The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on January 26, 2009, 08:08:19 PM
-
I've been watching the new president like a hawk the past six days, and to be blunt, his body language hasn't exactly inspired confidence. The guy is in over his head, and despite his audacious arrogance, I suspect he's starting to realize that.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there's already been at least a couple of sub rosa telephone calls to his predecessor, about this thing or that thing, since last Tuesday, seeking illumination.
Nothing wrong with that; everybody new in a job gets the jitters.
So that's eminently understandable, and merits no criticism or condemnation.
However, in case anyone's forgotten, we're at war.
My attitude used to be that in times of Great National Crisis, it's important for everyone to give his all, for resolution of the crisis.....and to give his all without paying any attention to what "other people" are giving (or not giving) too, for the common cause.
However, after several years of watching the Democrats, liberals, 0bamaites, and primitives, my attitude's shifted somewhat.
I'm no longer disinterested in my own selfish interests, and despite that it does me no honor to admit it, since this is now 0bama's war, I think it reasonable to demand that the Democrats, liberals, 0bamaites, and primitives give more to it, than me.
Even though our common survival is our common goal.
I used to not be this way, but I am this way now.
It's painfully obvious there's going to be some sort of attack on U.S. soil and U.S. civilians during the current administration. Not being God, I can't predict the nature or scope of it, but it's reasonable to assume it's going to make 9/11 look like a fender-bender on a residential street.
And I have no confidence 0bama is up to handling it all by himself; he's going to need help, lots of help.
There have been precedents for nonpartisanship during times of Great Crisis; one recalls that from 1939-1945, the second world war, the U.S. Secretary of War (Henry Stimson) and the U.S. Secretary of the Navy (Frank Knox) were Republicans.
(For historical illumination of the primitives, the U.S. Secretary of the Navy is no longer part of the presidential cabinet, but back then, it was, and it was usually the third-most powerful post in the cabinet. End of history lesson for the primitives.)
But 0bama is no Franklin Roosevelt, and the Democrats and liberals in Congress today are not the Democrats and liberals of 70 years ago. I am not at all confident they take national security seriously, nor would they, when this second, much larger, attack inevitably happens.
After all, 0bama's spent much more time on behalf of the interests of the abortion profiteers, than on the behalf of the interests of national security. And ditto for the Congress.
And so when this inevitable second attack occurs, I'm going to want something more; I'm going to want the assurance that the war is pursued by people who take it seriously, and who know what they're doing.
There is no Constitutional or legal precedence for such a thing, but given that half the country has problems with 0bama as president, and Congress being run by Democrats, I suspect that half of this country to feel similarly, in this second terrorist attack, and by the Will of the People and legal means, things will be altered.
After all, it's the Democrats, liberals, 0bamaites, and primitives who believe the U.S. Constitution is a "living," "evolving," document, and we might as well take their word on it.
If no terrorist attack, then nothing need be done; we can continue on as we are.
But if it were to happen, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, accompanied with bumbling incompetence of the White House, and the Will of the People called for, and the Constitution and laws allowed for, installation of a competent co-president to wage the war--0bama of course remaining in the White House, as president, but only as a figurehead--who would you like to see actually running things?
I just pulled the four names above out of my head; all of whom are confident and competent people on matters of national survival (Rumsfeld's "problems" were a media creation, not weaknesses of character). One can mention another choice, if there is one.
-
None. I await the day his ass is voted out of office.
-
None. I await the day his ass is voted out of office.
Well, of course, me too, and I hope that's what happens.
-
Dick Cheney, he's highly intelligent, conservative, and not easily pushed over.
And he was in the minds of many a prim the real decision maker in the Bush White House so he would have the most experience in pushing a conservative agenda.
-
Other: Rush Limbaugh (he can't take the pay cut but if it was part time it should be OK)
-
Other: Rush Limbaugh (he can't take the pay cut but if it was part time it should be OK)
I thought about offering "Karl Rove" as an option, but then thought, no, this is a serious issue.
-
I thought about offering "Karl Rove" as an option, but then thought, no, this is a serious issue.
Rove is a politician and a good reader of the political landscape (IIRC he predicted the new fuhrer's win). But he avoids making policy decisions.
But I like your thinking, Coach :)
-
I thought about offering "Karl Rove" as an option, but then thought, no, this is a serious issue.
That is the only one I would have voted for though.
