quote:

He recognized the difference between what is illegal and what is immoral?

His bigger problem was not fighting, even defending, Jim Crow in the 60's; but he has admitted his mistake.

Man, I liked him so much. I like George Will, too, but think he ought to get off McCain's back. I like McCain and Bush's initial stance on immigration. I like McCain's initial position on the tax cuts during a time of war. I don't think the litany of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman and McCain-Kennedy is an indictment but, rather, a badge of honor.

I just think we need a more conventional counter-terrorism strategy that employs targeted strikes and deemphasizes regime changes in rogue states using foot soldiers. I don't want to democratize the Middle East; heck, the supermajority of their populations detest us. It was Saudis that flew into the Twin Towers.

It's not "developmentally appropriate" to enforce democratization of tribalistic cultures. Is that an arrogant infantilization of those cultures? No, just a geopolitical fact. They are not yearning for freedom but, rather, ... ... they are yearning for what it is they yearn for ...

To say that leaving Iraq to history's whim upon our measured withdrawal is a caricaturization of an otherwise very nuanced realist position, which has more to do with: "I'd like to help but I cannot. I don't have what you need. And my resources need to be redeployed to prevent even greater tragedies to humankind than are unfolding here (as difficult as that might be to grasp)." It is a double-effect/proportionate reason argument. A Sophie's Choice. Choosing between two awful outcomes by trying to figure out which will be the most awful. Choosing to redeploy to where your efforts can be more effectively leveraged and reap even greater peace dividends for humankind, knowing your efforts and resources are severely limited and finite as it is vis a vis the magnitude of the problems facing humankind. This is not a moral calculus or justification but a pragmatic justification. This is not moral reasoning but prudential reasoning. And it is gut- wrenching.

quote:

"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. � Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who mov e about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols."

quote:

(4) Then doesn't it follow that the American role in Iraq is indeed critical?

No, actually. [jb snipped the lengthy amplification]

(5) The sectarian character of the Iraqi population, which is the source of divisiveness extending beyond any dislike or resentment of America.

A geographical division of Iraq is inevitable. The major players are obvious. It isn't plain how America, as an outside party, could play an effective role, let alone one that was decisive, in that national redefinition. And America would do well to encourage non-American agents to act as brokers � people with names like Ban Ki-moon.

On the basis of this analysis I will vote against supplementary American involvement in Iraq.

quote:

In a column published yesterday at National Review Online ("Algeria Warned Us"), William Buckley discusses, as an analogy to the Iraq situation, the terrorist war in Algeria in the late 1950s and early 1960s that finally forced de Gaulle to abandon that country (which had been a fully integrated province of France) to the rule of terrorist Moslem revolutionarists. De Gaulle surrendered Algeria because he was unwilling to contemplate the frightful methods that would have been required for victory.

Returning to Iraq, Buckley observes:
[W]hether the next step will be taken by Mr. Bush or President Kerry, one thing is predictable. It is that the insurrectionists can't be defeated by any means we would consent to use.

Buckley quietly drops this bombshell into the last sentence of his column. If he is correct, and if more and more people including supporters of the initial Iraq invasion come to believe that he is correct, then a Kerry presidency (get out of Iraq sooner rather than merely later, as Bush would inevitably have to do in any case) would not necessarily be such a disaster after all, at least in the long run.

quote:

Iraq lacks a Washington, a Madison, a Marshall�and it lacks the astonishingly rich social and cultural soil from which such people sprout. From America�s social soil in the eighteenth century grew all the members of the Constitutional Convention and of all the state legislatures that created all the conventions that ratified the Constitution.

So, Iraq in its quest for democracy lacks only�only! �what America then had: an existing democratic culture. It is a historical truism that the Declaration of Independence was less the creation of independence than the affirmation that Americans had already become independent. In the decades before 1776 they had become a distinct people, a demos, a nation�held together by the glue of shared memories, common strivings, and shared ideals. As John Adams said, the revolution had occurred in the minds and hearts of Americans before the incident at Concord Bridge.

It is counted realism in Washington now to say that creating a new Iraqi regime may require perhaps two years. One wonders: Does Washington remember that it took a generation, and the United States Army, to bring about, in effect, regime change�a change of institutions and mores�in the American South? Will a Middle Eastern nation prove more plastic to our touch than Mississippi was? Will two years suffice for America�as Woodrow Wilson said of the Latin American republics�to teach Iraq to elect good men? We are, it seems, fated to learn again the limits of the Wilsonian project.

quote:

"War," wrote Randolph Bourne in 1918, "is the health of the state." War especially enhances presidential power, which probably is one reason why Theodore Roosevelt, Bourne's contemporary and one of McCain's heroes, relished war. "No triumph of peace," Roosevelt said, "is quite so great as the supreme triumphs of war." Roosevelt, who also said, "I don't think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man's hands," was the archetype of the modern, hyperkinetic President McCain, who sometimes seems to regard his enthusiasms and disgusts as self-legitimizing and grounds for government action, probably would be TR's sort of President.
The Democratic nominee will probe, and voters have nine months to ponder, the implications of that probability.

quote:

"No Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hezbollah. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no one to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. No Iranian support for Syria ... '' You get the drift. So, The Weekly Standard says:

"We might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions -- and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.''

"Why wait?'' Perhaps because the U.S. military has enough on its plate, in the deteriorating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which both border Iran. And perhaps because containment, although of uncertain success, did work against Stalin and his successors, and might be preferable to a war against a nation much larger and more formidable than Iraq. And if Assad's regime does not fall after The Weekly Standard's hoped-for third war, with Iran, does the magazine hope for a fourth?

As for the "healthy'' repercussions that The Weekly Standard is so eager to experience from yet another war: One envies that publication's powers of prophecy, but wishes it had exercised them on the nation's behalf before all of the surprises -- all of them unpleasant -- that Iraq has inflicted. And regarding the "appeasement'' that The Weekly Standard decries: Does the magazine really wish the administration had heeded its earlier (Dec. 20, 2004) editorial advocating war with yet another nation -- the bombing of Syria?

quote:

So far, McCain has preferred angry sound bites to substantive argument. He regularly accuses Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic leadership in Congress of wanting to "wave the white flag of surrender," a demagogic cliche that ought to be beneath him.

But it is important to remember that on the subject of military conflict, the venerable veteran is not always rational. He has said we should have pursued "victory" in Vietnam, although we lost 10 times as many Americans there as we have to date in Iraq. Perhaps someone will eventually ask him a simple question: How many dead is too many in this war?

quote:

McCain holds close counsel with some big names, according to the August 18 New York Times article "McCain Mines Elite of G.O.P. for 2008 Team": Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Brent Scowcroft, William Kristol and Robert Kagan.

quote:

Barack Obama

The Buzz
On May 10, 2007, the Chicago Sun-Times highlighted Obama�s most influential advisors, including a "cadre of former Clinton officials . . . who for now want to stay below the radar screen" and a few names the Post left out: Jeh Charles Johnson, Mark Lippert and Gregory Craig. And in "Who Has Their Ear? " on September 3, The Huffington Post compared Clinton�s and Obama�s foreign policy choices, commenting on who has influence over the candidates and what they�re saying. The Wall Street Journal offered a further comparison on September 5 with "Obama Tones Foreign-Policy Muscle". "Is (His) Biography (Our) Destiny?", from NYT Magazine on November 4, continues the discussion of the Obama and Clinton inner circles and explains match-ups. The article details how Obama met Anthony Lake and what his foreign policy might be.

On December 23, the New York Times reported on Clinton and Obama�s back and forth on the role of advisors in their campaigns.

A December 28 Politico article discussed the dispute between the Obama and Clinton camps over the situation in Pakistan, as advisors Susan Rice and Lee Feinstein joined the fray.

On December 30, Steve Clemons agonized over the candidates and their real foreign policy leanings, discussing Obama�s advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Romney�s national security advisor, Mitchell Reiss, among others.

Abe Greenwald of Commentary magazine dug into Obama advisor Samantha Power on January 6 for her flip-flop on supporting the troop surge.

On January 3, 2008 at The Nation, Ari Berman gave the inside scoop on "The Democratic Foreign Policy Wars" between the Obama and Clinton teams.

On January 11, the online news source the Real News Network, posted an interview with Obama advisor Susan Rice. Rice contrasts Obama and Clinton foreign policy.

On January 15, the Spartanburg Herald Journal covered Obama advisor Samantha Power's visit to a South Carolina high school. Power advocates fresh eyes over experience.

On January 21, Obama advisor Susan Rice advocates a foreign policy inspired by the values of Martin Luther King, Jr.

The New York Sun introduced us to Obama�s "Take Charge" Dr. Susan Rice on January 28.

Former National Security Adviser Tony Lake stumped for Obama at UMass- Dartmouth on February 1, emphasizing Barack�s multicultural roots and saying he has a "sense of how the world really is."

Commentary�s Contentions blog looked at Obama advisor Samantha Power�s Middle East stance on January 26. The piece links to articles from the American Thinker on Obama�s foreign-policy advisors� stances on Israel. National Review added to the discussion, noting Power�s stance on the Jenin Massacre on February 11.

Jonathan Chait took a closer look at McCain and his new foreign policy in the New Republic on February 10.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, foreign-policy counselor to Barack Obama, went to Syria on February 12. The New York Sun has the skinny.

Clintonista Michael O�Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, comes out swinging against Barack Obama in a February 14 Wall Street Journal op-ed. Among other things, he criticizes the "would-be Obama doctrine" of meeting with foreign leaders hostile to the United States.

On February 18, Obama advisor Samantha Power sat down with Salon, criticizing the Bush administration and advocating alternative strategies for Iran and Iraq. Francis Fukuyama reviewed Power's new book, a biography of slain UN official Sergio Vieira de Mello, in the New York Times the day before.

Conservative online magazine the American Thinker posted a critique of Obama�s foreign policy team, particularly in regard to Samatha Power, on February 19.

Obama advisor Robert Malley has come under fire for his supposed hatred of Israel (see this January 23 article in the American Thinker and this February 19 editorial in the New York Sun). The former Clinton official responds to his critics in the Jewish Daily Forward, saying the attacks have "crossed the line." Now Clinton supporter Sandy Berger, as well as Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Daniel C. Kurtzer and Aaron David Miller, have rallied to Malley�s defense.

Officially Speaking
The Obama camp released a list on December 19 of "over 70 foreign policy experts" that endorse Obama. This release includes many not on the Post�s list and many members of the former Clinton Administration, continuing a squabble between the camps over the composition of foreign policy teams. MSNBC also reported on the Clinton and Obama foreign policy teams, after Barack Obama claimed on December 21 that 47 former Clinton Administration members are currently advising Obama at a "senior level."

quote:

Originally posted by AMH v2.0:
I also agree that exercising prudent judgment is key, especially regarding decisions that involve deploying troops. But, I also think this is easier said than done, especially in deciding on what is actually in America�s interest vs. what is the right thing to do � sort of a subsidiarity vs. socialization corollary. I think that the people you highlight are ones who take that pretty seriously, including Pat Buchanan, who is clearly more isolationist that the others.

But I find it difficult to agree that somehow Barack Obama would be better at this than John McCain. I actually believe that John McCain, coming from a military family, with his first hand experience in the military, front line no less, and years of experience in Washington dealing with military matters, understands exactly what is at stake when the military deploys and would show exactly the type of prudence that you state is needed. A great example of this is when, as a Congressman, he voted no on the resolution regarding the continued deployment of Marines in Beirut as part of the multi national force, against Reagan and the GOP - we all know how that turned out. Though Obama seems like a thoughtful man, I believe he is na�ve about the �bad guys�, at best.

quote:

John McCain�s reputation as a maverick is no recent contrivance. The senator first captured the media spotlight in September 1983, not long after he�d been elected to his first term in the House, when he voted against President Reagan�s decision to put American troops in Lebanon as part of a multinational �peacekeeping� force. One of 27 Republicans to break with the White House, the freshman McCain made a floor speech that reads as if it might have been written yesterday�by Ron Paul:

The fundamental question is: What is the United States� interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?... The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.

What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event.

Now insert �Iraq� where McCain said �Lebanon.� It�s as if McCain the Younger foresaw our present predicament and taunted his future incarnation, showing that wisdom doesn�t necessarily come with age.

quote:

Still, there's probably no better illustration of the Obama camp's Hamiltonian sensibility than the debate over the war. Former Clinton officials like Lake, Rice, and Danzig all opposed the idea from the get-go (as did Hamilton himself). In doing so, they faced down pleas from within the Democrats' permanent State-Department-in-waiting that opposition would be politically disastrous. "Many Democrats had opposed [the first Gulf war]. And these people--particularly the older people, felt like that had been a big mistake. They didn't want to make it twice," recalls an Obama adviser. "It got rather acrimonious."

In the face of these arguments, the would-be Obamanauts didn't invoke some sweeping alternative paradigm--say, the kind of abstract theorizing you'd get from a Kissinger tome. They simply pointed out where the Bush doctrine of preemption and democracypromotion broke down--the "anomalies," if you will. Intuition told them that an easy war was a fantasy, that the United States would face a long and brutal occupation. Many had security clearances during the Clinton administration and had never seen credible evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Almost everyone worried that an invasion would detract from the fight against Al Qaeda. "It should have been obvious to anyone who'd served in government that we can't walk and chew gum at same time," says one Obama adviser. "That's not a paradigm, that's a judgment."

Noam Scheiber is a senior editor at The New Republic.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] But, for starters, what is POTUS? I'm not familiar with that acryonym.[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]I know there is substance to your preferred candidate (Obama, for those who didn't know), but what one encounters in the stump speeches and interviews comes across as very cliched. "Change . . . change . . . change!"[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Re. Iraq, I'm not interested in going over how it all began, what Obama's position, etc. We both agreed that he's being opportunistic, here -- that if it had gone better, he wouldn't be bragging about how he opposed it from the start (dubious that he would have done so as a Senator).[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]I'm not interested in just-war discussions any more, as I don't know that these 4th C. Augustinian principles (which are not official Church teachings) apply very well to 21st C. security risks and humanitarian interventions. Our discussions in the lead-up to Iraq left me with the conclusion that these principles are good to consult with, but are difficult to apply when there are no national armies involved. One can have a military intervention in behalf of justice that is not a just-war intervention.[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]
Re. Iraq, I only want to know what the candidates plan to do. Bush has stated that we'll stay until they ask us the leave, this presupposing their ability to care for their own security and allowing for gradual draw-downs, when appropriate. That's responsible. I hear McCain saying the same. I don't hear these considerations from Clinton and Obama; they seem more interested in appeasing the "Bush-lied, people-died, bring-our-troops-home" contingency on the Left, without whose votes they cannot win. .[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Obama even said recently that after pulling out, he might go back in if Al Qaeda has bases or strengthens. McCain ate his lunch on that one, reminding him that AQ is already there and has been the biggest problem. Obama's rejoinder was that they wouldn't be there if we hadn't invaded . . . yada yada yadad -- bratty Left-speak! Honestly, I don't see much maturity or wisdom with regard to national security issues. [/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]Glad to hear Susan Rice presenting a more nuanced approach in your post above. The Left won't like it if she/Obama keep this up, however.[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] One more thing: I'm rather turned off by all the references to neo-cons, their pictures, etc. The U.S Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq after studying intelligence that indicated security risks to the U.S. That's what happened. Neocons seem to be the boogeymen of the Left -- as though they have some strange, irresistible influence capable of dragging even people like Kerry, Clinton and Edwards to back Bush. That's ridiculous. [/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] JB, I have a brief break and read your posts in my email notifications. No time to respond to all the points you make (I feel "straw-manned" in a few of them), except to say that Obama is lucky to have such a thoughtful and enthusiastic supporter in you.


