<p>Two of Obama’s advisors are Anthony Lake and Susan Rice, both of whom worked in the Bill Clinton white house. They have extensive bios in Wikipedia. A recent Newsweek article talked about Bill Clinton stating that the reason he didn’t intervene in the Rwanda genocide was cause he got “bad advice” from his staff. Several paragraphs down in the article it said that Anthony Lake and Susan Rice were the people who talked Bill Clinton out of doing anything for Rwanda, a result of being skittish after the Blackhawk Down thing. Both Lake and Rice were quoted as saying that they now regret their Rwanda decision and that everyone connected with it now feels really bad about it.</p>
<p>I think it was that same article that said that Obama’s economics team was three U of Chicago econ professors whose names escape me. I would assume that means a rather conservative free market approach to the economy. As for Iraq, I suggest reading Obama’s July 2007 foreign policy essay in Foreign Affairs magazine, which he wrote for the Council on Foreign Relations. Also, Samantha Power told the BBC that Obama would NOT pull any troops out of Iraq if the conditions on the ground in January 09 dictated otherwise and that he would defer to the generals on that issue. This was before she got fired for calling Hillary a monster and when she (Powers) was still an Obama advisor.</p>
<p>"In essence, you are saying that either, they are stupid for following the administration and being a soldier or they are hired thugs! Which is it? How do you reconcile their actions for following orders?</p>
<p>People make all kinds of compromises in life, including those they consider honorable. As to whether they are “stupid” for following the Administration, well, you’re the one who said it, not I. The Army Field Manual REQUIRES that each and every soldier question what they feel might be an order that is illegal under international law. That’s for each soldier to decide. </p>
<p>Hired thugs? Why would you even suggest such a thing? Hired dupes, perhaps, much like the rest of the American people who are paying them for their services. </p>
<p>But aggressive, hostile occupiers - no question. A million widows. 4.7 million displaced people and refugees. Walls built by American contractors with American money dividing neighborhoods. $190 million in U.S. military equipment “lost” by the AKLCS, much of which was used by Al-Qaeda to kill Americans. Hospitals in shambles. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers - virtually all pro-Western, fleeing the country.</p>
<p>Hillary and McCain also wrote extensive articles for CFR in Foreign Affairs, I just haven’t read them yet. I think they got all the major candidates at the time to do them over the spring and summer. You can find them on the website.</p>
<p>How can there possibly have been 21 debates? I’m only aware of 3 or 4. I think this election has been a great boon for the networks considering it helped them fill airtime during the writers strike. Just a coincidence. Now there is talk of an actors strike this summer, so expect lots of political reality tv for months to come.</p>
<p>I didn’t read all the responses, but we can do without any more debates as worthless as the first hour of this one. Total waste of time. George and Charlie were trying to get soundbites, and my dh and I, who support different candidates, just looked at each other and said, “This is so stupid. What about the issues??!” The second hour was better.</p>
<p>And then the real capper was the next morning, on GMA, when the anchor breathlessly announced that Rev. Wright and sniper fire had “come up” in the debate and how they’d have all the latest. Uh, it only came up because Charlie and George brought it up! Classic example of the media creating its own news.</p>
<p>The only significant difference between the two candidates on Iraq is that, given the state of information at the time, Sen. Clinton – rightly in my view – supported the war. That in retrospect that was a dumb move does not take away from the fact that, at the time of the vote, voting for the war was correct based on the information presented. For Sen. Obama to say he would have voted against it is convenient – but he simply wasn’t tested. Being such a junior Senator, he wasn’t there when this crucial debate/vote occurred (he was still just a state senator at the time). He’s not and wasn’t then on the Armed Services Committee and wan’t part of the discussion. I’d be happier with him if he said at the time he would have supported the war, because at that time it was the correct decision.</p>
<p>“He’s not and wasn’t then on the Armed Services Committee and wan’t part of the discussion.”</p>
