View Single Post
Old 04-03-2008, 03:24 PM   #28
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex View Post
We've been over this before, Cali. Obviously experience is not the sole predictor of Presidential success.

To TripletDaddy's question ... are you serious about McCain's credentials? Have you familiarized yourself with the man's history at all? Listen, I'm no McCain fan as anyone here can tell you, but there's no question he understands the military. Let's at least be real here.

And no, Reagan did not have significant national security credentials. But then again he didn't get slaughtered on the issue because of it either; he didn't need to lie about Carter's failures (or misconstrue some idle comment) because they were obvious. In fact if memory serves, Reagan came across as infinitely better prepared on the issue than the sitting President. And Reagan wasn't perfect in office anyway. Not long ago his cut-and-run from Beirut was mentioned. But Reagan's foreign policy successes far outweighed any failures.

Thus the comparison is obtuse. Obama has none of this. He has no gravitas. He has no credibility. Earlier in the campaign he sounded more like a Code Pink protestor than a responsible adult commander-in-chief. Obama isn't Reagan. He's Kofi Annan.

But don't take my word for it. Watch his campaign. Watch what a big deal he makes out of the so-called "100-year war". This is not the rhetoric of a man confident in the American people's support of his security positions.
Do you even realize the hypocrisy of what you just wrote?

You acknowledge that Reagan had no national security credentials (i.e., no gravitas, no credibility). And yet, you find he was a sensational leader in foreign affairs. You note that he wasn't criticized on his lack of foreign affairs (I don't know why that is relevant, unless you are saying he should have been), but was able to criticize the policies of the previous president (Carter) because they were so bad. Then you conclude there is no comparison. Odd, because that sounds like the exact same situation to me- just replace Obama's name with Reagan and Bush's name with Carter.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote