The next SOS should have a minimal understanding about what will be required to end the civil war in Iraq without leaving a failed state behind. This person should also have a clue about what the October 2002 resolution authorizing the use of US military force in Iraq was all about...or, at the very least, not be completely disingenuous about interpreting a vote in favor of it...and would also have to realize that, sometimes, you actually do have to read beyond the title of something to understand the complexities of it.

Of course, wouldn't it be great if the next POTUS could fit this bill, too? We can dream...

Michale.....

While I don't have a problem with Republicans in the Cabinet of a Dem President, I really don't think McCain's the right guy for the job. His temperment is what makes me say this. But maybe Chuck Hagel or someone of his ilk...

Like I say, I don't disagree with the concept. But McCain wouldn't be my first choice. Interesting suggestion you had for McCain, though -- Obama Sec. of State. Hmmm... interesting...

-CW

I disagree... During the MCA hearings, McCain was heralded by the LEFT as a hero... The fact that he finally came to his senses and saw reason does not negate the fact that many Democrats feel they can work with McCain.. Granted, you probably won't hear that now, what with all the partisan chest beating going on...

But if Obama is sincere about being a "uniter" that would be a mighty fine way to show it..

Michale.....

Unfortunately, I don't think Senator McCain would accept such a proposal...even after Senator Obama becomes the President-elect. I just don't see it happening at all...McCain is too partisan, in that respect...just not in his DNA, so to speak.

As for Obama as SOS, in anyone's administration...don't get me going!

"I don’t know whether it would be fascinating or utterly depressing to peer ahead 100 years into the historical interpretation of the Bush administration. I would only hope that people wouldn’t still be suffering from the long terms effects of it."

I think you give too much credit to Bush.. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for American citizens and jailed American citizens for their disagreement with his Civil War policies.. FDR rounded up and placed in detention camps Americans whose SOLE crime was their ancestry.. Those actions are INFINITELY worse than anything the Bush Administration has done. I think it's safe to say that there are no "long term effects" from those actions by FDR and Lincoln..

Just keep in mind one thing. While there is potential for abuse you, as an American citizen, have lost little or nothing in the way of rights or freedoms..

"If you are suggesting that John McCain would make a find Sec Def in an Obama administration, then we are bound to have some very interesting “conversations”"

I think that Obama declaring that, if he is elected POTUS, he would nominate John McCain as his SecDef would virtually guarantee Obama's election.. Conversely, if McCain were to declare that he would nominate Obama as his SecState, that would be equally impressive..

Call me idealistic, but I like it when people makes friends out of "enemies"..

Michale.....

"but when they are in positions of power and are censoring government scientists who work for you, me, and everybody — then I have a huge problem."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html

Your thoughts?? :D

Elizabeth, I'll get to your points in a few. Just have time for a quickie hit and run right now and your comments deserve better...

Michale.....

As for missing the point you were making about Katrina...I have grudgingly come to accept the usefulness, limited though it may be, of political talking points and spin...and if the Katrina response doesn’t provide for that in spades, then I don’t know what does.

But, I just think that any politician who resorts to the use of political talking points and spin, on any given issue, betrays their own incompetence and ability to “speak truth to power”, as they say, and to make a powerful stand based on the simple truth of the matter.

Wouldn’t it be a far more powerful statement to clearly explain (1) that the response to Katrina was a dismal failure at all levels of government and showed a particular dysfunction within the federal government and (2) that all levels of government must get serious about the critical challenges facing New Orleans and, indeed, coastal cities throughout the US, and (3) that the federal government needs to make an immediate, firm and iron-clad commitment to implement a comprehensive plan of action to restore the wetlands and barrier islands of southern Louisiana and (4) that none of this will happen without the kind of strong and competent presidential leadership that I am prepared to provide to save a great American city.

Thanks for the warm welcome...I haven’t been here long but I already know that this is a great place to be if you enjoy an informative, interesting and humorous debate on the important political issues of the day. I trust you will be reporting from the Democratic National Convention in Denver because your perspective will be an important counter balance to what we will most definitely be subjected to from the mainstream media. Best of luck!

