Letters to the Editor
-
Answering the phone
I don't think that anyone with a short fuze should be answering red phones in the White House at 3 AM. There is a box with buttons you know. I'd go for Obama, he'd probably ask, "What do you think we should do?" If the issue is complex, hurried, and unexpected, "Come here at once".
Hillary ? Who knows ? I would not trust her.
-
Duh..
Joe Walsh.
-
Naaah! US citizens want THE 'DECIDER'!!
John McCain, who actually did go to Vietnam on military duty (misdirected though that duty was), is now supported by GW Bush, THE 'DECIDER' himself; well-known draft dodger turned war criminal; ex-Governor of Texas who gleefully approved over 150 executions; who as President of the YUSA got his real opportunity - to slaughter something like 500,000 or more Eye-rackis; advocate for creating conditions in his prisons that led to the abuses of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc, etc.
KQuestion for John McCain: Do you accept the support of that war criminal, GW Bush, President of the YUSA??
-- GSC
-
It's Fine to Talk About Hypotheticals
...and that's just what we're doing here. Ms. Clinton brought this one on with her ridiculous "Red Phone" ad, a blatant play to the fear factor among security-worshipping Americans. It was smart, but it was very, very wrong.
Ms. Clinton has no foreign policy experience other than her hanging out with Bill during eight years of relative calm in the world (although Kosovo comes to mind as a bad example of something to which she may have been exposed). Obama has lived in second-world countries and traveled extensively. The latter he shares with Ms. Clinton. We all know how good Ms. Clinton's judgement and vision were were invading Iraq is concerned. We also know how Obama felt about it, and what McCain did about it.
John McCain has been more involved in the day-to-day tracking of world affairs, but he has been where he's been largely because that's where he functions best, not in the West Wing bedroom with one twitching hand on that phone. McCain has also had actual military experience, which can be argued to be a liability, since veterans of actual wars are necessarily rather myopic, since their experience is largely based on the premise that one false move could be one's last. Fighting mano a mano is not something that can reasonably be compared with managing a Big Picture situation, regardless of what time the phone rings.
Hillary Clinton has made a lot of oblique references to her superior "experience" in this area of expertise, but the truth is she has no more than Obama, and both Democrats are more likely to be more objective in dealing with a crisis, be it international or domestic.
So which one has the temperament best suited to making decisions without sitting and reading "My Pet Goat" for 20 minutes? Look at the personalities, because that is what we're voting for. It's not specific experience, it is vision, stability and intelligence; Which candidate is the quickest study?
I think the answer is pretty plain: McCain, who I respect a great deal, is far too tightly-wound to be considered anything but a liability in the White House in times of crisis (and the new President will be inheriting crises). Hillary Clinton is rather unpredictable, and prone to change personalities depending upon what advantage she can gain. This isn't entirely a bad thing, but stability and objectivity still carry the day, at least for me, so I continue to stand behind Barack Obama as the best choice, owing to his unflappability, clearheadedness and ability to think on his feet. Some fairly seasoned military leaders seem to agree.
-
cool as a cucumber
I've said from the beginning that Obama's personality is a strength. Both his unflappability and his "charisma," that oft-derided quality that has Clinton supporters in hysterics, contribute tangible benefits to a leader. While some see these issues as tangential or even, inexplicably, as evidence of superficiality, I say being calm, cool, and appealing can reap rewards when negotiating with Congressional opposition or dealing with a world crisis.
(To be clear, I am not conflating the likability and the unflappability. They are separate qualities, they are both abundant in Obama, and they are both genuinely beneficial. Personality isn't the whole story, and those who want Obama exclusively for that are misguided, but it's an authentic issue.)
-
If Hillary answers the phone at 3 a.m. her first question will be...
...where the hell are you Bill? Then she'll push the button.
Just KIDDING. Seriously, nice article. It's quite telling that multiple former high level military staffers are backing Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama, even as former Republicans.
This tells me how bottom of the barrel bad things have gotten in the past 7 years and how much these insiders want change and a chance for peace.
Eight years ago if anyone suggested this kind of switch over from senior military would happen, you would have laughed yourself onto the ground. Now everyone just wants to cry because we're not out of the woods just yet.
Lord help us.
-
Historical Precedent Of Choosing The President of the YUSA
Not to worry about it being 3 a.m. and who you (US citizens) want answering the phone. That is hardly the point at this point of time!
Go by historical precedent (or should that by hysterical precedent?):
-- In 2000 the US voting public chose GW Bush (and Dick Cheney) over Al Gore!
(Yes, there seems to have been some dirty tricks played at the cross roads, what with chads and dimples and the Supreme Court and so on... but anyway, US citizens accepted GW Bush to be their legal President as did Al Gore - so what's to complain about?)
-- In 2004 the the US voting public chose GW Bush (and Dick Cheney) over John Kerry. No dirty tricks here, apparently (except the Swift boats and various 'scare stories' thought up by Karl Rove...and the wise US voting public bought enough of Karl Rove's stories to put the Great Decider back in as President of the YUSA!).
-- There was demonstrated malfeasance and incompetence on the part of GW Bush and Dick Cheney and the whole administration right from the start...
-- There was the foolish war launched on the Taliban in Afghanistan when there were very effective ways to have dealt with the malefactors who 'did 9/11'. (Check out 'Avoid Osama's Trap', by Richard Haykel - http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/09/25/stories/05252523.htm, which demonstrated a wiser option that could well have worked)
-- Then came the REAL criminality: a war based on lies and cheating, non-existent WMDs, lies to US citizens; lies to US Congress; lies to the world. True, the war was against a mini-monster Saddam, that is true enough - but there were far, far better ways of dealing with Saddam than this stupid war)
-- There was Katrina and "Heck of a job, Brownie!"
-- There has been incompetence and malfeasance right down the line!
-- And still the wise US public has not thrown the scoundrel out, has not put him and his entire Gang of Thieves up for impeachment, has not put the Gang of Criminals into prison!
Look at all of that hysterical precedent, and it seems to become clear that the great US public will now choose John McCain (because he will be backed by THE GREAT DECIDER HIMSELF!).
Whatever: at the end of it all, unless things change around pretty fast, the US will get the President it truly deserves... and the rest of the world will get the US it truly deserves.
-- GSC