• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

rapunzel

Beach Fanatic
Nov 30, 2005
2,514
980
Point Washington
Haven't read that elgordo, but from the description on Wikipedia I don't think I'd enjoy it. :D It's just that any time someone starts talking about what's best for the world and how that should supersede what's best for the country, I get nervous. Where should our interests lie? Should we place the good of all countries above the good of our own, or should helping other nations take a back seat to the self preservation of our own ideology? I think taking the former approach ends up decreasing our ability to have an impact because our idiology is what drives us in a direction that allows us to help.

I don't think he said world interests should supercede our interests -- he showed how the two were one and the same. We have the same respect for freedom and democracy and humanity, and therefore our self-interest is the same as theirs. Obama made the excellent point that the fear and suspicion between us and the rest of the world made us both weaker, and working together would make us all stronger.
 

BeachSiO2

Beach Fanatic
Jun 16, 2006
3,294
737
FYI, through Capitalism and Multi-national corporations we are already living in somewhat of a one world order. Heck, China and the Middle East are the bankers to our national debt. The difference is that the suits are running the one world and not the politicos.
 

GoodWitch58

Beach Fanatic
Oct 10, 2005
4,810
1,923
Exactly...
 

6thGen

Beach Fanatic
Aug 22, 2005
1,491
152
I liked that he didn?t pander to anti-Americanism abroad, like Clinton in office and Carter since he left office.

In order of what bugs me the most:
?The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love.? ? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The USSR worked to destroy Europe, but they were kept in check by the US and our nuclear deterrence. When the USSR collapsed, there was no threat of destroying ?all we have built and all that we love.?

I don?t get the protection reference to one of our strongest trading partners, and ?build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably" scares the hell out of me. His mention of wealth created by open markets is completely hypocritical, given his fight against them.

"History proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one" ? name one time the world has ever stood as one. The US Air Force, not ?the world?, risked war to feed Berlin. To paraphrase something I read yesterday, politicians tell their audiences what they want to hear, true statesmen do not.

I don?t like that the first threat he mentioned was global warming. I believe autocracies cause hunger, not carbons we send into our atmosphere.

I?d love for him to mention difficulties with Muslims in Paris today, but he could be prosecuted for getting too racy on the subject. He could mention that he most likely could not win an election in France, given (from the NYT) there is ?one black member representing continental France in the National Assembly among 555 members; no continental French senators out of some 300; only a handful of mayors out of some 36,000, and none from the poor Paris suburbs.?

?yesterday Germans showed this is the man they view as the potential next leader of the free world? ? How many electoral votes does Germany have?

Also, here?s the link I mentioned yesterday.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_6951
 

rapunzel

Beach Fanatic
Nov 30, 2005
2,514
980
Point Washington
FYI, through Capitalism and Multi-national corporations we are already living in somewhat of a one world order. Heck, China and the Middle East are the bankers to our national debt. The difference is that the suits are running the one world and not the politicos.


It's amazing to me that fear of the New World Order is so often used against Democrats, when the Republicans are in heavy attendance at every Bilderberg conference. If you fear the NWO, vote Obama. He still respects democracy.
 

rapunzel

Beach Fanatic
Nov 30, 2005
2,514
980
Point Washington
Andrea Mitchell, NBC, who is traveling with Obama, reported that the Pentagon persuaded him it would be inappropriate. He said he had visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Perhaps that was okay because it was a congressional visit; the Berlin portion was strictly a campaign trip.

Andrea Mitchell on Morning Joe this morning:

The background on the military flap is that they [Obama campaign] had clearly planned a trip to Ramstein [AFB]. They were planning to visit the injured troops. And then the Pentagon explained that they couldn't go as part of a political trip. The Obama campaign thought that they could go, leave the press corps on the tarmac, and then take off with military escort and make this one last visit. As he did in Iraq, by the way. He visited a casualty unit in the Green Zone, without photographers, as part of the congressional delegation. But the military said that the rules are that he could only go as part of a previously-arranged congressional delegation, to Ramstein
Clearly, people in the campaign are really angry. They had wanted this to be the final stop on the trip here in Germany, and to do it without the press corps, just to do it on his own. But the objections of the military are that he is now being staffed by campaign aides, not by his Senate staff, who are the people of course with him when he went with Hagel and Jack Reed in Iraq. So, you know, the anger here in the campaign is pretty intense at the Pentagon. They feel that the military are drawing some lines--they're not saying this publicly of course--but drawing lines that they might have drawn for other people. He was planning to just go by himself, not with cameras, not with any entourage, as he had done in Walter Reed in the past in Washington, as he did in Iraq.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: It's curious, if that's the case, why the campaign didn't make that announcement yesterday, and allowed stories to go like this. I'm sure there's going to be a lot of he said/she said in the days to come about this.

MITCHELL: But they thought that they couldn't win. Yeah. They thought that they were, you know, you know, no-win situation, that the Pentagon, perhaps the military with cooperation from some Republican operatives and, that's the sort of scuttlebutt, that there have been some foreign policy advisers of John McCain with connections in the Pentagon who had something to do with this. But that is, perhaps, just the normal political paranoia of the season.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-f...says-mccain-sabotaged-obama-military-hospital

So, why isn't the right talking about his visits to visit injured troops in Afghanistan and Iraq without photographers? No praise for that?
 

Bob

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2004
10,366
1,391
O'Wal
Did not McCain oppose the last Vet's benefits bill? Am I the only person who cannot stop laughing at the name KrautHammer along with the Dr. Strangelove appearance. McCain's got the advantage on Obama given the lower level of hostilities in Iraq, but I would wager most folks want us out now, and posturing over who is right/wrong won't win votes at this very late stage.
 

6thGen

Beach Fanatic
Aug 22, 2005
1,491
152
I'm thrilled he visited, and glad it was more than made out to be, but to paraphrase Chris Rock, that's what he's supposed to do. To split hairs, from the Campaign Spot:

Why Was Obama's Visit to Landstuhl and Ramstein Canceled?

The argument I'm getting from some readers over Obama's is that "Bush was very busy putting kinks in Obama's trip. Bush banned State Department Officials from attending Obama's speech."

"Bush" didn't; the State Department decided, with no real precedent for these circumstances, that U.S. diplomatic employees should not be seen at the event lest it be construed as an endorsement. We can argue about whether that's too strict, but I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that if you're overseas on the government's dime, you probably shouldn't be showing up at partisan political rallies.

Anyway, once again in the campaign, we've got the left hand of the Obama campaign not knowing what the further left hand is doing.

"We learned from the Pentagon last night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event," the adviser, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, said in a statement. "Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perveived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go."


This makes it sound like the Pentagon registered the objection. But the initial statement from Obama's spokesman didn't mention any objection from the Pentagon, and that Obama himself had decided it would be inappropriate.

Gibbs said the stop was canceled because Obama decided "it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign."

But most importantly, note this report from MSNBC:

One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama's representatives were told, "he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers." In addition, Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit."

The mention of the "no campaign officials" rule is interesting in light of yesterday's report, in which someone familiar with the situation told me that rule was the main sticking point in the cancellation of the trip.

Guess who was stationed at Ramstein Air Base from 1990 to 1992? And who also served as director of the Plans and Policy Directorate at U.S. European Command Headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany?

Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, current policy adviser to the Obama campaign.



07/25 08:13 AM
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter