Foreign Policy

Is Obama a Republican?

When it comes to foreign policy, it's hard to tell Barack Obama and George W. Bush apart

|

Anyone who was hoping the current administration would bring a modest downsizing of the nation's defense establishment and global military role has to be feeling like Bernard Madoff's investors. Escalation is underway in Afghanistan, the Army is expanding, and the Pentagon is on the all-you-can-eat diet.

The American political system is set up to persuade citizens that they must choose between starkly different policies. In reality, campaigns are mostly a showy exercise in what Sigmund Freud called the "narcissism of small differences."

When it comes to defense, history suggests that the two major parties offer a choice on the order of McDonald's and Burger King. Anyone looking back 50 years from now at objective indicators would have trouble identifying a meaningful difference between the current president and the last one.

For that matter, it's easy to assume that when President Obama began addressing national security policy, he accidentally picked up John McCain's platform instead of his own. Critics suspect Obama is a closet Muslim. But maybe his real secret is that he's a closet Republican.

The administration and its opponents both make much of its plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by this summer and to pull the rest out by 2012. What both prefer to forget is that the previous president agreed to the same timetable. Obama's policy on the war he once opposed is not similar to Bush's: It is identical.

Afghanistan? Dick Cheney faults the president for allegedly failing to "talk about how we win," as if Obama were doing far less than the Bush administration. In fact, Obama has agreed to more than triple the U.S. troop presence in a war that his predecessor only talked about winning. McCain called for a "surge" in Afghanistan like the one in Iraq. Obama has given it to him.

Republicans nonetheless entertain the fantasy that at heart Obama is a pacifist, bent on gutting our military might and naively trusting the good faith of our adversaries. Bush White House adviser Karl Rove recently complained that under this administration, "defense spending is being flattened: Between 2009 and 2010, military outlays will rise 3.6 percent while nondefense discretionary spending climbs 12 percent."

Read that again: Rove believes that when defense spending rises 3.6 percent, it's not really rising. Why? Because the rest of the budget is growing faster. By that logic, if I gained 10 pounds over the holidays but Rove gained 20, I'd need to have my pants taken in.

As it is, the United States spends more on defense than all the other countries on Earth combined. Yet we persist in thinking of ourselves as endangered by foreign countries that are military pipsqueaks.

Obama shares this view. He thinks the only problem with the American military is there isn't enough of it. He's expanding the size of both the Army and the Marine Corps. That's right: After we begin leaving Iraq, the biggest military undertaking in two decades, we won't need a smaller force. We'll need a bigger one.

Sean Hannity accuses the president of "cutting back on defense," but he must be holding his chart upside down. The basic Pentagon budget (excluding money for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) is scheduled to go up every year.

Over the next five years, defense spending, adjusted for inflation, would be higher than it was in the last five years, when Fox News commentators did not complain about inadequate funding. That's not counting the increases requested by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to provide an additional boost of nearly $60 billion over those five years.

What all this suggests is that Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us nothing about the folly of invading other countries and trying to turn them into modern democracies. The essential theme of the administration's national security policy is reflexive continuity. Why else would we need a bigger military except to do more of the same?

So we are stuck with the consensus that has ruled Washington for decades—the expensive, aggressive policy that has inflated the federal budget and bogged us down in two unsuccessful wars while furnishing an endless, priceless recruiting message for Islamic terrorists.

Too bad. None of this would have happened if Barack Obama had been elected.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Stop Snitching

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good Morning reason!

    Happy Birthday Virginia Postrel!

  2. Happy Birthday Virginia Postrel!

  3. Good morning reason.

  4. Stupid spam filter. Now for this one:

    Happy birthday Virginia Postrel.

  5. Nice eBay ad link there: “RE102 BARACK OBAMA U.S PRESIDENT CANVAS ART PRINT”. Just stick with Google text ads.

  6. you’d almost think there’s some sort of establishment out there where neo-cons and libs strive to keep a status quo…oh wait…

  7. If he increases “defense” spending faster then “domestic” spending then he is a Republican

    If he increases “domestic” spending faster then “defense” spending then he is a Democrat

    If he decreases either “domestic” or “defense” spending then he is “outside the main stream”

    If he decreases both “domestic” and “defense” spending then he is Ron Paul

      1. No, actually Ron Paul only favors a reduction in spending when everyone else does it first Until then he is getting his districts “fair share of earmarks”.