I don’t know whether it would be fascinating or utterly depressing to peer ahead 100 years into the historical interpretation of the Bush administration. I would only hope that people wouldn’t still be suffering from the long terms effects of it.

I would strongly agree with you on the importance of inviting dissenting opinions and that it is a mark of great leaders. If you are suggesting that John McCain would make a find Sec Def in an Obama administration, then we are bound to have some very interesting “conversations”! But, Senator Obama would have to get himself elected first. And, therefore, I would say that his smartest move would be to ask Senator Biden to be his running mate. Of course, I don’t think Senator Biden should accept the position without being assured that he would be in complete charge of the Iraq file, no matter what the incoming SOS has to say about it. That is the only way Obama wins the general...no ifs, ands or buts about it.

You will learn that there is no need for explanation about the “SHE” comment, or about much else. Like you, I love the give and take...and political correctness BE DAMNED! I also have no problem with a woman as President, but Senator Clinton had no business putting herself into this race much less treating her nomination as imminent or inevitable. I say this for one overriding reason: she doesn’t understand the first thing about what will be required to end the civil war in Iraq and bring the troops home without leaving a failed state in their wake. This fact alone should disqualify her from assuming the office of the POTUS. Of course, this should also disqualify Senator Obama and the presumptive Republican nominee. Don’t even ask where that leaves me...just know that my particular predicament has given frustration whole new meaning!

One more note on Katrina...what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina was most definitely NOT a natural disaster. No less than three independent forensic investigations have concluded that the US Army Corps of Engineers was responsible for the poorly designed and constructed levees which failed to withstand a weak Cat 3 storm. Remember, these levees were not breached - they collapsed as a result of structural failure due to flawed design and shoddy construction. As far as I know, the local and state governments did not have much control over the US ACE or funding their projects.

Having said that, New Orleans is definitely in a precarious situation with respect to its geography. This fact has been known for a long time and scientists and engineers know what needs to be done to remedy the situation and how to do it. Time, however, is not on our side and it is imperative that a comprehensive action plan be implemented NOW to restore coastal Louisiana. Restore or retreat - those are the options, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, for NOLA and other coastal cities throughout the US, there appears to be absolutely no political will and certainly no firm commitment to do this from the federal government on down. I guess it is just easier to allow a great American city to be completely devoured by the Gulf of Mexico but I have been unable to wrap my mind around that defeatist way of thinking.

"My Cousin Vinny" quotes? OK, I challenge you to work positraction or limited-slip differentials into the dialog somehow. Heh.

On the Katrina debate, I think you guys are missing my point somewhat. No matter who or what is to blame for the disastrous response, the issue is a winner politically for Democrats because it is the poster child for incompetence in the Bush administration. These are political talking points, remember, so of course they're going to be full of "spin." And Bush helpfully provided the quote "Heckuva job, Brownie" which any American hears and immediately remembers the entire Katrina tragedy from beginning to end. It's rare that a fuzzy concept (incompetence, political appointees who have no resume to speak of except loyalty) like this has such a great tag line, which is why I use "heckuva job" whenever possible to point out politics trumping competence.

Brown even later laid out a pretty good case that it wasn't him or FEMA who screwed up so badly, it was Chertoff (his boss), who didn't get fired. Sour grapes, maybe, but who cares? The blame for Katrina, or whether Al Gore is right or not isn't the point -- the point is, it's an effective political tool to use for Democrats. Bush's ratings began their slide into oblivion after Katrina, and have never recovered. "Heckuva job" just reminds everyone of that.

I have no problem when anyone in the global warming debate using political pressure from the outside looking in (Gore isn't in the Oval Office), but when they are in positions of power and are censoring government scientists who work for you, me, and everybody -- then I have a huge problem. I would have the same problem if Gore was in office and censored scientists who didn't agree with him. It's not the stance on the issue that is an outrage, it is the censorship of science that is. No matter who is doing it.

