So Clinton stated "explicitly" and "exactly" what she intended to do (i.e. "obliterate" Iran) and you criticized that as a stupid thing to say - and a stupid formulation. So in order to satisfy you Glenn, Clinton and Obama would seem to have to formulate a "semantic expression" of an "obliteration" policy that is "explicit" and "exact" but not said or formulated in a "stupid" way. That's a tall order!

No, you're missing the point completely. Obama could say: "I don't agree with Clinton's 'obliteration' policy. That's not what I would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons."

Or he could say: "I would do the same thing as Sen. Clinton, but would phrase it a little differently."

Instead, he just coyly doesn't address what he would do at all, leaving us -- and the Iranians -- to guess. You seem to think that's a superior approach. I don't.

Obviously, the issue is not just the policy, but also the "semantic expression of the policy" since both could have profound consequences on our international relations. Words matter. Clinton chose "tough talk" over a reasoned response and has furthered our slide into militarism. Such behavior should be highlighted and condemned, not minimized and obfuscated.

Then do you agree with those who, using your exact rationale, criticized Obama -- including Clinton, I believe -- when he said he'd take action against Al Qaeda elements inside Pakistan? That's what his critics said then -- exactly what you're saying now about Clinton: "Oh, you don't go around saying things like that, even if you intend to do it."

C'mon, man, you could have worked "Wet Start" into that post at least 20 more times! Google Bombs away!

Seriously tho, wasn't there a question of the unstable 1000lb. bombs on the 500lb rated mounts, or hangers, or pins or whatever the hell they hang on?

But as the brave sailors of the US Navy know ever since the devastating cruise of the "Wasp" in 1814(?) to the acrobatics of the S-5 in 1915, there is unlimited opportunity for glory at sea in an American warship!

Perhaps we need to wear a burka veil? It reminds me of a bad wedding day. A Hornet throws a fit. Hornet wishes to sting everybody? Then the others yells :~ Bee! Then Hornet throws the red, white, and blue flag bow-ribbon flower carnation, and the lovely wrist band bouquet, out of the limo window on the way to a honeymoon.

Things are meant for failure?

It sure was a bad ricky start?

What a bad lemon? O Cheers.

our perspective has to be that it is a gray world

While I admire your willingness to adjust to new conditions, I think it will be quite a while, if ever, before extending basic rights to those of alternate romantic preferences results in eliminating any place for heterosexuals. We do, after all, have some essential functions, at least for the nonce.

But I will write more when I find another pair of glasses, I lost mine today. Have you seen them?

Instead, he just coyly doesn't address what he would do at all, leaving us -- and the Iranians -- to guess.

Maybe Obama just didn't even want to dignify that ridiculous set-up with an answer? I sure hate answering questions I know are posed just to set a trap.

I just couldn't remember the darn password I'd given first time I logged in (as two words "Hornet Driver"), so I re-signed up and used HornetDriver (one word)."

Somebody please tell me a "Hornet" is not an airplane or a helicopter. Please, please, please let it stay on the ground.

Maybe you forgot they were gray and you live in a very colorful world so they are hard to spot. Change your color scheme to a simple black and white and you will always be able to find your glasses, unless of course you expect more out of life and find challenges and differences are what make life interesting. Of course, if you have to wear glasses to ride your motorcycle, then finding them becomes a much higher priority.

So wealthier people who have direct investments in stocks and whatnot get to pay 15% on their capital gains, while the rest of us in lowly 401K land will likely be paying a higher rate.

Not if capital gains goes to 30%. Actually, the greatest loser will be the Treasury. Keep in mind that capital gains are a voluntary tax. If an asset isn't sold, it doesn't get taxed. Some people think doubling a tax will double revenue. That's not going to happen.

to the acrobatics of the S-5 in 1915,

Which, BTW is a hell of a story of brave sailors, a terrible situation, an almost unbelievable quality of leadership and teamwork, which combined with fantastic endurance, and a little luck, to save every man on board from an almost certainly fatal submarine mishap.

This is probably something Hornet Driver knows a lot more about than we do, but yes, as I understand it, the real problem arose on the Forrestal when several 1,000 pound bombs wound up in the middle of a pool of burning jet fuel, and cooked off a lot more quickly than they were supposed to. The problem with rapidly developing military technology of all sorts is that you never really know for sure what will happen. (The Oriskany fire was something very different. A panicked crew member, confronted with the accidental ignition of a magnesium flare, salmmed the hatch on the flare locker and dogged it down. He'd probably skipped chemistry in high school.)

I remember my father worrying years ago about the supposedly superior technology of Soviet tanks. They used an automatic loader for the main gun, which allowed them to reduce the crew from five to three, and to employ a flattened turret which permitted a lower silhouette, and made them harder both to hit and to penetrate, due to the improved shape of the armor.

My Dad's worries were proven more or less groundless in 1967, when the Israelis engaged such tanks and discovered that the automatic loaders often jammed, and that the confined turret space made it impossible for the three-man crew to clear the jam. So...the Egyptians hopped out and ran away, and nobody found out -- at least not on those six days -- whether or not the higher profile M60s used by the Israelis were more vulnerable.