        1. That’s bullshit, Gill. He’s just not retarded… He’ll put in for his district in a bill and then vote no when it comes up for the vote.

          His constituents are paying taxes, are they not? So provided that that is the case, and provided that a bill gets passed regardless of Paul’s “No” votes, should his district not be allowed to get their money back? Or are they just to be forced into having their money stolen with nothing at all in return.

          Paul’s position on this is clear enough to me…

          1. No one should have their money taken to fund X or Y (thus voting NO).
          2. If the money is taken to fund X or Y in spite of a no vote, money should actually benefit people.

          1. Oh, now I get it. We will have a more Liberty based legal system or a more just tax system once everyone does it at the same time? Until then, since we are paying taxes, act like Democrats? It’s a really, really good idea, but you first?

            Why would anyone take people who are not willing to put their money where there mouths are seriously?

            What is the practical difference between a Lefty who wants the government to redistribute wealth and takes every penny he can get and Ron Paul rhetorically “opposing” every redistribution and taking every penny he can get? The Leftie’s actions are consistent with his words.

            1. RP votes against every piece of spending proposed.

              Once passed over his objections he seeks to recoup as much as possible for his constituency.

              Your theft doesn’t justify you saying I can’t try to recover the property you stole.

    1. Great read thanks for the share!

  8. But maybe his real secret is that he’s (OBAMA) a closet Republican

    When u r wearing a BIG PINK WIG and PANTY-HOSE in your front yard raising your Rainbow flag with the purple triangle in it…you are NOT in the closet.

    Obama is not in the CLOSET concerning being an ‘undercover-republican’.

  9. I appreciate the perspective of this article.

  10. I think it’s more that W. was a closet Democrat. Dems/Progressives have a long history of championing nation building, and I’ve not seen anyone put forward a particularly convincing argument that we wouldn’t be involved in the wars we’re in now had Gore won the 2000 election. (After the fact protestations don’t count). One of the reasons Obama appealed as a candidate was he was about the only Dem in the race who could actually produce a public statement opposing either war from before the wars got started. Of course, that was one public statement and it came from before he held a national office.

    1. Considering that Al was Clinton’s point man in his campaign to fix our Saddam-y problem, I’m pretty sure you’re right. Remember the Gore-Albright travelling roadshow in 98.

      What was interesting that it was the Republicans that shouted that one down. Funny how it got to be a splendid notion when their man was pushing it.

      Seems to me, when it comes to the major parties, screwball ideas are only stupid when they’re being advanced by the other side.

      1. There is definitely a lot of that involved, although the 9/11 attacks definitely changed the equation for a lot of people. I am most definitely not saying that Iraq had anything to do with those attacks, just that at the time of the 2003 invasion the mood of the country and the congress were substantially different than they were in 1998. Nonetheless, regime change in Iraq became the official policy of the USA in 1998 with the Iraq Liberation Act with the full blessings of mssrs Clinton and Gore.

        I’ll go out on a limb and say that even without the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, there were pretty good odds that the U.S. would have gone back into Iraq before the 2004 elections even under a President Gore. For all the attention focused on the bad WMD intel and the spurious al-qaeda claims, there were real and legitimate concerns about the breakdown of sanctions and oil for food.

        I think one of the problems we’re running into right now is that as a result of this shift we’ve seen a sea change within the Republican party as the neo-con faction gained influence and the party circled the wagons to defend an incumbent president. Likewise we saw the Dems run with the anti-war agenda not b/c they had any problem with an interventionist foreign policy, but b/c they saw a short term political advantage. The vast bulk of sitting Dems supported both wars at the time, and rapidly dropped their opposition once they gained power.

        1. +1

          I’ll go a step further and say that definitely would have gone back into Iraq under a President Gore.

          Remember the Allbright comment to Leslie whats-her-face from CBS? I recall it was something about sanctions against Iraq. There was an interview (or just a comment) that the Clinton administration begged CBS not to air. Something about Allbright responding to the claim that Iraqi kids were dying due to the sanctions on medical supplies – “We think it’s worth it.”

          And by the way, thank you Steve Chapman for another excellent piece.

    2. It’s hard to call Bush a closet Democrat when Republican voters overwhelmingly supported his foreign policy. Maybe the problem is that Republicans, other than Ron Paul, seem to have a very odd idea of what “conservatism” means.

      1. At the time Democrat voters overwhelmingly supported his foreign policy too. It was when the war started losing popularity in 2005 that you started seeing the Dems publicly trying to cast themselves as the anti-war party.

        I’d agree that the the resulting shift means that there is now a very large gap between ‘Republican’ and ‘Conservative’. I think that has a lot to do with Republican losses in 2006 and 2008, and was in many ways the genesis of the current ‘Tea Party’ movement.

        1. I thought Dems went along with the invasion of Iraq because they were too spineless to stand up to Bush in light of 9/11. They seemed to hold their noses and vote for it or else be accused of being lilly-livered terrorist sympathizers.

    3. Great point I couldnt agree more!

  11. When it comes to the wars and radical Islamism, Obama is caught between the rock of his die-hard lefty base and the hard place of the majority of America.

    After Ft. Hood and the narrowly averted Christmas disaster, he’s one more government screwup leading to a major attack away from being guaranteed to get bounced out on his keister in 2012.

    1. Couldnt agree more thanks for the comment

  12. The whole closet Muslim thing that conservatives squawk about is always amusing. Do they even realize that Muslims and Conservatives have more in common when it comes to social values than they do with the left?

    1. TRUE! The morality police in the form of everyday people were EVERYWHERE when I was in Egypt, which is one of the most ‘liberal’ of middle-eastern countries.

  13. This is not about republican or democrat, it’s about votes and politics. It’s Eisenhower’s Miliary-Industrial complex hard at work. Gotta buy all the new toys and manpower to counter every threat whether real or imagined or fabricated.

    1. NOOO! That’s not true! Saddam had nuclear warheads that we HAD to neutralize!

    2. Ah, the old military-industrial hate fest. Last I checked, the Al Qaeda muslim terrorists started this war on 9/11.
      I don’t call the slaughter of 3000 people on this soil “imagined” or “fabricated”.

      1. The link between Iraq and said attack is pretty imagined.

        http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/…..index.html

      2. “Last I checked, the Al Qaeda muslim terrorists started this war on 9/11.”

        That’s true if you’ve knowledge of history only begins on the morning of 9/11/01.

        Last I checked the US was killing people in the Middle East years before that event.

    3. I agree its not about republican or democrats

  14. I don’t see how you can call either Iraq or Afghanistan a failed war when neither are finished. I’m sure you would have been calling WW2 a failed war in 1942. (Conversely, neither can be called a successful war.)

    1. Note: In WWII, we fought Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Hirohito and a bunch of their sub-bosses & henchmen. All of whom had serious armies, real training and a surplus of first-world wealth stored up with which to exhaust fighting us.

      We started this fight in 1942, and ended it in 1945, after having beaten everyone.

      3 years.

      We’re already 7 years into Afghanistan & 6 into Iraq… We’ve had to fight people with sticks, homemade bombs, and a few rocket powered grenades, working largely while stoned out of their minds on opium, and to find only (in essence) one guy. We found & killed another guy in the process, but the main mission hasn’t ended.

      If that isn’t a comparative failure, exactly how do we quantify failure?

      The only disclaimer I make is that since we lack a clear definition of having “won” a war on “terror”, much like the war on “drugs” and the war on “porn”, it’s possible that we can never win (and never “lose”). Defined objectives would give a concrete answer one way or another, but I think it’s fair to call the whole thing a FAIL.

      How many more years of $708+Billion draining away from the US economy do you need before you agree?

      1. Just food for thought:
        Prepare for continuing counter-terrorist operations even after the job in Afghanistan is finished. Terrorists cross borders, and as long as the Islamic nation-states in the Middle East breed and harbor them, they will keep coming.

        The rugged mountain terrain and proximity of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border will demand a different strategy, and increased use of Predator missions. Don’t be surprised if Pakistan is next on the agenda.

        The war that Islam declared on the West will not end until all of them are dead or decide to worship their allah peacefully. But, since the Koran’s belligerent doctrine for a world Caliphate is followed to the letter, it will certainly not be the latter.

        If Americans don’t want another 9/11 they had damned well better be prepared for the long haul. The only viable ‘exit strategy’ is to ensure that Islamic extremists and the rest of the world’s malefactors, will think twice about attacking the United States. To accomplish that will take more than just a piecemeal war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will take making William Tecumseh Sherman look like a Boy Scout. If you get my drift.