2. There's not much difference between the policies Obama and Clinton recommend in all areas. Given that, plus your obvious respect for McCain, just what, exactly, is it that you find more appealing in Obama? I know you've written a lot about it already, but how about a 150 word "man on the street interview" summary. Here's the mic! [/qb]

quote:

The long and short of it is that government closer to home tends to be better and should only be done in Washington or Baton Rouge when it cannot be done in Thibodaux. And should not be done in Thibodaux when it can be done in your neighborhood. And should not be done in your neighborhood when it can be done in your home. And should not be done by parents when it can be done by the children, themselves.

This is the Bill Buckley, George Will and Tucker Carlson approach and is best articulated by what are known as libertarian-type Republicans (the folks out West and not the evangelical, social conservatives of the South, who think we should have small government in all matters but the bedroom). So, generally, the Republican approach matches this philosophy, domestically, although they do seem to miss the boat on gun control, immigration, the death penalty, etc where seamless garment of life issues are concerned.

But I'm fed up with the neoconservatives who have exerted too much influence in the White House the past 7 years, who distrust BIG government at home, domestically, but who think it can work miracles overseas.

What's up with that?

Our resources (blood and treasure) are finite and need to be judiciously deployed where they can reap the biggest benefit for the greatest part of humanity.

This leaves us with something of a Sophie's Choice in Iraq. [snip snip because that is addressed hereinabove already on this thread]

What about Obama being pro-choice? From a practical perspective, it has not mattered, in the largest measure, for the past 35 years who the POTUS is where this is concerned. And even if Roe is overturned, it just reverts to the states and the huge population states will keep it legal. Even in Latin America where it is pervasively illegal, criminalization is not effective. A good law is an enforceable law. It might be immoral but there is little anyone has ever been able to do about it by using the law as a tool. Further, what does it say about Obama's character? Nothing, but that is something that requires more protracted consideration than can be given in this short apologetic. I address it at length elsewhere.

[over 350 words; 150 must've been a trap]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] There is a political Left in this country and they're strong backers of Obama. E.g., moveon.org, which has a large membership. I don't think he'll get elected without their support, and I do believe he throws red meat out to them. That's my perception from some of the language he uses, and I don't think I'm reading more into it than there is.[/qb]

quote:

�I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.�

quote:

�Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.�

quote:

�Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.�

quote:

�Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.�

quote:

�Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.�

quote:

�It had all the earmarks of a CIA operation; the bomb killed everybody in the room except the intended target!�

quote:

�I get satisfaction of three kinds. One is creating something, one is being paid for it and one is the feeling that I haven't just been sitting on my ass all afternoon.�

quote:

�I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.�

quote:

Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.�

quote:

�I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.�

quote:

�Life can't be all bad when for ten dollars you can buy all the Beethoven sonatas and listen to them for ten years.�

quote:

�One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed....different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgement of defeat.�

quote:

�Mr. Bush is in the hands of a fortune that will be unremitting on the point of Iraq. If he'd invented the Bill of Rights, it wouldn't get him out of his jam.�

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] One can have a military intervention in behalf of justice that is not a just-war intervention.[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Obama even said recently that after pulling out, he might go back in if Al Qaeda has bases or strengthens. McCain ate his lunch on that one, reminding him that AQ is already there and has been the biggest problem. Obama's rejoinder was that they wouldn't be there if we hadn't invaded . . . yada yada yadad -- bratty Left-speak! [/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] JB wrote: My overriding concern, then, is to marginalize neoconservative influence in the White House, to purge it from US Foreign Policy.

