Thinking about it, would that be so bad? It’s not exactly adding a level of difficulty to the process…
I think that Eugene McCarthy probably lost the election by being an unapologetic dove.
To the conspiracy theorist in me, Obama’s overall behavior has reeked of him having been owned right out of the gate. It’s as if someone showed him incontrovertible proof of some previous misbehavior that would surely scuttle his presidency, then offering him the stark choice of either being their comfortable and famous puppet, or going down in flames.
I’m still convinced that Cheney convinced Bush to lower all guard in regards to a terrorist attack. He has a history with all the most corrupt moments of Presidents over the past 40 years including Nixon’s Watergate and Reagan’s Iran/Contra affair. It’s really hard for me to not believe he wanted any excuse to get something like the Patriot Act passed and was willing to turn a blind eye to any terrorist activity that would result in making it easy…
1 Like
I know it’s simplest to assume politicians are driven entirely by the desire to get reelected or their wish for a kind judgement of history, but I do believe that some politicians are motivated by a desire to serve their citizens. It’s at least possible that Obama’s flip was driven by an unwillingness to be responsible for another attack—not because he’d be disliked, but because he’d be responsible. I don’t agree with his actions (given my limited knowledge) but I believe they may be motivated by an admirable concern for his citizens.
just ask a guinea worm!
Well I guess GWB was your kind of president, with his preemptive strikes against Iraq, because they could someday be a threat, and I am sure he would have gone for invading Iran since they certainly don’t like us either…
Preemptive striking will inevitably lead to attacks on innocents (drones in Pakistan), and while hindsight can usually tell you what the right target was, the unintended consequences are rarely worth it in my opinion.
