Not Quite says:

No no no. We’re not fighting ANY wars anywhere. It’s not just a semantic game (Congress didn’t ‘declare’ war). It means something. A war is a fight between one country and another, or another group that has a agenda, who can be defeated or surrender. We’re not at war with Afghanistan… they’re one of our allies. We’re not at war with Iraq… they’re one of our allies. We WERE at war with Iraq, we won, we defeated the country and removed their ruler. The war is over.

What we’re doing now is police work. We’re HELPING Afghanistan and Iraq police their countries and track down terrorists, nationalist fighters, war lords, criminals and anarchists. There is no one to surrender, and no theoretical way to know when you’re “done”. There will be terrorists 300 years from now, just like there were terrorists in the Roman empire.

We’re not at war, we’re just in ever expanding state of policing the world.

edwinrogers says:

That is a nice cartoon. Follow the link to Cagle’s blog, and read about all the political cartoonists that are being fired.

Ranger007 says:

#7

good idea, except most of us know what war means. It’s just the politically correct who want to send our soldiers over to do the job that the New York, Chicago, LA, Seattle (pick one) police department is trained to do.

Soldiers (and sailors, etc) are trained to kill people and retain real estate. Not negotiate about the situation on a daily basis.

All of that said, I think we need to bring our guys home. But, how? Who will pick the last Marine to be standing on the roof of the American Embassy this time?

The situation has been mishandled since they started handing out wheelbarrows full of $100 bills.

gregallen says:

# 5 James Hill said, Only people watching the debates are those who haven’t come to terms with the fact we’re picking between a hollow black man and temperamental old man.

Obama is “hollow?”

Nonsense.

Now be honest: you haven’t even bothered to research his policy proposals, have you?

If you’re like most, you’re just parroting something you heard a talking-head say.

I’ll make it easy for you:

http://tinyurl.com/yp92p4

Greg Allen says:

# 11 Cursor_ said, Geez Obama is saying the same crap all of them have said.

Oh really?

Will McCain immediately start withdrawing troops when he takes office?

Does McCain pledge to make college education affordable or free again for most Americans?

Does McCain pledge to increase the minimum wage to a living-level and then index it to inflation?

I’ll bet there are a hundred policy differences between McCain and Obama.

Yet, you chose to believe there is no differnece.

Goodness, you sound like those Greens who thought GW Bush and Gore were “exactly the same” so they threw away their votes and let Bush get elected.

Thomas says:

> Will McCain immediately start
> withdrawing troops
> when he takes office?

That would be a disaster. Just picking up everything and leaving now would basically hand Iraq to Iran. Since that is Obama’s standpoint, one point against him.

> Does McCain pledge to make college education
> affordable or free again for most Americans?

From where exactly is this college education funding going to derive and why exactly is the Federal government even in the business of funding education? That should be the job of the States. Again, if that is Obama’s viewpoint, a second point against him.

> Does McCain pledge to increase the
> minimum wage
> to a living-level and then index it
> to inflation?

The effect of course is to make inflation worse and does nothing to give jobs to Americans that illegal immigrants are taking due to employers avoiding the paying that higher wage. In addition, it will encourage more companies that are able to move offshore in order to cut labor costs. Three points against him.

Unlike every other Democratic candidate for the past 20 years (since Carter really), Obama seems like nice, straight up guy. In fact, if Obama wins the primary, this will be first election since Reagan-Carter where both candidates seem like genuinely nice, good character people that simply have differing viewpoints. However, that does not mean that I agree with his viewpoints, just as I did not agree with Carter’s and make no mistake, there clearly is a difference in viewpoints between the two.

Daniel says:

#15 – There are a relatively few number of key points really up for consideration. To say ANYBODY is making their mind up based on 100000 data points is bogus.

In my book, here’s the things I’m looking to know where the candidates stand to make MY selection for President.

1) Leadership – “Leader” vs. “Ruler”

2) Fiscal responsibility

3) Economic reform

4) Iraq/Afghanistan

5) Constitutionality

6) Personal credibility

7) Ties to special interests

8) Focus on Domestic vs. International issues

That’s really what it boils down to for me. I’m not a one issue voter but I know whats important for me and race/gender/party lines aren’t. I’m not going to vote “against” McCain because he was in favor of amnesty, nor would I vote “for” Obama because he is the better speaker.

The biggest thing I have against Hillary is that I just don’t trust her. She really doesn’t get high marks in any of the 8 things I mentioned above in my opinion.