<p>Hillary didn’t even read the classified intelligence brief in her possession, but since she likely favored military action taken in December 1998 by her husband (following the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998”, illegal under international law), she didn’t have to.</p>
<p>There was one and only one source of information in 2002 - Curveball. There were no WMDs, no programs to build WMDs, and no operational plans to build WMDs. But selling the war and aggresssive, hostile occupation was a “slam dunk”, according to George Tenet, and he should know, because he had sold it to the “experienced Democrats” before, in the Clinton/Tenet Big Lie of January/February 1998.</p>
<p>hayden; you are totally correct in wanting to know who the people are that surround Obama. Especially those who give him political, moral, legal, etc… advice.</p>
<p>That is why so many people considered it important AND AN ISSUE to talk about the Wright issue. No person running for president can be all knowing. Their job is leadership and management. They need to take the advice of their advisers and others with pertinent information to contribute, and use this to base their decisions on. That is why it’s important to know Obama’s position and relationship with those on his campaign team, personal life who are influential such as his wife, minister, controversial friends, etc…</p>
<p>I agree. And so are Clinton’s associates. Obama could have asked about Ron Burkle, Yucaipa and Kazakhstan and chose not to. Oh, and I just read that the GOP chose not to make an issue of HRC’s work for a law firm headed by two members of the Communist Party when she was 23. The reasoning was that she was not the candidate. I’d say the statue of limitations should be invoked on this one. But so would what Ayers did when Obama was 8.</p>
<p>As for Clinton’s decision to support the invasion of Iraq, some of us knew it was a bad decision without being on the Senate’s Intelligence Committee. There’s something called history.</p>
<p>From today’s AP:
"PHILADELPHIA (AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that if Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama thinks their last debate was tough, it’s nothing compared to pressures in the White House.</p>
<h2>“Having been inside the White House, I know the pressures inside the White House, I know how hard it is every single day,” Clinton told Philadelphia television station FOX 29. “When the going gets tough you can’t run away.”"</h2>
<p>^ Did anyone else find some irony in this? Everyone knows what her biggest “pressure” in the White House was from! :eek:</p>
<p>The only debate worth watching would be on Saturday Night Live with the real candidates and their “doubles” sitting at the same table. The moderator should be the SNL George Bush. </p>
<p>First question: “Howdy Hillary. It’s 3:00 AM. Do you know where Bill is?”</p>
<p>I would love to see Obama/McCain and Hillary/McCain debates NOW, to see who would do better against McCain. </p>
<p>Of course, McCain isn’t going to oblige. So instead they should ask some McCainesque politician to fill in his place…hey, maybe we could get Rudy Giuliani to participate.</p>
<p>^
McCain: “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”
Obama: “Not when I’m having unconditional talk with Ahmadinejad.”
Clinton: “It’s not quite I meant by a nuclear umbrella.”
:)</p>
<p>Why would McCain or anyone in the Republican party agree to such a thing. That’s like saying before you play the superbowl against say the Dallas Cowboys, that you should be allowed to play their 2nd string in practice so you can learn some of their plays. </p>
<p>That’s a great philosophy if you believe that it’s a 100% guarantee than Clinton or Obama will be the next president, and McCain is only there for symbolic reasons. The truth is, McCain and the republicans have every intent of winning the presidency. And the way it looks currently, they have a very good chance of doing that. There is no reason in the world that any republican would provide a Mock debate against McCain.</p>
<p>I know this suggestion was in fun, but I’m sure there are some out there that think it would be a legitimately good idea.</p>
<p>You could probably pay some irrelevant republican to fill in…or some FOX news anchor like Brit Hume or someone of that nature. Heck you could even get SNL to produce a McCain lookalike, or failing all that you could get Stephen Colbert to come to the debate. It isn’t all that hard to play a GOP politician you know… there are only three answers to all questions: </p>
<ol>
<li> I would cut taxes.<br></li>
<li> I would bomb them. and…</li>
<li> God Bless America.</li>
</ol>