And let me also say welcome to the site, Elizabeth!

-CW

Depends on who is in charge of the regime.. If you are dealing with the likes of Ahmenjandi (or whatever), Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin et al, then a "conduct change" makes no sense. History has certainly shown that conduct change had no effect on the latter 3.. I can't think of any logical or rational reason to expect that Ahmenjihadii would be open to changing his ways... It is a shame that the Iranian people will have to suffer, but as is so often is the case, the people bear the sins of their leaders...

"I just think that they are terribly misguided and that their national security strategy has been an abject failure."

Ya know, during his term of office, Lincoln was thought of in a similar manner than Bush is today.. The comments and attacks against Bush today are eerily similar than they were against Lincoln.. And yet, Lincoln is revered today as one of our greatest leaders. Even did a guest stint on Star Trek.. :D

Wouldn't it be fascinating to peer ahead 100 years and see what future history says about Bush? :D

Regarding Obama.. Ya know what his SMARTEST move would be?? To pick the most ardent and vocal backer of the Iraq War and make him the Secretary of Defense.. When I was an EllTee during the first Gulf War, I always made it a point to choose, as my immediate subordinate, the person who disagreed with me the most.. A person who has the moral courage to invite dissenting opinions is truly a great leader.. Whoever the elected President will be, he (or god forbid, SHE) will do this country a grave disservice by choosing party loyalty over all else...

A note of explanation about the "SHE" comment. I have no problem with a woman as President. Just not THAT woman...

As far as Katrina goes, being in the bullseye yearly (FL resident) I have done my homework about hurricanes. And I can tell you that the greatest danger from a hurricane is not a direct hit from the eye, but rather an oblique hit where you are just offset from the eye.. We have been lucky here in St Augustine.. We haven't seen a direct hit since 1964 (Dora Cat 3) although Floyd came pretty close in 1999. We lived about 4 blocks from the ocean on a barrier island at the time.

Suffice it to say that New Orleans was in the WORST possible place to be when Katrina made landfall.. The natural geography of the area did the rest...

I agree with you. There is enough blame to go around.. My beef is with people (present company excepted) who insist on blaming the Bush Administration and forgetting it was the state and local government's lack of planning that was the biggest contributing factor to the hell that was New Orleans..

Regarding torture, your attitude is the one shared by liberals and, with all honesty, it is unrealistically idealistic.. Don't get me wrong. With the exception of self-defense and national security, I am probably the most liberal person to populate this forum.. So, I understand where you are coming from. But, as I stated, having decades in the field, I can tell you that
1. Torture does happen a lot more frequently than reported..
and
2. It's extremely effective if done correctly.

I won't bore you with the details, but you can bet that many of the successes that have been reported in stopping terrorist attacks have been the direct result of coercive interrogations IE torture.. The Pakistanis are especially effective at it, as the successful break up of the Airlines Plot clearly demonstrates...

Morally speaking, I see nothing wrong with it.. In this day and age, where nuclear terrorism is a real and distinct possibility, the old adage of "the end justifies the means" is dead on balls accurate....

"It's an industry term"
-Marisa Tomei, MY COUSIN VINNY

Michale.....

Now, let’s get down to the nitty gritty...

Are you a regime change kind of guy or a conduct change man? The problem as I see it with the current administration is that they seem to be fixated on regime change as the only tool at their disposal...which would be OK, I guess, if they knew what the heck they were doing!

I’m no conspiracy theorist and I don’t believe that the Vice President is a “diabolical mastermind” or that this administration is evil with malign intentions. I just think that they are terribly misguided and that their national security strategy has been an abject failure.

I think you may be short-changing Senator Obama...he has the art of pandering and of being a quintessential politician down pretty darn good. And, given the choices that are left, I would be inclined to support the Obama campaign if it were not for the fact that he has been completely disingenuous with respect to his public views on Iraq. In short, suffice to say that he has not demonstrated that he understands the first thing about what the October 2002 senate resolution authorizing the use of US military force in Iraq was all about. He has, time and again, equated a vote for this resolution as the equivalent of a “vote for war”. Nothing could be further from the truth. But, he has used this mantra exceedingly successfully to compensate for his own paucity of foreign policy experience and judgement.

If the truth be told, Hurricane Katrina practically missed New Orleans - it hit the eastern outskirts - and if the levees had held, then the worst that would have happened, to paraphrase one of the experts (sorry, no link...just working on memory here) was that the residents of NO would have gotten their ankles wet! The fault for this tragedy traces its origins back to the US Army Corps of Engineers and poorly designed and constructed levees. The levees were supposed to withstand a Cat 3 storm and, by the time Katrina reached the outskirts of the Crescent City, it was a weak Cat 3, at best.

The fault also lies with the government - all levels of it - for failing to act, long before Katrina, to restore the coastal wetlands and barrier islands of southern Louisiana. Absent a firm and iron-clad commitment from the federal government to get serious about implementing a comprehensive plan for coastal restoration, encouraging residents to return to rebuild their homes and their city is just inviting another disaster and nothing short of criminal negligence and a reckless disregard for human life.

Of course, the response to Katrina by all levels of government is fodder for a whole other post!

On to the Pentagon! My only point is that the President has not been very well served by his first Sec Def or by the uniformed leadership of the military. I base that observation on the facts on the ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

How could I not agree with you that, in your analogy, a police officer is infinitely better off having a gun at his disposal and not needing it than to be in need of the gun and not have it. That makes perfect sense to me. However, I would take issue with the analogy itself - I just don’t find any relevance to the issue of torture. I think of torture as one of the surest ways toward impotence and irrelevance for the US as it concedes its standing in the world as a global leader. And, that would be very dangerous for us all, considering the world in which we live.

As John McClain said in DIE HARD
"WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!! :D

You'll learn that I love to sprinkle in movie and TV quotes quite liberally. :D

In any case, moving on...

If Iran continues to try and develop nuclear weapons, then yes.. War with Iran is inevitable. I don't think that a surgical strike, al'a Osirak, will go unanswered by Iran. That will invite our retaliation of their retaliation and so on and so on.. Hell, a good case can be made that we are already at war with Iran, thru their proxies in Iraq...
So, barring a massive upheaval in the government of Iran, I don't see ANY indication that war is avoidable. And that's the case regardless of WHO takes the White House in November...

It used to be said that Rove was the power behind the throne. Then when he left, Cheney became the "diabolical mastermind". Isn't it slightly possible that neither is the case. Isn't it possible that there is no grand conspiracy and the government is simply doing what it was elected to do. Battling all threats, foreign or domestic??

Sadly, there is a huge tendency to vilify those we disagree with, rather than simply acknowledging that there is disagreement. Do you watch 24?? I don't recall which season, but there was the one were David Palmer was President and there was a move by the VP to remove Palmer because it was felt he wasn't responding forcefully enough to the given crisis. The whole thing played out over several weeks and it was intimated that there was something nefarious afoot.. As it turns out, there wasn't.. The VP was simply doing his duty as HE saw fit. The VP had the purest of motives, but he simply turned out to be wrong. Now, while that is really disappointing in TV Land, it's usually how things are in real life...

I don't see any evil intent in the actions of the Bush Administration. I do see certain levels of incompetence that the Left tries to attribute to evil intent. The old "BUSH LIED" mantra is a lie in and of itself.. It's a political accusation, as far removed from reality as can possibly be...

As for McCain's pandering, yea.. No one is innocent of that. However, with Obama, I see LESS of it.. Obama panders like an adolescent amateur.. And you know what?? That is why he appeals to me.. He doesn't play the quintessential politician very well and that is a GOOD thing, in my book....

Again, referring to fiction, I see Obama as "Jack Ryan" in Clancy's EXECUTIVE ORDERS.. Neither of them are politicians and the status quo uses that to denigrate them.. But I think of it as a compliment..