        1. So your strategy is to kill every single extremist? Don’t you realize your very job depends on more terrorist attacks? That if America decided to end our dependence on oil, pulled out of the middle east that Middle eastern terrorism would lose all validity? And what is the “long haul” exactly? Middle Eastern states do not breed terrorism, America does.

      2. +1! And add this to the (steaming) pile.

    2. Thanks for the nice post this website is a great resource of information

  15. Critics suspect Obama is a closet Muslim. But maybe his real secret is that he’s a closet Republican.

    I also note Obama has signed more pro-gun legislation than GWB.

    1. Such as?

      1. End of firearms prohibitions in national parks, transporting firearms on AMTRAK.

        Didn’t say he wanted to.

    2. He only signed that bill that had a completely irrelevant pro-gun amendment; while not a bad thing, there was no chance that he would veto it just because of that.

      He definitely would push reinstating the assault weapon ban. He practically came out and said that the people wouldn’t like that.

      1. I don’t think he’ll push either “assault weapons” or gun show legislation with 1/3 of the Democrats in Congress voting pro-gun.

        When Obana won the election the Brady folks and the VPC danced in the aisles. They had their Christmas list written and checked twice. This session isn’t working out the way they or I thought it would.

  16. This is on Reason.com?

    1. Drink!

  17. There are several real policy differences:

    Bush made an open ended commitment to Afganistan and Iraq. Obama has already set a withdraw date for Afganistan, ensuring that the Taliban will stay quiet until then. At the same time, he decided to give the Generals in charge most of the troops they requested, so that he could blame them for the failure.

    On a more important point, I’d like to understand what motivates Libertarians when it comes to foreign affairs. Quite frankly, I’d vote Libertarian in a heartbeat if you guys didn’t have what I believe to be an obviously insane position on foreign policy. There are people out there who want to kill us, and I would like to see them dead or too-scared to fight us. National security is the primary responsibility of the Federal Government and is a perfectly legitimate function of the state. What is the matter with an armed force large enough to prevent us from getting nuked/invaded/blockaded?

    Strength through superior firepower is a critical part of this. We need personnel, equipment and training to do anything. Yes, this means a lot of butter is replaced with guns. On the other hand, it means China is not invading to steal our butter.

    We also need the will to use that power. Our enemies need to know that if they fund terrorists or let them train in their backyard, we will bomb them. They also need to know that we will keep bombing until the job is done. If, on the other hand, they perceive us as lacking the will to do anything other than issue Bills of Attainder or bomb aspirin factories, they will laugh at us and keep doing what they are doing.

    If we show that we have strength, and the will to use it, our enemies will think twice before they take action against us. If we shrink our military substantially, or run away from commitments we have made to our allies, we will look like a bunch of chumps who are asking to be attacked.

    Where am I wrong here?

    I can understand the case for less involvement abroad… but none? Alright, my asbestos suit is on. Make your case for why I am an idiot.

    1. I can’t say that you’re wrong per se, but let me comment on your excellent post.

      At the same time, he decided to give the Generals in charge most of the troops they requested, so that he could blame them for the failure.

      Well, had he not given them the troop numbers, people like yourself would be claiming “He didn’t give them what they wanted, thus setting them up for failure.” When you try and spin things your way, it makes little logical sense.

      Our enemies need to know that if they fund terrorists or let them train in their backyard, we will bomb them. They also need to know that we will keep bombing until the job is done. If, on the other hand, they perceive us as lacking the will to do anything other than issue Bills of Attainder or bomb aspirin factories, they will laugh at us and keep doing what they are doing.

      Part of a reasonable foreign policy is picking and choosing battles. To this day, we are left with little hard evidence that Iraq was a serious, credible threat to our sovereignty. While I agree with attacking our enemies, I think the invasion of Iraq was a complete waste of resources for what seemed to be very dubious reasons. The right (and GWB) led us to believe “the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world.”http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/america/colin_powell_on_iraq_speech.htm

      We were also led to believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Both of these claims are far from proven, and it’s going on 7 years now. Heck, even Rumsfeld, one of the architects of the invasion, backed off of this claim:
      http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/…..index.html

      However, we are still fed the same line about Iraq – “It was a good idea, history will prove us right.” Never once did the pundits who were so grossly wrong about Iraq continue to spout off reasons why we need to stay, but to many of us that were opposed to the war before 2004, this simply sounds ridiculous.

