Biden: when Obama is faced with a crisis in six months you gotta support him

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Bottom line is that it probably matters not who is the president because the people who actually deal with these problems will deal with it as they always have. Professionally.

Yeah, maybe the question should be is which candidate can best pick a competant group of advisors who will act for the benefit of the nation and not some partisan idelogy.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Yeah, maybe the question should be is which candidate can best pick a competant group of advisors who will act for the benefit of the nation and not some partisan idelogy.

That has nothing to do with my statement. And if you think for one minute that any president does not pick a group of advisors who will not act on partisan idelogy then you do not understand politics.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Yeah, maybe the question should be is which candidate can best pick a competant group of advisors who will act for the benefit of the nation and not some partisan idelogy.

Easy answer. Neither one - Whoever wins, their cabinet will be filled with political choices, not necessarily those who will work for the benefit of Americans. That being said, I think its a good thing to clean house every so often. Shake things up a bit.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by classicman

Easy answer. Neither one - Whoever wins, their cabinet will be filled with political choices, not necessarily those who will work for the benefit of Americans. That being said, I think its a good thing to clean house every so often. Shake things up a bit.

Which was really my point. The decisions are going to be made on idelogy. Voters are going to choose a candidate based on idelogy. We can only dream dreams about competance and hope they come true.

[richlevy]

Of course if Biden had said that they will test McCain becuase he was old that would have been seen as an attack. Unfortunately, it is just as true. The next president will be tested, both positively and negatively, no matter which one is chosen.

After 8 years of the "Bush Doctrine", our allies will be testing the next administration early on to see if the US is willing to engage it's estranged allies. Our enemies will also be testing us for the "Goldilocks effect", a response which is too hot or too cold to a crisis. Too cool a response will be seen as a weakness, in that the risks in taking action against the US will be less than the rewards. Too hot a response will be seen as a weakness, for exactly the same reason.

For example, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the US invaded Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of US soldiers, the injuring of tens of thousands of others, and the loss of about 1 trillion dollars and a great deal of the United States' 'moral authority'. The loss to Al Qaeda was zero, since they were not in Iraq at that time. Destabilization tends to benefit insurgents, and the US destablized Iraq. This 'hot response' has benefited our enemies for the past 5 1/2 years.

Even Afghanistan, which was a proper multi-lateral response, benefited Al Qaeda in that it tied the Taliban to them. Since Al Qaeda did not run Afghanistan, it did not really lose anything except a safe haven, which it has found in parts of Pakistan.