-
Rove is a politician and a good reader of the political landscape (IIRC he predicted the new fuhrer's win). But he avoids making policy decisions.
But I like your thinking, Coach :)
There's various ways this can happen; my thinking is that the most-likely thing that would happen, in event of a second terrorist attack on U.S. soil, would be that 0bama would be compelled to name a U.S. Secretary of Defense with extraordinary, near presidential, powers.....and if I'm expected to "sacrifice" for 0bama's war, I'm going to want that individual to be someone confident and competent.
Otherwise, no go.
There is a difference, in all aspects of life, not just political, between someone who has a title, and someone who gets the job done. The king may be king in name, but not in practice. I offer the examples of Mazarin and Richelieu.
-
I've been watching the new president like a hawk the past six days . . . The guy is in over his head . . .
It's painfully obvious there's going to be some sort of attack on U.S. soil and U.S. civilians during the current administration . . . And I have no confidence 0bama is up to handling it all by himself; he's going to need help, lots of help.
I am not at all confident they take national security seriously, nor would they, when this second, much larger, attack inevitably happens. . . And so when this inevitable second attack occurs, I'm going to want something more; I'm going to want the assurance that the war is pursued by people who take it seriously, and who know what they're doing. . .
Yes, Obama is in over his head. Yes, he must realize it. Yes, others must, including his puppeteers and handlers and advocates in the advocacy/adversary media. Yes, our enemies already must begin to see that.
As for an attack, who knows? I wouldn't bet there won't be, but I pray that there won't.
And that potentiality gets to your point about the Democrats, liberals and leftists taking national secuirity seriously: There's nothing they've shown during the past how-many-years, even perhaps decades, that suggests they do. There's nothing especially in the past eight years and this past election cycle that suggests so.
As for your assurances, you will not get them. We've got who we've got. All we can rely on is that the military is up to reacting as it needs to do, if there is an attack; and that there are some people with experience, regardless of political party, who can and will step in for America, not politics.
Obama does not know what he's doing. With his megalomania, he's likely not to admit that, even in private.
And that "living" Constitution? Regardless of what the current socialists/fascists in control want to do, it is what it says. We have one elected head of state. Period. Like it or not. And between the president and Congress, that's what we've got: Democrats, liberals and leftists in control.
But it appears the Constitution gives a president, the Commander-in-chief, the power to retaliate militarily in emergency situations. Still, though, Congress must declare war and then must fund it, right? But in test of wills or procedure, the Constitution would favor the Executive Branch, wouldn't it? The presdident is, after all, the head of foreign relations for our country.
Whatever the case, I share your concern and great discomfort about Obama's leadership and whether there is the steel in his spine and wisdom within him to to what is needed and right to protect and defend our country -- yes, the oath says "faithfully executive the Office of the President" -- and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution to the best of his ability, things to which he swore with hand on Bible and "So help me God."
We'll see.
But with Obama and his team and Congress, including its majority leaders Pelosi and Reid, Ameica is extraordinarily vulnerable, IMO.
But who knows? Should an attack come or some global military crisis occur, perahps there's a side of Obama that we haven't seen, who will take command and listen and let others, especially those in the military, do their jobs
I have no optimism that person exists.
-
But who knows? Should an attack come or some global military crisis occur, perhaps there's a side of Obama that we haven't seen, who will take command and listen and let others, especially those in the military, do their jobs
I have no optimism that person exists.
I have some optimism that 0bama would be up to the job, but not a whole lot.
People can change in times of Great Crisis, and that of course includes 0bama.
But given his track record, it's going to take a lot of convincing.
-
I have some optimism that 0bama would be up to the job, but not a whole lot.
People can change in times of Great Crisis, and that of course includes 0bama.
But given his track record, it's going to take a lot of convincing.
I hope that I am wrong re: Obama not being up to the task.
Better yet, I pray that he is not tested so severely until he leaves office, which I hope will be Jan. 20, 2013.
-
Sorry. I hope the USA learns another terrible lesson that it will soon not forget. It may well be that it is extreme economic hardship or another attack on a very liberal city. We need it. Sadly one does not learn from one successes but mistakes and we have been too successful.
-
I hope that I am wrong re: Obama not being up to the task.
Better yet, I pray that he is not tested so severely until he leaves office, which I hope will be Jan. 20, 2013.
Of course.
However, it is not a crime to lack confidence in a president.