More on the dreaded "neo-cons." I don't get it, truly I don't. All this time I've been under the impression that the foreign policy of the White House was under the direction of Secretaries of State -- Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, during the past 8 years. Neocons? Hardly![/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I'm still listening. There are over 8 months to go and I'm especially interested in the debates to come. I loathe the way the Democrat Party has become aligned with abortion rights, so much so that they can't even bring themselves to place a restriction on partial-birth procedures. Republicans are generally more in line with my own views on this and other areas:
- more faithful to subsidiarity principles by promoting initiatives in the private sector
- reducing taxes
- smaller government
- reducing government spending (Bush blew this one)
- strong national defense
- strong, aggressive stand against Islamic terrorists

All of the candidates seem to recognize the importance of addressing immigration issues, Social Security, and health insurance.

[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]I'm listening.[/qb]

quote:

The only amendments I would offer:

1) strong, aggressive stand against Islamic terrorists (Bush blew this one)
2) seamless garment of life (Religious Right blew this one)

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] 1. I'm not doubting that other strategies could have been more effective, but I surely don't think that "Bush blew this one."

2. The "Religious Right" has not been in power. [/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb]1. Bush blew it precisely because other strategies would have been more effective and less counterproductive.
[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] "blowing it" is too strong, considering the successes that have taken place. [/qb]

quote:

1. You�ve stated that as president you�d transcend the sharp partisanship that pervades Washington, but you favor a rapid pullout from Iraq, plan significant tax increases, oppose any and all restrictions on abortions, and favor Supreme Court justices in the mold of Stephen Breyer � positions strongly opposed by most Republicans. Accordingly, on which of these issues would you be willing to compromise, and to what extent? Which Democrats do you think would give a little, and how would you convince them? How would you get interest groups and donors to go along?

3. Could you please cite three things you�ve done as senator to help win the war in Iraq?

5. Recently, one of your supporters appearing on the cable news show Hardball seemed blindsided when asked to name one of your legislative accomplishments. Please identify each and every Senate bill you�ve authored that has been passed by Congress. Also explain any benefits the country has derived from your legislation.

8. You�ve been campaigning on a theme of �change,� yet your stated positions on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, taxes, education, income redistribution, affirmative action, tort reform, and reducing poverty aren�t appreciably distinguishable from the positions Democrats have maintained over the last 40 years. What specifically would you change, beyond shifting nomenclature and tinkering around the edges?

11. You advocate a rapid pullout from Iraq, voted against FISA reauthorization, support unconditional negotiations with state sponsors of terrorism, oppose offering lawsuit protection to telecommunications companies that help the government monitor communications by suspected terrorists, and demand that Guantanamo be closed. Given our enemies� mindset, isn�t it likely that they�d interpret your record as a sign of weakness � thereby strengthening their resolve and/or increasing the probability of attack?

16. While in the Illinois state legislature you voted against the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act, a measure designed to prevent abortion providers from withholding care and sustenance from infants who survive abortion attempts. Please explain your criteria for providing sustenance to certain infants but not others. Also, at what point after birth is a baby who survives an abortion entitled to protection? Does your rationale apply to any other babies that are born but unwanted?

17. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell and other intelligence experts maintain that failure to pass FISA reauthorization prevents our intelligence agencies from monitoring communications by terrorists in foreign countries regarding plots against our country formed after February 15. You voted against reauthorization. Why shouldn�t voters conclude that you�re less than serious about national security?

18. You maintain that the surge is a �complete failure� and that it hasn�t produced stability or political reconciliation. Yet for several months now, most objective accounts have shown that the surge has produced a dramatic reduction in violence, Iraq is becoming stable (albeit tentatively so), and significant political progress is occurring. Why do you refuse to acknowledge these facts, and why do you insist on pulling out of Iraq on the verge of what could be a significant and historic victory? Why shouldn�t voters infer that winning the war may be less important to you than scoring political points?

19. You support giving driver�s licenses to illegal immigrants and letting them participate in the Social Security system. Why won�t this encourage more illegal immigrants to come to the U.S.?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] JB, not that you haven't addressed some of these issues already, but . . . here's a list of the kinds of questions most conservatives (self included) have for Obama? [/qb]