<p>xiggi and BZ; excellent posts. It’s definitely been a catch-22 for our country. As arrogant as it sounds, we have helped bail out more countries than we can count. Most asked us for such help. We helped in WWI and WWII. We have forgiven more debt than can be counted. We have provided more aid than any other country. If we called back on the aid, debt, rebuilding, etc… that we have provided, we could put some countries out of business. But we don’t. Yet, many countries around the world believe they can hold us responsible for economic and trade debt. I’d like to be able to just say; “We’re going to call it even”. But that’s not politically correct.</p>
<p>Some countries like England, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, and a few others have stuck by us. They have truly been good friends. Some like France are a disgrace. Some like Spain have done nothing but try and be neutral and not take a position. Even though they have definitely helped us; especially during the gulf war of the early 90’s; they did is quietly and under the table.</p>
<p>We started our downhill and loss of respect, NOT because of GW Bush. You need to go back and look at when the politicians started caring way too much about votes and their careers than what was right. That is why Korea and Vietnam are/were the way they were. We lost a lot of respect back then. The country was a shameful place. No pride. No commitment to serving your country. That all started to turn around when Regan took office. People started to feel pride in the country. Pride of serving their country. Other countries respecting us. Whether or not they agreed with military actions; some of the most respectful times was the combination of Regan and Thatcher. Those 2 were definite a couple of the best LEADERS our countries have ever seen. Even through the gulf war to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, we maintained respect. </p>
<p>I admit that G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton has let a lot of our integrity and image slip away, but it’s up to congress to fix that. You don’t fix our image with the world by pulling out of Iraq like we did in Vietnam and many quiet countries we’ve been involved with helping out for years. That is why those who don’t trust us feel that way. They can’t trust that we will stay and finish up what we started. Contrary to what many want to believe; even though some of our “National Interests” may have included oil and other things; we have done a lot of good for the people in the region. Most of the citizens of that country know it. The vast majority of our military who are there and have been there know it. (Including me). Most Americans deep down inside know it. Unfortunately, because we have become a very impatient people who want a conflict done and over with in a year; even though the president said from day 1 that it was going to be a very long engagement; many members of congress have decided to use this as a political tool for their own gain instead of what’s best for our country.</p>
<p>Now, I don’t care if you support Obama or Clinton. If they are elected and try some sort of quick pull out of our military, we will never regain any respect. The problems any locals have with us over there isn’t because we are there; it’s because they are afraid that based on our past record, that we will pull out without finishing up what we started and they will become worse off than they were before it started. They believe it can be better. We know it can be better. But you can’t just pull out and say; “Sorry, the last administration shouldn’t have done this. We’ll pray for you”. We’re a representative style of government. We’re suppose to elect individuals who can look beyond the individual and do what’s best for the country as a whole. Letting Clinton or Obama pull out our military because it’s the politically advantageous thing to garner votes is not what’s best for the USA and it’s most definitely not what’s best for the people of the region.</p>
<p>Obviously those who lean to the left or are hard left around the globe don’t like President Bush and don’t particularly care for America right now. No surprise. But keep in mind that it’s the left around the world that can’t stand us.</p>
<p>We are a beacon of light. I know that many here can’t stand that thought, but we are. Are we perfect? Of course not, but face it… there’s never been any country that’s done as much for the world as us.</p>
<p>It’s way too early in the process to make that claim. McCain looks great while the Democrats tear into each other (and, I might add, while Bill and Hillary are praising him publicly every other day). But bring on the debates, the campaigning and the one-on-one of a general election and McCain will not fare so well. The Dems will get it together, later if not sooner, and there will be time enough to knock McCain back on his toes. I’m not depressed at all.</p>
<p>browninfall, why in the world would anyone not like the idea of being a beacon of light to others in the world? Dem or Republican, most of us are quite proud of that fact. It’s only dismaying when we stop acting like a light that draws people to it and become a club that knocks people out of the way to increase our prosperity or power.</p>
<p>And by the way there are many Americans on the right who don’t like Bush right now. His approval rating is quite low.</p>
<p>Why doesn’t Bill Clinton just go away? He made another major mistake in NC. Didn’t he learn his lesson from his stupid remarks in SC ??</p>
<p>From NBC/NJ’s Carrie Dann
"CHARLOTTE, NC – At a small VFW hall in Charlotte, NC, today, former president Bill Clinton contemplated a McCain/Clinton general election matchup, saying that it would one between “two people who loved this country” without “all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.”</p>
<p>“I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,” said the former president. “And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.”"</p>
<p>I’ve lived in six different countries and visited many, many more. My feelings were often of embarassment when the US was portrayed negatively in the foreign press. </p>
