Amateur Hour in the Obama White House.....

[trc123]

Okay, so I've been saying from the start of the President's term of office that every thing they do seems like amateur hour.

This latest thing with the "party crashers" and the "surge and be done by June 2011" speech continue to smack of amateur hour.

I'd be interested in your thoughts and to see if you have other examples of "amateur hour" type things going back to Jan 2009.....thoughts?

[HappyChristian]

Comparison of BO's reaction to the Gates' situation and Fort Hood...using soldiers as props to try and impress people.

[holster]

The "Beer Summit," the events that led up to it, and the Presidents pre-judgement of police officers = amateur hour.

[kevinmiller]

I don't necessarily think there was anything wrong with the "beer summit." Not nearly as much as his pre-judgment was, anyway. At least he tried to reconcile it, but seems like a good way to waste presidential time.

The surge and pull strategy was prOBably based more on Gates' expertise than OBama's. I would hope that is the case, anyway. I don't think there's much else you can do in Afghanistan and I don't think we have any business still being over there, anyway. If the Taliban is still on the verge of taking over 8 years after we went in there, they're just gonna sit it out 'till 2011 and take over then. And I say good riddance. Let the Afghans be Afghans unless they choose otherwise. If they wanna have terrorists over there, let 'em. Just be forewarned that we may bomb the heck out of 'em if they're living in Kabul.

[JerryNumbers]

The thing is, he thinks he very smart and makes better decisions than anyone else, but the truth is just the opposed. Its sad for a man to be in above his head and not know it.

Troop withdrawal by June 2011, that just tells the enemy to hold off until 2011, them it will be much easier for them.

In war, you do not tell the enemy your exit strategy, in war you do not exit until you win & or defeated.

I feel sure Hitler would have loved to have know America exit strategy back in those years, it would have put a W in his hands.

[kevinmiller]

I don't see the Taliban going out and trying to take over Pakistan or Iran. I don't see the Taliban ruling in Afghanistan as being all that big of a threat to us, providing we take the proper steps to protect ourselves, and that doesn't include anti-constitutional measures like the Patriot Act that attack the freedoms we are fighting to protect. If the Afghans want to be ruled by the Taliban, abuse their women, and have opium as their chief export, it's none of our business. Our nation was founded on principals of nonintervention.

[trc123]

I don't see the Taliban going out and trying to take over Pakistan or Iran. I don't see the Taliban ruling in Afghanistan as being all that big of a threat to us, providing we take the proper steps to protect ourselves, and that doesn't include anti-constitutional measures like the Patriot Act that attack the freedoms we are fighting to protect. If the Afghans want to be ruled by the Taliban, abuse their women, and have opium as their chief export, it's none of our business. Our nation was founded on principals of nonintervention.

I realize that 8 years ago you were prOBably too young to remember that the Taliban protected Al Qaeda while they held terrorist training camps which helped to fuel other radical Islamic extremists which aided the 9/11 attacks. That is what I would see as the danger of the Taliban being back in control of Afghanistan.

Yes, I know Saudi Arabian terrorists had a lion's share of the effort in the 9/11 attacks; but let's face it....we aren't going in to Saudi Arabia so we might as well start with the Taliban.

[holster]

I don't see the Taliban going out and trying to take over Pakistan or Iran. I don't see the Taliban ruling in Afghanistan as being all that big of a threat to us, providing we take the proper steps to protect ourselves, and that doesn't include anti-constitutional measures like the Patriot Act that attack the freedoms we are fighting to protect. If the Afghans want to be ruled by the Taliban, abuse their women, and have opium as their chief export, it's none of our business. Our nation was founded on principals of nonintervention.

When my two boys were young I used to take them to the window overlooking our back yard and I'd ask them what they'd think if they saw German tanks rolling through our back yard. I then explained to them that sometimes war is an evil necessity.

One day, when I have grand-kids, I'll take them to a mall and I'll ask them what they'd think if a bomber blew up 100 people in mall.

We must face the facts. There is EVIL in the world that must be dealt with.

And please explain to me how our nation was founded on "principals of nonintervention."

[kevinmiller]

I realize that 8 years ago you were prOBably too young to remember that the Taliban protected Al Qaeda while they held terrorist training camps which helped to fuel other radical Islamic extremists which aided the 9/11 attacks. That is what I would see as the danger of the Taliban being back in control of Afghanistan.

I remember it quite well, actually. And I understand that they funded camps, who doesn't in the Middle East? And I'm all for going in and blowing them to kingdom come, but you can't go into a hostile nation that has totally different values and try to rebuild the nation. Why do we have any more right to build a nation on American values than China does to build Afghanistan on Communist principals? Both of our countries oppose terrorism, after all.

Would it have worked if Hitler had taken over our country and rebuilt the government? Not a chance. Sure, he might've been able to crush insurgencies and hold together a fragile government, but as long as there are red-blooded, freedom-loving, gun-toting people in this country, he never would've ever had peace or real security. I'm sure you can agree with that. We wouldn't allow it. Neither will the Afghans. Some people like us, some in our own country prOBably would've liked Hitler(I'm in no way comparing Bush to Hitler, btw).