      Does that explain the libertarian point of view better?

    2. +1

    3. I won’t call you an idiot, but libertarians generally have a problem with coercive force, whether it is used against citizens or non-citizens.

      More specifically, I think a lot of libertarians don’t disagree in kind, they disagree by degree. National defense is one of the responsibilities of the federal government, but there is no reason that it needs to be as large as it is now. Do we need to have military spending higher than the rest of the world combined? In my opinion, we don’t, especially considering the lack of another superpower to worry about.

    4. I also don’t think you’re an an idiot, far from it, but let me comment on a few points.

      At the same time, he decided to give the Generals in charge most of the troops they requested, so that he could blame them for the failure.

      OK, this is kind of idiotic. If he didn’t give the generals the amount of troops they wanted, people like you would be claiming he hamstrung the generals and set them up for failure.

      The second issue that I have with the Republican/Democrat foreign policy is that there is no rational reason for invading countries pre-emptively, particularly when they don’t pose a significant threat to us. Any weapons found in Iraq had at most a 1200 km radius, at most. A bit far from our shores, don’t ya think? Also, any evidence between Saddam and 9/11 remains missing. Heck, some of the architects of this war even backed off that claim.

      http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

      Make sense?

    5. “There are people out there who want to kill us, and I would like to see them dead or too-scared to fight us.”

      ANd that’s why Libertarians are wiser than you, because unlike you they realize there are no such thing as bogeymen in the world, people who kill just for the hell of it (or maybe because they “hate our freedoms”?).

      Rather actions have consequences, and what America does over-seas breeds hatreds and violence.

      And if you think you can scare anyone into bombing and killing them, then you’re views of human nature are even more warped still. I’ve a feeling you are the type that believes that the US can bomb that Afghans into accepting American occupation.

      1. I don’t see why more people understand this obvious truth. Our actions overseas creates more extremism.

  18. OBOMBATON IS A PILE OF STEAMING, PUTRID DOG SHIT, JUST LIKE THE PILE OF STEAMING PUTRID DOG SHIT NAMED GEORGE W. BUSH WHO HE REPLACES AS BUSH III IN THE GODDAMNED WHORE HOUSE AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

  19. Of course O-bought-ma is PUKIE. He chose GD Rahmie the empire-building, Zionistwhore, didn’t he??? Rahmie is O-bought-ma’s real face. Just a one termer, stoooooooooopid resident.

  20. When you brought up Fraud, excuse me, Freud, I zoned out on the rest. If you want to use psychology, that’s great. Please choose a psychologist. Freud’s methodology: He analyzed himself, very much under the influence of cocaine, then assumed everyone in the world was just like him. As a research psychologist, I would call that a less than zero approach. Next time try someone else who is similar to Fraud, excuse me, Freud, e.g. L. Ron Hubbard.

  21. Obama a Republican??? You’ve got to be kidding.
    Terrorists are now given Miranda Rights and tried in civilian couts with ACLU lawyers. Terrorism is now “man-caused disasters”, the war is referred to as “overseas contingency operations”, “the Taliban is not the enemy”and “victory isn’t necessarily the goal” in Afghanistan.
    Obama is a case study in The Peter Principle. His behavior, immaturity, inexperience, incompetence, and the ‘above his pay grade’ deficiency, has the world’s malefactors laughing their asses off and some of his adoring minions shaking their heads in disbelief.

    His addlebrained response to the Christmas Day Northwest Airlines Flight 253 “crotch bomber”, is characteristic of his entire “so what?” approach to terrorism. DHS Chief Janet Napolitano further showed the ignorance of the regime by claiming “the system had worked.” After three days of silence, Mr. “cool on display” finally interupted his Hawaiian vacation to trivialize the incident as “allegedly” the work of an “isolated extremist.” His reaction to the terrorist attack by a muslim U.S. Army Major who killed 13 fellow Soldiers at Ft. Hood was, “don’t jump to conclusions”.

    American presidents do not pander to despots. They don’t bow to heads of Islamofascist states. They don’t go on apology tours to ingratiate themselves to “allies” who bristled at America’s lead in the war against Islamic aggression—while the rest of the world chose to criticize from the sidelines. They don’t defer to the U.N. They don’t renege on strategic missile agreements. And they damned sure don’t weaken America’s position in the world.

    His scatterbrained handling of foreign policy, inept approach to the war on Islamofascism, and his Marxist abuse of our economy, is screwed up beyond belief.

    A Republican?? He couldn’t be any more of a polar opposite.

    1. “has the world’s malefactors laughing their asses off”

      You know this how? And, are you telling me they weren’t laughing at Bush?

      1. annuaire, see all info on this website…

  22. @ Mikey:
    A “superpower” didn’t attack us on 9/11. It should be standard policy to fund the military and our national security in direct proportion to the threat. That includes what it takes to hunt down and kill Islamic terrorists.
    They are trained, funded, supported, indoctrinated, and bred throughout the Middle East.
    Had I the power, 3/4th of the Middle East would have been neutron-bombed to zero population on 9/12. But, I’m a former Soldier, not a politician.
    That is how you fight a jihad.

    1. Reading your comments, I’m not the least bit surprised that things like My Lai and Haditha and the tortures at Abu Ghraib happen.

      The military is so desperate for recruits that they allow even psychopaths like you in.

      So carry on brave GI, and may a thousand road-side bomb shrapnels pierce your ass.

  23. A radical liberal or an ultra conservative is someone who wants to spend my money on a liberal or conservative agenda. That makes Obama both an ultra-radical liberal and a radically-ultra conservative. Anybody who pegs Obama as only liberal or conservative is likely just an ideological tool of one of the major parties.

  24. The mistake that most of us make is to define Republican as “conservative” and Democrat as “liberal” or “progressive”. I decided I was Republican in high school because I realized that I’m for small government, and thought that Republican “conservative” values would accomplish that. Over the years, my small government desire has only increased.

    What we need to realize is that Republicans and Democrats, while they may be influenced by “conservative”, “liberal” or even (all too rarely) “libertarian” ideas, are NOT those things. They are Republicans and Democrats, and their purpose is to make sure their parties stay in power.

    If it means that the Republicans have to be “Democrat-lite” on some issues, and Democrats have to be “Republican-lite” on a few issues, then so be it!

  25. Greetings,
    Barack Obama is a corporate facist. Look at where he funnels the money.
    Wall St.,the defense industry and the health insurance industry.

    People get confused because many don’t listen to what Obama says. During the campign the peace candidate said that he would increase the size of the Army and Marines; and expand the war in the Af/Pak theater.

    With all things Obama one must listen carefully, read the text and follow the money. Impeach Obama now.

    Eric

  26. More accurate title would be “Was Bush a Democrat?” Military adventurism is far more of a Democratic pasttime than Republican.

  27. All of the problems listed here fall under foreign relations. Well, guess what? There are no political parties in Foreign relations. The president isn’t the one who plans out Foreign relations policy, the STATE DEPARTMENT does! So why are the policies the same? Because the same people still work in the State Department.

    There are also very good reasons for the U.S. to increase its military right now, and if anyone bothered to read up on Foreign relations theory,and the current state of global security you’d know why Obama is doing what he’s doing. I am NOT pro-war and I understand the cost of war, most of my family is in the military. But right now security is more important than saving a few bucks. People should be willing to sacrifice a few bucks, especially when others are sacrificing their lives.

  28. Is Obama a Republican? In a word, yes. But it’s not that it matters anyway as the Republican and Democratic establishments are all conservatives since that’s all that the big money ruling elite will allow its citizens to vote for. Pick your favorite conservative! You have such a wide selection running the gamut from open conservatives to closeted ones.

    And foreign policy isn’t the only area in which Obama lets his conservative nature show through. In fact it’s visible in just about everything he does. Gay marriage? Against it, the typical Republican position. Investigating the war criminals Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld? He’s against it, just like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are. Legalizing drugs? Against it, typical conservative. Faith-based initiatives? For it, just like Bush. Death penalty? For it, just like Bush. Single-payer health care? Against it, as well as against even a mealymouthed public option and the even more watered down Medicare early buy-in? Against it, just like the open conservatives. Invoking state secrets privilege? For it and already has invoked it. To protect the previous administration. And so on, a full accounting of his sellouts of genuine progressive causes would be too voluminous to mention.

    Face it America: Whether you voted for John McBama or Barack O’Cain, you voted for a big business bourgeois conservative. Because that’s all you’re allowed to vote for. Doesn’t sound like a genuine democracy? That’s because it isn’t.

  29. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke.

  30. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke.

