article you linked to. The guy seems to know what he's talking about, and I agreed with much of what he said. However, I do NOT agree with his conclusion that Iran has nuclear weapons, nor do I agree that Iran is as militarily aggressive as he suggests. I don't find evidence to support those claims.

I DO agree that Iran supports terrorism and that that is totally unacceptable. I DO agree that Iran poses a threat to stability in the Middle East. I DO agree that Iran is contributing to our enemies in Iraq. I do NOT see how this adds up to making them comparable to Nazi Germany, nor to I think it is some kind of causus belli.

ruth| 10.30.08 @ 4:26PM

Obama 2008! I love black men!

the real ruth| 10.30.08 @ 4:58PM

You are such a jerk--but you make me laugh. I hate you.

the real ruth| 10.30.08 @ 5:49PM

Obomber Rules/ruth is out there right now extorting as many ACORN votes as possible for The One 'We are what we have been waiting for', Obama.

Ghastlyone| 10.30.08 @ 6:07PM

Tom Paine said:"70 million Americans are going to vote for Democrats next Tuesday, and you'll sit here now saying they're un-American? "

Until you liberals kick, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, John Stewart, Sean Penn, Harry "the war is lost" Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, all the Hollywood Elite, Kieth Olbermann, Chris Mathews, Rosie O'Donnell, Etc. Etc.......

Your whole democrat party will be considered ANTI-AMERICAN. These are the loony anti-american spokespeople for your party, with the non-stop constant drum beats of anti-americanism.

Tom Paine| 10.30.08 @ 7:38PM

Ghastlyone --

I think you're being a bit extreme. Anti-American?

Those people -- and I -- disagree with you about politics. We are not your mortal enemy.

You probably should cut down on the time you spend listening to people like Rush Limbaugh. They're bad for the soul.

Try getting out more and meeting people like teachers, police men, doctors, and -- yes -- soldiers who are Democrats. You might be surprised how people with opinions that are different from yours don't seem so foreign or dangerous if you meet them and hear what they have to say.

Vote John McCain. More power to you. But your divisive, outraged rhetoric is toxic and silly. Pretty soon, no one will listen to you about anything because they'll just assume you're just a parrot for what you hear on the radio.

OCPatriot| 10.31.08 @ 12:02AM

Dear Mr Tyrrell:
Although it may be difficult for you, if you would listen to the very factual and careful interview segment dealing with Afghanistan on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC that she had with Senator Obama, and compare it with anything Senator McCain has said about that conflict, you would understand that Obama fully understands the nuances of the very bad situation and has a clear vision of what needs to be done to fix it. In calm, clear language he lays out how bad it is and what he would do about it. I hasten to add that this isn't posturing for the interview or for votes; it isn't slogans or politicking; it would win the respect, and probably does win the respect, of the military. I urge you to listen to that segment and then re-think your piece here. No histrionics, no easy solutions, no vote-getting here, nothing but the laying out what we must do if we aren't to be engulfed.

Diane Smith| 10.31.08 @ 1:14AM

The original Tom Paine must be twirling in his pauper's grave.

Harry R| 10.31.08 @ 6:49AM

Comparing Roosevelt to the current crop of Democratic dummies (Obama, Frank, Dodd, Schumer, etc.) is ludicrous.

Mick in Va| 10.31.08 @ 7:13AM

Last night on Hannity, it was revealed that in one of Bill Ayer's book dedications, he listed "political prisoners" unjustly held by the United States. One of them was Sirhan Sirhan the murderer of Robert F. Kennedy. Have a nice day, Democrats.

Tom Paine| 10.31.08 @ 11:26AM

Diane Smith --

What do you know about the original Tom Paine?

Mick in Va -

"Last night on Hannity..."

That is the most ludicrous phrase that could possibly be used in the contexts of politics, history, or journalism.

There's nothing wrong with a little Hannity or Limbaugh every now and then for entertainment, just as there's nothing wrong with eating at McDonald's every now and then.

But don't try to get all your nutrition there, or you'll end up sounding like the rest of the dolts on this thread....

GiNFiZ| 11.1.08 @ 2:32AM

In January 2003, the 'excellent' Krauthammer was openly advocated appeasing the North Koreans (who were about to get the nuclear bomb) saying that 'sometimes, appeasement is necessary', while pushing for a war against a disabled Iraq which represented NO THREAT to our country since 1991.
Talk about 'defending' us against 'enemies'...

Lan| 11.1.08 @ 1:27PM

how does being a POW qualify him for anything? sitting in jail and looking at 4 walls does not give him any additional insight on foreign policy and national security issues. with respect to experience, there are good experiences and bad experiences. his decades in the senate represent bad experience to me. i would rather have someone with less bad experience.