<p>I too think that Obama would give me much more to be proud of than the other two. Clinton especially would have such a negative portrayal that I would have to vote Republican if she were the Democratic candidate. </p>
<p>I even lived in England where they actually had a Female head of State so the issue is NOT that Clinton is female, but her reputation as not very ethical.</p>
<p>As for why doesn’t Bill Clinton just go away? Because he can’t. Imagine what it would be like when he doesn’t have to control himself anymore?</p>
<p>^^^ “Hi - I’m the First Jerk. Would you like to take a tour of the private residences? Here, let me take your coat. Oops! Didn’t mean to touch you there - haha! You’re so pretty…”</p>
<p>The only people I find making an issue of Senator Clinton’s gender are her supporters. They attempt to dispel and diminish any criticism by saying it’s “just 'cause she’s a woman”. </p>
<p>In actual fact I find that most of her supporters primarily support her because she is a woman; I hear no one being critical because she is a woman.</p>
<p>I hear plenty of displeasure over her disingenuous change in position on many issues, her refusal to simply admit she was WRONG in supporting the Bush war machine in Iraq, her situational ethics, her complete, constant and ongoing misrepresentation of her experience (N. Ireland, SChip, Bosnia, etc.) and her ultimate refusal to acknowledge that she is now done and all she is doing is harming the party and helping mccain. Between her and Wild Bill, what do they think they’ll accomplish in constantly saying she and John Wayne McCain are the only candidates who are “ready”. It is disgusting but typical of the clintons who will say and do WHATEVER it takes.</p>
<p>Ultimately what the clinton’s don’t understand is they can only hope to somehow change the rules, rely on some controversy (even if they need to create it) to win as they can’t through the straight up elections and any such scheme and plan will result in a replay of 1968 and those that have rallied, most involved in politics for the first time, behind for Obama will NOT support her and McCain is the winner.</p>
<p>And as to Bill’s latest round of offensive comments, sure sounds like he’s now trying to put a McCain/Clinton ticket together. Last week it was Clinton and Obama. They’ll say and do anything for Hillary’s dream to come true (at all our expense).</p>
<p>If were just a matter of “Hillary’s dream”, I’m sure Bill would be taking a much more circumspect role. But getting back into the Oval Office is as much Bill’s ambition as it is Hillary’s. I don’t see why people keep insisting that Hillary would become America’s first legitimate Woman President. She would be nothing of the sort. She would be the first woman Co-President. No way would Bill settle for the role of First Spouse, and I think anyone indulging in a moment’s honesty knows it.</p>
<p>Bill HAS to keep opening his mouth and throw “things” out with the hope one of those “things” will stick. So far, the Clintons have not found a message that works, except for character attacks and insinuation. </p>
<p>Clearly, they can’t understand how Hillary could possibly trail a candidate who was unknown three years ago and relies on charisma and oratory skills. Of course, looking at Bill improbable rise in 1992 might even scare them more. After all, the public is so gullible. Too bad that the voters have grown tired believing the Clintons’ lies.</p>
<p>"Finally, the dishonesty is being unmasked. Finally, we see just how much we’re being lied to when it comes to economic policy. Finally, we see it hasn’t just been Hillary Clinton lying about her role in championing NAFTA, but we see it is the entire Clinton machine.</p>
<p>For the last few weeks, Hillary Clinton has been claiming that she never supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). She has explicitly claimed “I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.”</p>
<p>Clinton’s record of speeches over the last decade, of course, tells a much different story. In 1996, she toured Texas to promote NAFTA. In 1998, she visited Davos, Switzerland to thank corporations for mounting “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.” In her memoir a few years ago, she touted NAFTA as one of her husband’s big successes. In 2004, she told reporters that “NAFTA has been good for New York and America.”</p>
<p>And yet, despite all of this evidence, Clinton has worked to confuse voters by insisting that she has always been fighting against NAFTA. "</p>
<p>Well, she has always been fighting against NAFTA when in Ohio, always been fighting for NAFTA when in Texas, always been fighting against NAFTA when in Michigan, always been fighting for NAFTA when courting Hispanics. </p>
<p>To quote bullwinkle: "The only people I find making an issue of Senator Clinton’s gender are her supporters. They attempt to dispel and diminish any criticism by saying it’s “just 'cause she’s a woman”. "</p>
<p>You certainly can’t deny that her gender DOES play an important role, especially in how she’s perceived.</p>
<p>For instance, in the age 18-30 males voting bloc, the support is OVERWHELMINGLY (85-90%) for Obama. And it isn’t just because he’s a charismatic change-touting figure (Yes we can!). </p>
<p>It’s also because that the very perception of Hillary is tinged by the fact that she IS female, but seems to be so far outside the traditional role as to seem unnatural. I’ve heard her being referred to as ‘she-male’, and other such derogatory nicknames. </p>
<p>It’s much like the Obama/race issue. Both gender and race play a large part in our perception of the candidates (whether it be positive or a negative effect). </p>
<p>However, since we are supposedly a country of perfect equality, very few are comfortable in admitting it.</p>
<p>Ketty: couldn’t we just as easily say that the reason middle aged women are supporting her is because she’s a woman and wouldn’t be otherwise? So she gets an unfair advantage.</p>
<p>Yea; and McCain is beating BOTH of them. What’s your point?</p>
<p>3bm; Does that mean that Ferraro was correct when she said; “She wouldn’t have been the VP nominee had she NOT been a woman; and Obama wouldn’t be where he is at now had he not been a Black man?”</p>
<p>I agree, but there sure are a lot of people who got upset with her for saying that.</p>