  31. All of the problems listed here fall under foreign relations. Well, guess what? There are no political parties in Foreign relations. The president isn’t the one who plans out Foreign relations policy, the STATE DEPARTMENTreplica omega replica IWC does! So why are the policies the same? Because the same people still work in the State Department.

    1. Great share thanks this is a great list of ideas

  32. All of the problems listed here fall under foreign relations. Well, guess what? There are no political parties in Foreign relations. The president isn’t the one who plans out Foreign relations policy, the STATE DEPARTMENTreplica omega replica IWC does! So why are the policies the same? Because the same people still work in the State Department.

  33. Supra sneakers

    Mens Supra shoes

    There are some classic Supra sneakers, and I am sure that everyone knows, the unstoppable Supra Skytop. This is easily the most popular Supra footwear per minute, simply go to the MTV and shows the cult by wearing them. Supra Thunder shoes becomes the most popular style of the Mens Supra shoeson 2010. You should know that Supra Suprano shoes are loving by the most young people who also like the skateboarding. In particular, Supra Indy should continue with the Skate scene in recent years their cause. Supra Strapped NSabove was recently that II of the above are the same love, said above Supra Skytop NS world tour. It is the prefect design that wearing the Supra Society shoes while you are playing the skateboarding. Supra Cruizer on the hot sale for you.

  34. Cheap Chanel Watch

    Chanel J12 Wathces

    Cheap Chanel Watch would be the good choice on 2010. A Chanel bestseller since its launch in 2000,Characterized by Chanel J12 Wathces – the brands first sports watch – Chanel Ceramic Chronograph Watches, now has a mirror image – Chanel J12 White Watches Series. The Chanel Ladies Watches undergoes a metamorphosis to opalescent white with amazing effect. Chanel Mens Watches are well-known in the world. Chanel Unisex Watches must be the good choice. Chanel Pursesare cool and fashionable, bring you a fresh and brandnew feeling. Chanel Handbags also is the hot item in the summer.

  35. Cheap Chanel Watch

    Chanel J12 Wathces

    Cheap Chanel Watch would be the good choice on 2010. A Chanel bestseller since its launch in 2000,Characterized by Chanel J12 Wathces – the brands first sports watch – Chanel Ceramic Chronograph Watches, now has a mirror image – Chanel J12 White Watches Series. The Chanel Ladies Watches undergoes a metamorphosis to opalescent white with amazing effect. Chanel Mens Watches are well-known in the world. Chanel Unisex Watches must be the good choice. Chanel Pursesare cool and fashionable, bring you a fresh and brandnew feeling. Chanel Handbags also is the hot item in the summer.

  36. Thanks a landlord it! I acquired yet some insight. Life is so colorful, we should be able to live in, such as Korea and honor the planet. Human life is like rivers, slowly flowing, flowing rivers, flowing through the snow, flows through the prairie and ultimately into the sea, return to the embrace of nature, start a new reincarnation. Allow us to feel the meaning of life will come only to those you have those memories http://www.chaneloutletstores……llets.html

  37. I find Bush and Obhama the same person! The only differance is Obhama is far more smug! I dont trust the new President.

  38. Obhama apparently represents the Democratic party, the idea of politics is the that President should represent the people.

    All around the world in supposed democracy’s the margin between apparent left wing and right wing is becoming narrower giving the people a moderate choice, this is blending the political parties.

  39. I think the government does it for reasons, doesn’t it?

  40. Those very themes are now playing out in real-life New York City. Last month, a scandal rocked the city’s vaunted COMPSTAT program, the data-driven crime-tracking system championed by former Police Chief William Bratton and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the 1990s. COMPSTAT is widely credited for bringing down the Big Apple’s crime rate, and has since been adopted by other cities.

  41. Regarding the troop surge in Afghanistan, I think Obama is doing what he has to do. When he was campaigning, he said he was going to increase the troops in Afghanistan so it should come as no suprise to anyone.

  42. I think a lot of libertarians don’t disagree in kind, they disagree by degree. National defense is one of the responsibilities of the federal government, but there is no reason that it needs to be as large as it is now.ugg shoes Do we need to have military spending higher than the rest of the world combined? In my opinion, we don’t, especially considering the lack of another superpower to worry about.