It is hard to pin down how I feel about Obama. I like him, but not his reported “extreme liberal” views. He’s a great speaker, and I give him high marks in “leadership”. Some policies like universal healthcare give me great concern over fiscal responsibility but other crazy ideas like balanced budgets and reducing national debt make me feel slightly better. “Reform” is good, but something more like changing the tax code to allow families to deduct insurance/medical costs instead of only allowing corporate deductions would be a better stance and not mutually exclusive to other options. Fiscal responsibility aside, I do like many of his economic positions and his focus on improving things at home first. I don’t care for his stance on Unions. I’m not against Unions, but I don’t think they are widely necessary. If someone walks off a job in protest and a legal US citizen is willing to fill the job, I say let that person have the job. Employers should have a certain amount of rights in hiring/firing people based on legitimate needs. The folks left behind still need to make a living too. I like Obama’s position on Iraq and give him high ratings there. I don’t think anybody has a perfect solution here but some are better than others. Obama appears to me as a credible individual but I don’t know where he really lies in terms of special interests. He doesn’t have the history to fully vet that in my opinion. The usual suspects like Unions etc like him and endorse him but any leading Democrat is going to have that.

McCain I have some issues with. I don’t feel comfortable with him as a leader. He comes across as too adversarial. I think he’d be more fiscally responsible than the other front runners but once again certain previous policies makes me unsure about an ultimate outcome. I think McCain’s Economic policies are better than Obama’s in some ways but can only work if he improves government spending. Making America a cheaper place to do business would help our competitive advantage but think we also need to invest directly and indirectly in new technology especially green technology which not only helps improve our economic dominance but also helps us rely less on foreign entities. McCain claims he supports getting away from reliance on foreign “petro-dictators” but I don’t know that he is willing to spend the money to help the fix. The Libertarian sitting on my right shoulder doesn’t like to hear this but I do think there needs to be some sort of government standards and incentive to overhaul the infrastructure. The free market isn’t going to change away from Gasoline without there being financial incentives to replace the infrastructure so they can provide the public with what they want to buy using the technology we NEED to buy.

Cursor_ says:

Mr. Allen

You are naive.

One just cannot bring everyone home from Iraq lickety split. It took the US two years from the Paris Peace Accord to get the last people out.

IF elected Obama COULD not immediately withdraw troops. It will have to be done over a long period of time due to logistics, political and economic reasons. Obama is NOT an autocrat that cab order people to do what he wills. He will not keep that promise. He will say it, like ALL politicians to, to get your vote.

Wake the smeg up!

Obama will not be able to provide low cost or no cost college education without passing a huge bill (which needs to gte past CONGRESS) to pay for it from tax dollars. Its not like the money will come out of the sky.

Again none of his measure can get through without the legislative branch in tow and the judicial branch not labelling it unconstitutional. He is again NOT a dictator.

There are channels and most of what he would LIKE to do will be shot down by partisans.

In the end would not make much difference. None of them can as they do not want to upset the apple cart. They are ALL plutocrats. They are ALL multi-millionares.

They are a government OF the wealthy, BY the wealthy and FOR the wealthy. And THAT is the problem woth an Oligarchic system.

WAKE UP!

It will NOT change anything really. You cannot CHANGE the system WITHIN the system. You have to kill the current system and create a NEW one.

Think of it this way. We have a toolbox full of rusted, bent and broken tools. HOW can we fix the house with those tools????

We can’t. It will not change. These people LIKE their broken, rusted and bent tools. Until we dismantle the current system and begin a new one, we will NEVER change.

Cursor_

Dude says:

The way to contrast Clinton and Obama is too look at their Senate Voting records. Well, low and behold what do you find?

The fact that they each voted the same way a little over 98% of the time. Now branch out a bit… Clinton only supported the Bush Administration 35% of the time, and Obama voted with the Bush Boys a tad over 40% of the time.

Will somebody please point to a difference? Even in the last debate they were both going on about how they were so much alike. If they can’t find any major differences themselves… What does that tell somebody?

Lets face the facts. Obama ain’t the reincarnation of Jack, Martin or Bobby. And Hillary ain’t Roy Cohn either.

robtn says:

There is only one person running for President that has read the constitution and he doesn’t have a prayer.

By post on most websites, that includes most Americans’. All hail to our new dictator.

HitlerWasALiberal says:

#23 re #10 re #5:

You’re right. Obama is not hollow, he’s full of crap. Buwhahahahahahahah

I’d say welcome to hell, but we’ve all been here for a while.