If that were so, Skins's island would've been a vast penal colony a long time ago.
-
Rove would not actually be a flippant answer, but indeed he is a political strategist and not a national policy wonk. Cheney is the best choice on the list, Rumsfeld the worst.
-
Of course.
However, it is not a crime to lack confidence in a president.
If that were so, Skins's island would've been a vast penal colony a long time ago.
Instead they have become a vast venal colony, that thrives on hate and misery. :lmao:
-
I voted Other (Newt Gingrich). I could imagine steam coming out of Jug Ears' head with Gingrich standing behind him.
-
Sorry. I hope the USA learns another terrible lesson that it will soon not forget. It may well be that it is extreme economic hardship or another attack on a very liberal city. We need it. Sadly one does not learn from one successes but mistakes and we have been too successful.
The democrats set up the dominoes that have brought about the current financial mess we're in.....so as to gain government control of the financial markets and any other sectors of private enterprise that they can.
Obama and the Clinton retreads that set us up for financial failure are now setting us for a security failure. Why you ask? Simple, nothing will allow them to more easily circumvent the constitution than a national disaster by terrorist.
-
Rove would not actually be a flippant answer, but indeed he is a political strategist and not a national policy wonk. Cheney is the best choice on the list, Rumsfeld the worst.
All those years I lived in Lincoln (Nebraska), I used to spend a lot of time reading master's and doctoral theses that are part of the collection at the University of Nebraska libraries; from the looks of things, I was perhaps the only person who ever did this, as such theses aren't considered popular reading.
There were lots and lots of them, going back to the 1940s, on the public attitudes in France and England circa the spring of 1940--and yes, Gallup even took a few polls here and there, back then.
It appeared that the spring of 1940--just before the conquest of Denmark and Norway, or before the invasion of the Netherlands and Belgium--circa only 25% of all Frenchmen took the war seriously; circa 60% wanted the boys to come home to plough the fields for spring planting, and circa 15% had no opinion.
And then it happened, out of the blue.
Over the next couple of months, because the people had no confidence that the government was serious about the war, the prime minister and the cabinet were constantly shuffled and re-shuffled in a futile attempt to foster "national unity" in face of the war and invasion.
To be fair to the current president, he has not been tested yet; he has not yet been forced to make hard decisions, and once tested, he just may yet prove true.
But there is considerable reasonable doubt, based upon his past record; at this point, it looks more likely we have a Petain or a Laval, not a de Gaulle.
I hope like Hell I'm wrong in my skepticism, but best to at least think about it.
-
Sorry. I hope the USA learns another terrible lesson that it will soon not forget. It may well be that it is extreme economic hardship or another attack on a very liberal city. We need it. Sadly one does not learn from one successes but mistakes and we have been too successful.
Gotta go with you, how unpopular it is.
-
Sorry. I hope the USA learns another terrible lesson that it will soon not forget. It may well be that it is extreme economic hardship or another attack on a very liberal city. We need it. Sadly one does not learn from one successes but mistakes and we have been too successful.
I don't think you'll be disappointed by a hard lesson. It'll be at least economic.
But the deaths of thousands of Americans, even one, from terrorists? No. Absolutely not.
And, again, better open your eyes. "Liberal city"? Please, stop kidding yourself. That's the kind of small-minded, mean-spirited junk the Democrats, liberals and leftists spout.
Even with places like San Francisco and NYC and Boston, all who live in and around them ARE NOT Democrats, liberals and leftists.
There's no need to behave like those Democrats, liberals and leftists, in wanting terrible things to happen. Nor is there reason to want hardship.
That may not stop it from coming -- and, economically, it already is for thousands -- but, please.
-
His VP should be Senator Marcus Junius Brutus (Rome).
.
-
His VP should be Senator Marcus Junius Brutus (Rome).
.
If we're going to go to that well, I'd steer clear of the Romans, since they had a bit of a problem with an armed civil populace, and jump to Charlemagne.
:-)
-
Despite the Obamamania and surely what are a few growing pains from His Eminence, I'd suggest that very, very few conservatives of any vintage would ever consider being Obama's No. 2 in the first place.
It is my fervent hope that the same media moonbats that put The Holy One in office will be the one to take him out.
Like the Teflon Don and Slick Willie, though, very, very little of anything other than hero worship sticks to him.
So far. :evillaugh: