136. Below is a damn good article. Even if you don't like Obama and won't even consider voting for him, you can't really question the validity of this.

---------------------------------------------------

If there's been one constant over the campaign season, it's this: Every time Barack Obama announces a new foreign policy idea, he's ridiculed by his opponents as naïve, inexperienced, and unready for the dangerous world he'd inherit. But if you run a tally, Obama's record over the last year shows a remarkable degree of foresight, even-tempered judgment, and a real willingness to make hard calls that aren't the politically popular flavor of the week. Indeed, almost every one of Obama's foreign policy positions has been vindicated.

Start with today's news that the Bush administration has issued classified orders authorizing special forces to conduct ground operations against al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan, even without prior approval from the Pakistani government. Obama was well ahead of the curve on this one. In August 2007, during the primary, Obama startled the foreign policy establishment when he declared, "Let me make this clear . . . There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [then-Pakistani] President Musharraf won't act, we will." Obama was written off by his critics as out of his element, too inexperienced to know that you can't unilaterally order raids on an ally's turf. But Obama alone saw back then that Pakistan's government and powerful intelligence agency weren't stepping up to the plate when it came to fighting al-Qaeda, and that we needed to pick up the slack. As the security situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan has deteriorated even further, it seems the rest of Washington has, a year later, realized that Obama had the right idea.

The plan for U.S. forces in Iraq is another powerful example of Obama leading the herd. John McCain questioned not only Obama's judgment, but his patriotism as well, for suggesting a sixteen month timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. It was easy for Republicans to call Obama a defeatist. Easy, that is, until the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, actually endorsed Obama's plan. And as if McCain's fantasy of spending the next hundred years in Iraq didn't seem radical enough at this point, even the Bush White House (!) and Gen. David Petraeus have since announced that they see a substantial drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq over the next two years as a real possibility.

The story's the same with Iran. Obama was lampooned as a weakling for suggesting diplomatic engagement with Iran, even if it would not commit beforehand to abandoning its nuclear ambitions. He was branded irresponsible, an appeaser of tyrants. But wouldn't you know it, the Bush administration this summer has quietly been establishing our highest level diplomatic contacts with Iran since the 1979 revolution, once again stranding McCain out in left field. Our Iran troubles aren't over, but perhaps overlooked in the firestorm of the campaign is that the level of incendiary rhetoric between the U.S. and Iran has very markedly declined over the last few months. Don't discount that as a force for stability in the Middle East (and, not coincidentally, as a factor in the recent decline in oil prices).

And it's been said a thousand times, but you just can't overlook that Obama opposed the Iraq war way back in 2002. Don't forget: this was no easy position to stake out in the wake of 9/11. Politicians were lining up to support the invasion. Democrats in particular were haunted by their politically costly opposition to the first Gulf War in 1991. But there Obama was, exercising judgment and a sound temperament in a volatile political environment. Most Americans would surely agree now that he was right.

Every one of these tough calls has proved spot on over time. And it would unquestionably have been easier in each instance for Obama to keep quiet and go with the crowd. But in the foreign policy realm, Obama's been the stockbroker who tells you to buy a battered stock just before it rallies. He's the G.M. that drafts a no-name kid from a small school who blows up in the big leagues.

It's so easy to paint the new guy as naïve, as unfit to be commander in chief. After all, any fresh ideas he has are by definition untested. But brush past the reflexive criticism, and a picture emerges of Barack Obama as a man with a pretty good foreign policy head on his shoulders. It's fine for John McCain to rail on about Obama's lack of experience. I'll take his proven track record any day.

