Comments Posted By headhunt23
Displaying 71 To 79 Of 79 Comments
To WhitIV
Oh, I 100% agree that the Republicans totally have botched that war - a war i am a veteran of I might add. I dont' blame any Democrat for the administration's policy failures.
I just don't see how Republican failures make a pedestrian speech given by an empty suit a great policy initiative.
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 14.12.2006 @ 09:02
THere was nothing on the list that was a surprise, and the ISG was a commission with a predetermined outcome. Everything was what the left had been saying for quite a while. I really fail to see any great analysis there, because there is no original thought.
Perhaps if he would articulate the stakes in the war (something Bush has failed to do consistently) I would have a different opinion of it.
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 13.12.2006 @ 21:28
To 17WhitIV
Did you actually read that speech slugger?
Here are the points:
Predetermined PHased withdrawl
Better Training of Iraqi Troops
No More No Bid Contracts
Talk to our Syria and Iran
Plan for the Aftermath next time
Don't think you can instill democracy at Gun Point.OHhhhhhh....he is really going against the grain of popular opinion there, isn't?
never mind he is wrong on the witdrawl portion (we should either double down or pull out immediately IMHO), and doesn't really say what we should say or give Syria and Iran in exchange for our cooperation.
Yes Virginia, he still maintains empty suit status.
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 13.12.2006 @ 16:14
To Reidblog:
hey, thanks for the credit on the Obamo Rorsarch test theory. Glad you got a post out of it. Not.
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 13.12.2006 @ 12:55
To Nate:
Oh, I know he doesn't have the credentials, but for a Senator, i think that is actually benificial (unless he had governor time previously). people that vote have records that get twisted, and there is a reason why the last person to be elected directly out of the senate had a empty record there - JFK.
Obama's stock will never be higher than it is during this election cycle, at least as a presidential candidate. I agree he probably shouldn't be quite as visible now, but who knows? It isn't like he is out there taking a lot of contentious issues head on. He is playing everything close to the vest, and trying to be statesman like by asking people to rise above politics.
Credentials cut both ways. Bush didn't have a particularl illustrious resume. Carter was a one term governor. Reagan and Nixon had been out of office 8 years each. If he can position himself as a winner and get the funds rolling in, he is legit, even if he is an empty suit.
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 12.12.2006 @ 22:16
To Nate:
I doubt it is predetermined. He may very well never have as good a shot at the presidency as he does in 2008. Cripes, if he is Hilary's VP, he is overshadowed by both her AND Bill, plus we have already seen one Clinton Whitehouse, and we know it was scandal plauged. If Hilary has a similar cast of characters around her, she will only be hurt worse because she won't dodge the issues nearly as adroitly as Bill did. Plus, does Hilary seem like the kind of person that will be comfortable sharing the spotlight any more than she has to? I dont' think that the next VP will enjoy anywhere near the power that Cheney has, but you can just about bet hers will be invisible.
In fact, if I was him, I wouldn't go anywhere near that ticket. If he thinks about it, then he should just watch a video of Al Gore saying "no controlling legal authority" over and over with someone who says - "that's gonna be you Barak if you become her VP.
Face it, Barak's appeal is the fact that no one knows who/what he is, but many people have bestowed saint-like status upon him. He can't survive a wiff of scandal because then he becomes like "all the rest of them" and the word "scandal" is frequently found in close relation to the word "Clinton".
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 12.12.2006 @ 16:43
My Nickname for Obama;
The Human Rosarch Test
He can be anything the view wants him to be.
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 12.12.2006 @ 13:46
IN WHICH I AM HEARTILY SICK OF GLENN GREENWALD
"Guys, a federal judge found it to be illegal. That’s why he can say it’s illegal. Learn a little about law before you shoot off your yaps."
Derek, correct me if I am wrong (I am sure someone will) but I believe that ruling was overturned.
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 30.11.2006 @ 15:46
CIA PLOT TO DESTROY THE MOONBATS
I love the list of 'martyrs' 'many of whom were killed by US or British Troops. Ossie Davis? ROSA PARKS?!?!? Paul Wellstone (I could have sworn he died well before the war.
But, of course, the most offensive inclusion was Michael Kelly. Kelly was PRO WAR, and if you have ever read his two brillian books, Martyrs Day and Things Worth Fighting For you will understand why.
I am sure he trying to figure out a way to get back and kick this little worm in the butt.
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 27.02.2006 @ 15:26