  43. It is a good news that no need to go at the match place, because we can see that game live on our T.V. Really a blatant post uggs outlet

  44. Great Article ugg classic tall and you will like this blog

  45. I am happy to find this post very useful for me, as it contains lot of information. I always prefer to read the quality content and this thing I found in you post.Thanks for sharing.@cheap ugg boots

  46. And so on, a full accounting of his sellouts of genuine progressive causes would be too voluminous to mention.ugg boot sale

  47. Thanks for sharing cheap uggs

  48. the stars also began to become followers of friendship bracelet pink. The summer of passion and energy and romanticpink, aroused a sweet and romantic agitation. See below nine groups pink star.cheap ugg boots

  49. “http://www.cheapuggs-mall.com/ugg-bailey-button-5803-c-37.html”>uggs bailey button, soft suede sheepskin uggs bailey button triplet,cheap ugg boots outer, fleece lining wicks moisture away, your feet stay warm in winter and cool in summer.

  50. Remy Hair can really give you a very good look but you should be thoroughly aware of its pros and cons. People who have very feeble hair or no hair can go for hair plantations or permanent hair expansions but those who just want a new look or long hair can use the temporary methods. http://ibeautyhair.com

  51. I tried to think so, but I found it was not as the same in the actual process. As you mentioned, I still have doubts, but really thank you for sharing!

  52. Thanks for writing this blog post, it was informative, enjoyable, and most importantly – a good length!

  53. ANY the radical liberal as well as a good mega careful is actually an individual who would like to waste our cash for a liberal as well as careful intention. Which can make Obama together a good ultra-radical liberal plus a radically-ultra careful. Any one which pegs Obama since simply liberal as well as careful may occur only a good ideological instrument regarding on the list of key gatherings. Finnish Lapphund

  54. Clearly understand this: Information contained in this product are not an invitation to trade any specific investments.
    Trading requires risking money in pursuit of future gain. That is your decision. Do not risk any money you cannot afford to lose.
    This document does not take into account your own individual financial and personal circumstances.
    It is intended for educational purposes only and NOT as individual investment advice. Do not act on this without advice from your investment professional,
    who will verify what is suitable for your particular needs & circumstances. Failure to seek detailed professional personally tailored advice prior to acting could lead to you acting contrary ,
    to your own best interests & could lead to losses of capital.

  55. Ryan Deiss is a self-made Internet success who is one of the leading,
    if not THE leader in the world of membership websites. Ryan has a style of writing that is no-nonsense, and he is one of our favourite entrepreneurs.
    At the young age of 25 he owns over 20 websites earning him several million dollar’s a year.

  56. thanks for your share!
    Dual Sim Card Phonemobile phones and want to know more about the player’s information, I suggest http://www.tradetang.com, you’re gonna have a lot.

  57. thanks for your share!
    Dual Sim Card Phonemobile phones and want to know more about the player’s information, I suggest http://www.tradetang.com, you’re gonna have a lot.

  58. Thanks for that important information, it really helpful.Interesting article!air

  59. ANY the radical liberal as well as a good mega careful is actually an individual who would like to waste our cash for a liberal as well as careful intention.

  60. I support President Obama and I’m pretty sure that even with another president in charge US situation would be exactly the same – it’s not his fault, it’s not!

  61. I support President Obama, and I’m pretty sure that the US situation would be the same even with another president in charge there…

  62. well, maybe it’s hard to say those two names apart because they have something really big in common – both would do anything for America.

  63. I tried to think so, but i found it was not as the same in the actual process. As you mentioned, I still have doubts, but really thank you for sharing!

  64. I don’t know if The narcissism of small differences – by Sigmund Freud – fits here!

  65. What a nice job,There are many people searching the kinds of article,includes me.We will absolutely find enough sources by your tips.Thanks a lot.

  66. Very nice to see this blog and it’s really informative for the readers. It is really nice to see the best information presented in an easy and understanding manner.
    Thank you.

  67. ching around for your site after being referred to them from a buddy and was thrilled when I hermes belt replicawas able to find it after searching for some time. Being a demanding blogger, I’m glad fake hermes belt to see others taking initivative and contributing to the community. I

  68. ching around for your site after being referred to them from a buddy and was thrilled when I hermes belt replicawas able to find it after searching for some time. Being a demanding blogger, I’m glad fake hermes belt to see others taking initivative and contributing to the community. I

  69. hell or anything nike shox torch 2 crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it hermes belt replica straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious fake hermes beltnike shox torch 2 beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.