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

[lookout123]

no, that was clearly bush's fault. just ask tw.

[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.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Here's an example of how McCain reacts under pressure:

McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967, when he was near the center of the USS Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded. McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments. The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.

A while back I was watching a show on fighter pilots. One was about the only navy ace in the Vietnam War. I watched him talk about his dogfight, along with the computer recreation and I was absolutely awestruck. The combination of skill and bravery that it took to survive and thrive in the air was significant, even if the MIG-17 was crap compared to US jets.

It turns out that that pilot won the Navy Cross, 2 Silver Stars, 15 Air Medals, and a Purple Heart.

After service, he became a media advisor. His media profile and war hero status led him to office in 1990.

15 years later, Randy Cunningham was starting an 8 year and 4 month stretch in prison.

Nothing ***ks up a hero more than power and politics.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

McCain is pointing out that, during the Cuban missile crisis, he was a pilot waiting on the tarmac with a target in Cuba.

That's some pretty powerful mojo, right there, I don't care who you are.

That means zero. Mojo was found in people making the decisions. Reminds me of John Henry who had the big muscles - therefore was a star among the naive. Bull. Mojo was the little guy, without a name, who made impossible possible - created a power drill.

McCain was just another dumb front line soldier doing his job. The real mojo is found in people who do the hard stuff - ie the negotiators who averted an end of the world by (among other things) subverting big dics, such as Gen Curtis LeMay who all but wanted to end the world. McCain in his little A-4 airplane had a tiny mission with an extremely high probability of survival. McNamara, Kennedy, et al with the least experience demonstrated real mojo.

What did they bring to the table? A larger grasp of basic concepts such as negotiate with everyone - especially your greatest enemy - and without preconditions. What is not popular even among the most experienced diplomats - that takes mojo. We now know we exist and are alive because those with the least experience, significant decision making abilities, and most responsibility made the only correct decision.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

No Griff, he hasn't, neither of them have. But McCain has the experience and Obama has virtually none. I'm not saying it is all that matters, but it is a definite plus for McCain.

I personally watched Fiorina make a similar silly claim. She knew that economies of scale would make HP more profitable. However once something is already big, then making it bigger does nothing. Fiorina was lying.

Once one has significant experience, then more experience provides little to none.

If experience was so important, then why are we still alive? Kennedy, the man with least experience, was so smart as to stop both generals and diplomats, all with generations of experience, from ending the world. When the Cuban Missile crisis started, a large majority wanted to 'blast them into the stone age'. We now know those with the most experience would have created a nuclear war – ended the world.

It's not about experience. For if experience was so important, then Regan was a disaster. His advisers so feared, during a private meeting with Gorbechev, that Regan would give away the store. Regan proved that the ability to think logically was clearly greater then experience in international diplomacy. And, what Regan did also made it possible for Gorbechev to help end the Cold War.

Experience is nice. But once one has significant experience, then more experience provides nothing but baggage.

Both McCain and Obama bring good things to the table. McCain is a maverick will to be adverarial even of his own party to work for smarter and more moderate programs. Obama has a long history of doing something that few leaders can do - bring together a concensus and cooperation.

Both men would make a good president if that alone was criteria for a decision. But McCain has a very serious problem. His administration will be dominated by the same people that George Sr so detested, that manipulated George Jr, and that make decisions based upon their political objectives rather than the interests of America. Any doubt that these people are in McCain's campaign were eliminated when McCain's VP choices were rejected to put Sarah Palin on the ticket.

[Undertoad]

Experience is nice. But once one has significant experience, then more experience provides nothing but baggage.

Sometimes I judge people's posts by how hard they have to twist and turn to support their narrative.

Any doubt that these people are in McCain's campaign were eliminated when McCain's VP choices were rejected...

cite

...to put Sarah Palin on the ticket.

Well she is inexperienced, that's for sure. But now that we understand that experience is overrated...!

[Happy Monkey]

I can't figure out what is controversial, let alone bad, about Biden's quote.

[Undertoad]

It's not controversial and not bad. It's just interesting. It was considered a gaffe because you don't want to be caught during the election predicting trouble.

One righty pundit (David Brooks?) said that he liked Biden because of Biden's tendency just to say whatever he's thinking -- exactly what the country needs in a Vice President. On one hand, it could be a gaffe; on the other hand, a gaffe can be accidental honesty, and honestly in a pol is always nice, whether accidental or not.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well she is inexperienced, that's for sure. But now that we understand that experience is overrated...!

So you twist what I say? Or did you only read what was posted in black and white. McCain, Obama, and Biden all come with significant experience. Additional experience does nothing to make them more experienced. Notice how this paragraph and the previous post are completely different from what UT summarized.

Both posts say experience is necessary - despite how UT perverted it in his summary.

Palin comes with literally zero experience. She could not even campaign on her own until she was trained how to respond to well rehearsed keywords. Respond to keywords because she has neither experience nor sufficient knowledge. Being a front man (a spokesman) does not make a leader. Being a front line soldier also does not make a leader.

A leader must be able to provide two essential functions - attitude and knowledge. Essential in those functions is to define a strategic objective. Strategic objective has always been a point of dispute between UT and me. UT has demonstrated difficulty grasping the difference between tactical objectives and strategic objectives. In order for a leader to provide those two essential functions, a leader must be able to cut through the fluff. To achieve the 'irrefutable fact' (as Greene of ITT used to say). To be able to define that strategic objective.

Palin is so foolish as to believe Alaska was on the front line with the USSR. More foolish nonsense that only a naive spokesperson might recite. The front line obviously was NYC, LA, and Washington. She demonstrates no talent for grasping irrefutable facts. Obama, McCain, and Biden have demonstrated that ability repeatedly, in part, because all have more than enough experience.

[Undertoad]

Any doubt that these people are in McCain's campaign were eliminated when McCain's VP choices were rejected...

citation needed please

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

citation needed please

Give it up, he can't prove much of anything he imagines.

[lookout123]

Is there any way to set the cellar up so every single tw post is immediately followed by a post that simply says:

citation needed please

It would be like our very own TWikipedia.

[TheMercenary]

[classicman]

Forced signature perhaps?