Botts at 3:46PM on Sep 11th 2008

137. I,m not sure why they are fascinated but you can do me if you want

joe at 3:50PM on Sep 11th 2008

138. Botts, that article's as vague as can be.

The first paragraph stating "strikes in Pakistan" aren't even close to being the same. If I'm not mistaken Obama was speaking of airstrikes against Al Qaeda over Pakistan. That's somewhat different than special forces slipping into enemy territory to combat intelligence rich targets. At the same identical time Obama offered his wisdom, Pakistan's foreign minister jumped ten feet in the air over the idea. Joe Biden also criticized Obama as being naive with that idea. Pakistan, being our ally may allow us to cheat a little but blatant "in your face" abuse of sovereign borders wouldn't sit well with them. We're playing the terrorist's game being in both of those countries, there's no clearly defined enemy as there's been in Iraq. It's hit & miss in that rugged terrain. If we knew with 100% certainty where OBL was I think we'd act & give answers later. We just better be right when we do.

The second paragraph is laughable excluding the timeliness of Obama's statement. Obama's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the success of the surge is what's brought us to the point of troop withdrawal. The substance of the comments in this article are non existent without that acknowledgment. One wouldn't exist without the other. Obama's comments were for political gains playing on the sentiments of voters, not based on fact. He had to back off those statements after visiting Petraeus in Iraq. Petraeus is calling the shots on troop withdrawals there, not anyone else. Maliki is an underling as far as military operations go there, he may have said that but he quickly retracted his statements when he knew his gov't wasn't prepared to go it alone.

Third paragraph: in simple fashion you can negotiate all you want with the likes of Ahmadinejad or Jong-il. One day after Obama made his speech in Germany (?) appealing to Ahmadinejad to suppress his nuclear goals Iran laughed in Obama's face (& ours) rejecting the 6 country negotiation package. N. Korea after blowing up their reactor cooler as a show of good faith have been caught lying by IAEA inspectors. What good have these progressive talks the United States is now having with these rogue countries? This has been ongoing for decades now & it's totally naive to think they'll stop short of their goals.

Whoever wrote this article is looking at the issues through rose colored glasses. It's obvious he's an Obama supporter & stops his reasoning upon listening to the words of Obama, not the practices he's speaking about. I know the left is eager to think Obama has extra perceptive powers but that falls short when examining his comments to length....

Bobby at 5:13PM on Sep 11th 2008

139. Does Christianity Dumb You Down?
http://saintbrianthegodless.blogspot.com/2008/09/does-christianity-dumb-you-down.html


My new blog. Hate to spam, but since these AOL blogs are going away soon, I figured, what the heck?

Saint Brian the Godless at 9:52PM on Sep 15th 2008

140. This guy is a total MORON... He keeps talking about eros and the "good" kind of love, homosexuals loving sodomy... Let me just say, what is a "good" kind of love anyway? Isn't loving someone, regardless of gender, the ultimate "good" kind of love? Isn't love the ultimate expression of goodness?

And what is this foolish argument that it is against nature to be homosexual just because it doesn't occur in EVERY animal specie? And what is this stupid talk about not using the genitalia for their "natural purpose"... C'mon!!! If you ask me, overpopulation is caused by the straight people sleeping around a lot... I mean, gay people don't reproduce amongst themselves, so how can they contribute to it?! And overpopulation is one of the world's biggest crises!!!

This "Ryan"-person, how would he know that gay couples don't love each other? How would he know what other people think or feel?! Is he a telepath that can read people's minds, or an empath that can feel people's emotions? Who the hell is he to say how people should go about their lives, is he GOD? Last time I checked this "GOD" hasn't shown up in public to ACTUALLY help make the world a better place...

He talked about good and evil, too, and I must say that his concept of good and evil is pathetic... He is such a simpleton... Doesn't he know that good and evil are just like names of teams... Good and Evil are quite similar actually... Both use underhanded methods, both want to get what they want, and both want to win against each other... They are merely two sides of the same coin, two opposite sides of a chess board...

I agree with Bart, straight guys think about pussy ALL THE TIME and NOT ABOUT GAY GUYS DOING THEIR THING!!!

Abaddon at 11:17AM on Nov 16th 2008