Obama knows he's going to get slaughtered on national security

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Walk me through his military service, as it pertains to "national security credentials."

I guess we're dealing with a definitional problem. What do you mean by "national security credentials?" Education? Experience? Rank? Non-military?

Perhaps if I understood your expectation of an answer a little better I could look at Wikipedia on your behalf.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I guess we're dealing with a definitional problem. What do you mean by "national security credentials?" Education? Experience? Rank? Non-military?

Perhaps if I understood your expectation of an answer a little better I could look at Wikipedia on your behalf.

This is likely best answered by Tex. It is his offering, not mine. Tex claimed that Obama lacked any real security credentials. I asked him for 3 or 4 specific examples of national security credentials.

So far, we have, amongst others, that he was born on a military base (that one was yours. It was pretty sweet, actually), that he went to the Naval Academy about 50 years ago, that he was a pilot in Vietnam (shot down and captured, btw), and that he currently sits on an oversight committee with Liddy Dole helping to decide fair pensions for retired soldiers.

I don't see how any of this pertains specifically to our current national security threats...ie, terrorism, border patrol, and illegal immigration. Help me see it.

McCain is the Senator for a state that is one of the most notoriously LACKING in border control. Has he done anything in AZ that has helped control the tide of illegal immigrants? I think that is way more relevant than the fact that his grandfather was a soldier.

When pressed about Reagan's complete lack of national security experience, the only response seems to be, "well, Reagan was different, but I cant really explain why...."

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

So far, we have, amongst others, that he was born on a military base (that one was yours. It was pretty sweet, actually)

Hell yeah that was sweet.

I now realize you're just baiting Tex.

Carry on.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Hell yeah that was sweet.

I now realize you're just baiting Tex.

Carry on.

I came to that conclusion too. I should've seen through the trolling earlier. Good one, DDD.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Hell yeah that was sweet.

I now realize you're just baiting Tex.

Carry on.

I just realized that by extension, being born in a hospital qualifies all of us with credentials in the field of medicine.

Also, the knowledge and experience correlated to the occupations of my relatives will somehow transfer to me, thereby giving me great insights into many areas.

The future is bright for me.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

I came to that conclusion too. I should've seen through the trolling earlier. Good one, DDD.

Let me know when you dig up some specific answers to these questions.

Until then, do you think Liddy Dole and John McCain are going to come up with some sweet solutions to how much vacation time is fair for officers in the Army?

Once he is done tackling that, he will be ready to take on Al Qaeda.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

But I think his point was that Reagan had no military experience or bona fides and yet Tex would still enthusiastically point out how great he thought Reagan was in foreign affairs.

the same as Reagan? Then you are delusional.

It's a combo of being firm, knowing your enemy, and willingness to use whatever power to protect the US. I'm not sure Obama has any of the above attributes.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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.

I do find the fact that he is only a couple of years removed from the state house disquieting. I think of my own delegate running for president three or four years from now and it makes me shudder. But I think it is right to say that there have been those with little foreign policy experience who have done fine. There are others who have not.

Much more troubling to me is what he says he is going to do, which is begin an troop withdrawal very quickly. What I want to hear, from any of them, is that their goal for the Iraq War is x. And that as of today, tactic y appears best calculated to achieve that objective, with the caveat that so much changes between today and January that new tactics to achieve x may be needed by then.

To simply say that you are going to draw troops down is not a tactic to achieve any foreign policy goal. It is a tactic to please the electorate. I'm not necessarily saying that is a bad thing to please the electorate, but I do think we all need to be aware that it is not a foreign policy or plan but rather a domestic election strategy.

My honest assessment of Obama is that he does not put forth any real plan on Iraq (1) because he astutely realizes that he may not need to and as things change it could undermine him and (2) because he doesn't at this point comprehend what is going on there. I don't mean that as a slam, but I do think until you have the joint chiefs reporting to you and are getting the daily security assessment you only have a cursory understanding of the complexity of things. This is not unique to him. It is also the reason I don't worry that much about what any new president may do. They will find this January that their options are very, very few.

I believe that just change of face and personality in the White House will help. Sort of like when Crowton left BYU, any warm body not named Crowton was going to help right away by simply not being his predecessor. I don't really mind Obama on foreign policy because, as I say, I think he will not do anything radical as commender in chief. I will likely vote against him for two reasons: (1) liberal jurists (2) he is perhaps the most liberal member of the senate.

[Tex]

*Sigh* Why do I bother trying to unravel your contortions ...

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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).

Wrong. I said Reagan came with no national security credentials (that I remember, anyway). I said Obama had no gravitas or credibility.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And yet, you find he was a sensational leader in foreign affairs.

He was, but that's not really relevant. We're talking about during the campaign.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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.

It's relevant because though Reagan was neither a military man (though I think he did enlist; don't think he saw combat) nor a foreign affairs expert, he came across as knowledgeable and confident in his views. People trusted him on national security. The fact that Carter was such miserable failure at it only helped him further.

In other words, Reagan succeeded on the issue despite his credentials. Obama has none to begin with, his opinions shared thus far have been immature (to put it politely), and he's up against a candidate who is very strong on the issue.

I can't see how there's any similarity at all. It's like saying Obama and Reagan both liked to eat at McDonald's. Yeah, so?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Odd, because that sounds like the exact same situation to me- just replace Obama's name with Reagan and Bush's name with Carter.

Obama isn't running against Bush, a fact many libs have yet to figure out. He'll be (presumably) running against McCain.

He's weak, and his "100-year war" attack reflects that.