Hurricane Katrina was the catalyst for the disaster that followed.. And where do you think most of the fauly lies?? I'll give you a hint.. It's NOT with the Federal Government.. The state and local governments are the ones who failed the people of New Orleans.. Granted, the Federal Government's response could have been better. But, just as it was Katrina itself that caused the problems, but rather the secondary effects that were the issue, so it is with the response. The Federal Government shouldn't have had to come in as they did.. It was a state and local matter and only when the Feds realized how woefully inadequate the response was by state and local authorities, did the Feds deign to step in.. But consider another possibility. Had the Fed muscled in earlier, the Left would have accused the Bush Administration of interfering and all the accusations from the Left would STILL be flying back and forth...

As far as Gore et al, it's not a forbidden subject around here, but it certainly isn't encouraged.. :D I have my own beliefs as to why that is, but it's not my place to say... Suffice it to say that there are some Gore'ilites who post now and again, but I usually pounce on them quite quickly and they don't hang around too long. Which is a shame, because it's one of the two subject matters that I really enjoy...

As far as the Pentagon and propaganda, I would have to disagree. What comes out of the Pentagon is usually logical and rational, if one takes the framing in mind.. For those who have decades of military, LEO and Security experience (such as moi) the briefings out of the Pentagon makes perfect sense. One perfect example was a recent McCain "gaffe"...

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2008/04/15/some-real-news-from-the-campaign-trail/#comments

Now, don't get me wrong.. There is nothing wrong with ignorance...

"You mean to insult me? There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
-Subcommander T'al, STAR TREK

But to call something propaganda just because one can't make any sense of it is disingenuous..

As far as torture being effective, I can assure you that it is.. Certainly not all the time and certainly not in every circumstance.. It is merely a tool that is limited in effectiveness, but not so limited as to get rid of it..

Think of torture as a cop's gun. Only 4% of police officers nationwide have ever used their weapons in the line of duty. That's a 1990s stat, but sufficient for our purposes. Now, using the "logic" of the Left, we should not give cops guns, because they are used so infrequently..

A police officer may never have to use his weapon ever. However, it is infinitely better to HAVE it and not need it than to NEED it and not have it. I am sure you would agree..

So it is with the torture issue.. It's infinitely better to HAVE the option and not need it, than to NEED the option and not have it...

You will notice that I did not touch on the "moral" aspects of torturing terrorists.. This is because I really don't give a rat's ass about that. As far as I am concerned, terrorist gave up their human rights when they became terrorists.. They are no better than a rabid bear or dog that needs to be put down immediately and without reservation or compassion. However, if they can be...er.. encouraged to give up intel that might save innocent lives, then I am all for it...

Once again, welcome to the party. :D

Michale.....

double sigh (#1, #2)...You’re not saying that you believe war with Iran is inevitable or that the only way to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability is through US military action, are you?...and you can be sure that the US would indeed be alone in this endeavor...well, save our friends in Israel...or heck, maybe not even them! As far as President Bush is concerned, you may be right about just being wrong...kind of like when any religious zealot is wrong but they can’t see it because they are on a divine mission, for God’s sake! As for the real power and heft behind the Bush-CHENEY regime, understanding where the Veep is coming from requires a whole other kind of explanation, no?

As for #3, McCain sure as heck does not have the market cornered on pandering. Heck, this ENTIRE primary season and coming general election campaign is all about pandering and not much else. I think I’m agreeing with you on this one!

I was saving #4 for a post of its own, but...we all know, do we not, that it was NOT Hurricane Katrina that was responsible for the terrible tragedy that manifested itself in New Orleans almost three years ago? I’m new here...so please, give me some fair warning if Gore is considered the best thing since sliced bread around here...if that is the case, I may have to post only under the cover of darkness!

The Pentagon and propaganda? I think you may give that institution too much credit. Much of what has been coming out of there these past several years is not so much ‘propaganda’ as it is just plain nonsense.

I wouldn’t be surprised if many people really do believe, in their heart of hears, that torture is an effective, if not desirable, way to retrieve the kind of information from terrorists that would save innocent lives. But that premise is just flat out wrong, in my not so humble opinion. And, if the US hopes to regain and maintain its credibility in the world and its global leadership role, then it had better re-evaluate its use of torture and other self-defeating tactics in the effort to make America and the world safe.

1. {sigh}.... Yes, things MIGHT get bad if we attack Iran.. But I can guarantee you that things WILL go a LOT worse if we allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons.. I am sure I speak for many people when I say that I am more than willing to pay $4 per gallon for gas if it will help prevent a nuclear armed Hamas or Hezbollah being loosed upon the earth...

2. Americans were lied to by President Bush about the costs of the war in Iraq {sigh #2} Yea, and I "lied" to all my friends when I said the Jags were going to the Super Bowl last year... I didn't lie.. I was just wrong. So was Bush.. Being wrong does not a lie make...
By the bi, the Jags are going to the Super Bowl THIS year.. :D Bashing Bush in this election year will backfire on the Dems.. It will force McCain to distance himself from Bush which McCain can do QUITE effectively...

3. If the Dems want to the Press to quit giving McCain a "free ride", it's easy to do.. Get Hillary to bow out.. Oh wait.. Did I say it was "easy"??? I ...er... lied.. :D Meaning, I was wrong...
As for McCain being "eerily prescient", I think we have established that he is with his Patraeus "gaffe", eh? :D

4. Oh I see how it is.. Political pressure is fine if it comes from the Goreacle and his minions.. But it's NOT fine if it comes from the Bush Administration, eh?? Well, the only thing I can say to that is, "Heckuva job, Gore.. You not only created the Internet, but you are also responsible for massive world-wide food shortages.. Heckuva job.." That was sarcasm, in case ya'all missed it...

5. If there is proof that the reports coming out of the Pentagon are just propaganda, I would love to see it. But to write things off as "propaganda" simply because the report is not what the Left wants to hear is just wrong..

6. This "torture" issue is a dead issue. No pun intended... The GOP, the Democrats AND the American public have all signed off on the fact that, they don't care if terrorists are tortured if it will save innocent lives... I realize there are some people (our gracious host included) who take this issue to heart.. And, while I agree with Ashcroft that "history will not judge this kindly", the simple fact is, we are at war and terrible decisions must be made.. Remember, "No country has ever been saved by 'good' men"... History didn't judge kindly Abraham Lincoln's actions during the Civil War. History didn't judge FDR's actions during WWII.. And yet, both men are revered today as great leaders.

7. In this case, Rush is a putz.... :D

Michale.....

But, when all is said and done, it remains clear that the Democratic nominee will be challenging John McCain on these foreign policy issues, and others, from a position of weakness which is, considering the critical nature of these issues, a very dangerous proposition. I say this not because the McCain world view and understanding of these issues is superior because it is not. I say this because Clinton and Obama lack the necessary and fundamental understanding and judgement - foreign policy prowess - that will be required to counter the very strong (but wrong) arguments that McCain will make and that will dominate the general election campaign.

Take all of the saber-rattling on Iran as a case in point. There has only been one elected US official to have declared, explicitly - within the context of a presidential debate, no less! - that the military option, as far as Iran is concerned, is very decidedly OFF THE TABLE! The obvious implication was that only an idiot would dare to think otherwise, considering all of the extenuating circumstances. Unfortunately, idiots abound in this administration and a US military confrontation with Iran is certainly not outside of the realm of possibility, if not probability, within the next several months.

By the way...three guesses as to who that US official is and the first two don't count! :-)

It would have to be someone who really understands the situation at hand and who is politically courageous enough to act and speak on principle with honesty, integrity and intelligence... and, it would need to be someone who has the impeccable and unimpeachable foreign policy and national security credentials to back it up!

But, I digress. Bottom line - if the Democratic nominee is interested in becoming the next POTUS, then they had better choose their running mate very carefully. This choice should amply compensate for their own paucity of foreign policy experience and superficial understanding of what will be required to implement a smart foreign policy agenda, especially considering the difficult challenges in this arena that the next President must meet. Any suggestions?