On 31/03/2011 11:45 AM, Harryk wrote:
John H wrote:
On Mar 30, 4:13 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:33:20 -0400, John
wrote:



...that the liberals here probably don't want noticed:
"The fact is, close to five years after 9/11 and fifteen years after
the breakup
of the Soviet Union, the United States still lacks a coherent
national security
policy. Instead of guiding principles, we have what appear to be a
series of ad
hoc decisions, with dubious results. Why invade Iraq and not North
Korea or
Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur? ...Are we committed
to use force
wherever there s a despotic regime that s terrorizing its people and
if so, how
long do we stay to ensure democracy takes root? ...Perhaps someone
inside the
White House has clear answers to these questions. But our allies -
and for that
matter our enemies-certainly don t know what the answers are. More
important,
neither do the American people. Without a well-articulated strategy
that the
public supports and the world understands, America will lack the
legitimacy -
and ultimately the power - it needs to make the world safer than it
is today."
--Barack Obama. "The Audacity of Hope" (2006), page 302.
'We don t get very hung up on this question of precedent. We don t make
decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or
precedent."
- Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, March 28, 2011
So, when Obama gives a speech then goes on the news and explains why
we're doing what we're doing, you believe he never said anything. Yet,
you have no problem following Bush without question.

Who said anything about Bush? He's gone. Have you not yet realized
that?

WAFDS!

We'll be cleaning up after moron Bush for generations.

So I guess than a few centuries for Obama. All Obama did was make it a
whole lot worse.