Yes, I know Saudi Arabian terrorists had a lion's share of the effort in the 9/11 attacks; but let's face it....we aren't going in to Saudi Arabia so we might as well start with the Taliban.

Exactly, and that's the hypocrisy in it all. Iran's doing it, Saudi Arabia's doing it. Heck, the Saudi's still basically practice slavery. Why don't we take over their country, too? Well, I'm guessing Afghanistan was a whole lot easier and a lot more feasible. Why not China? How many Christians do they have to kill or imprison? How about North Korea? Isn't starving your own people, kidnapping South Koreans, and developing nuclear weapons bad enough? How about Sudan, where slavery is legal and practiced? How about in Indonesia where Muslims slaughter Christian families? How about in the southern Philippines where Muslims burn Christian villages and kill the people. It's hypocrisy and nation building and nothing in the constitution condones it.

[kevinmiller]

When my two boys were young I used to take them to the window overlooking our back yard and I'd ask them what they'd think if they saw German tanks rolling through our back yard. I then explained to them that sometimes war is an evil necessity.

One day, when I have grand-kids, I'll take them to a mall and I'll ask them what they'd think if a bomber blew up 100 people in mall.

We must face the facts. There is EVIL in the world that must be dealt with.

And please explain to me how our nation was founded on "principals of nonintervention."

I'm sorry, but I would have an extremely hard time explaining to my kids why we're in Afghanistan. "Daddy, why are we in Afghanistan?"
"Well, son, because 8 years ago, some people living in that country attacked us and for the last 8 years, we've been trying to make them a new government."

If you want to deal with evil, start with making a long, long, long list of the nations in this world that are evil.

It's really sad that so many people have completely forgotten the heritage of our country and have bought into the lie that interventionism is patriotic or Republican. It is the total opposite of what our forefathers had intended and it's sad to hear that you aren't familiar with it.

Here's a short article on America's history of non-interventionism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

You could do a study on most of the other early presidents and find that they, too, shared the same beliefs. Just look at the Napoleonic wars as a perfect example. Here was Napoleon, a pretty bad guy, taking over Europe. And yet, who did we end up fighting during that period? Was it the French? Nope, we fought against the other side! We fought against the British and it wasn't because we liked Napoleon. It was because Britain attacked us first.

[amblivion]

I think the "Federal Motors" thing was a rookie mistake.

[trc123]

I'm sorry, but I would have an extremely hard time explaining to my kids why we're in Afghanistan. "Daddy, why are we in Afghanistan?"
"Well, son, because 8 years ago, some people living in that country attacked us and for the last 8 years, we've been trying to make them a new government."

If you want to deal with evil, start with making a long, long, long list of the nations in this world that are evil.

It's really sad that so many people have completely forgotten the heritage of our country and have bought into the lie that interventionism is patriotic or Republican. It is the total opposite of what our forefathers had intended and it's sad to hear that you aren't familiar with it.

Here's a short article on America's history of non-interventionism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

You could do a study on most of the other early presidents and find that they, too, shared the same beliefs. Just look at the Napoleonic wars as a perfect example. Here was Napoleon, a pretty bad guy, taking over Europe. And yet, who did we end up fighting during that period? Was it the French? Nope, we fought against the other side! We fought against the British and it wasn't because we liked Napoleon. It was because Britain attacked us first.

I know, I can't believe the audacity of those guys........actually declaring war against another country who attacked us first.

[kevinmiller]

When did Iraq attack us? When did the Taliban attack us?

I'll give you a perfect example of what should've been done and what our forefathers would've done. Ever heard of the First Barbary War? Our ships were being attacked by pirates from Tripoli, the terrorists of those days. Thomas Jefferson wasn't weak, he fought back. He took it right to their shores and guess what, no further. He gave those pirates a beating they didn't forget but he didn't go into their country and try to rebuild it. That's what we should've done and we wouldn't be in the mess we are right now.

[trc123]

When did Iraq attack us? When did the Taliban attack us?

I'll give you a perfect example of what should've been done and what our forefathers would've done. Ever heard of the First Barbary War? Our ships were being attacked by pirates from Tripoli, the terrorists of those days. Thomas Jefferson wasn't weak, he fought back. He took it right to their shores and guess what, no further. He gave those pirates a beating they didn't forget but he didn't go into their country and try to rebuild it. That's what we should've done and we wouldn't be in the mess we are right now.

My comment was in reference only to this portion of your post, "You could do a study on most of the other early presidents and find that they, too, shared the same beliefs. Just look at the Napoleonic wars as a perfect example. Here was Napoleon, a pretty bad guy, taking over Europe. And yet, who did we end up fighting during that period? Was it the French? Nope, we fought against the other side! We fought against the British and it wasn't because we liked Napoleon. It was because Britain attacked us first."

[kevinmiller]

Ah ok.