• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why isn't a candidate's record on national security more weighty?

Smeagol

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm watching a Nat Geo special on Rudy Giuliani in the aftermath of 9/11, at the time he was General Patton in the trenches with the people and arguably America's most respected mayor in history. 3 years later he runs for potus and you'd thought he was an unknown congressman from Idaho.

The first president Bush drives Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and is the hero of not only America but the world. Runs for reelection and loses to an unknown governor from the rural south.

John McCain, a legitimate American hero who was tortured for this country, had the opportunty to be released but refused to go home without his fellow pows and is arguably one of the true statesmen of our generation. Runs for president and loses against a relatively inexperienced anti-war candidate who up until that point seemed to not have a high opinion of the American military.

Today he, President Obama seems to have been transformed by the reality of his position, his responsibility to defend and protect the Americen people, possibly his daily intellegence briefings and has successfully executed the War on Terror in most respects including eliminating most of Al Qaeda leadership including Bin Laden. If you order the attack that killed Osama Bin Laden who tied with Hitler is the greatest enemy in American history, why is his reelection bid even close?
 
Last edited:
Votes are bought with false promise that people "believe in".
 
For the Mayor, the answer lay with his poor campaign rather than his strengths. Americans enjoyed the Mayor since 2001 as a foreign affairs/national disaster role model, but when seeking the office of the Presidency, you cannot seemingly run on foreign affairs alone. For one thing, the Iraq war was becoming quite unpopular when the rumors of his run started to gain momentum. Nevertheless, the campaign concluded this was his strongest asset, and they ran with it. In reality, Guiliani had an extensive domestic policy accomplishment list that for all intents and purposes became connected with the restoration of New York City as an admirable city that was becoming one of the safer cities in the United States. Yet, they chose to stick with a post-9/11 universe. Second of all, Guiliani's campaign had a difficulty in extending their influence to other states, which was in no way helped by their insistence in banking on a few states like Florida to carry them. All in all, this was a campaign disaster more than a reflection of a lack of consideration to foreign affairs.
 
Smeagol said:
I'm watching a Nat Geo special on Rudy Giuliani in the aftermath of 9/11, at the time he was General Patton in the trenches with the people and arguably America's most respected mayor in history. 3 years later he runs for potus and you'd thought he was an unknown congressman from Idaho.

The first president Bush drives Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and is the hero of not only America but the world. Runs for reelection and loses to an unknown governor from the rural south.

John McCain, a legitimate American hero who was tortured for this country, had the opportunty to be released but refused to go home without his fellow pows and is arguably one of the true statesmen of our generation. Runs for president and loses against a relatively inexperienced anti-war candidate who up until that point seemed to not have a high opinion of the American military.

Today he, President Obama seems to have been transformed by the reality of his position, his responsibility to defend and protect the Americen people, possibly his daily intellegence briefings and has successfully executed the War on Terror in most respects including eliminating most of Al Qaeda leadership including Bin Laden. If you order the attack that killed Osama Bin Laden who tied with Hitler is the greatest enemy in American history, why is his reelection bid even close?
Click to expand...

Our military intelligence did the "ready...aim" part. Obama? He just said, "Fire." Who wouldn't have said that in his position? And...for that matter...how many Presidents might have said it sooner?

To compare Obama's record regarding "terror management" to Guiliani's, in my opinion, is off base. There is no comparison to the leadership that Guiliani displayed after 9/11. To compare Obama's record to John McCain's? You've got the same problem.

There's no accounting for taste.
 
Smeagol said:
I'm watching a Nat Geo special on Rudy Giuliani in the aftermath of 9/11, at the time he was General Patton in the trenches with the people and arguably America's most respected mayor in history. 3 years later he runs for potus and you'd thought he was an unknown congressman from Idaho.

The first president Bush drives Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and is the hero of not only America but the world. Runs for reelection and loses to an unknown governor from the rural south.

John McCain, a legitimate American hero who was tortured for this country, had the opportunty to be released but refused to go home without his fellow pows and is arguably one of the true statesmen of our generation. Runs for president and loses against a relatively inexperienced anti-war candidate who up until that point seemed to not have a high opinion of the American military.

Today he, President Obama seems to have been transformed by the reality of his position, his responsibility to defend and protect the Americen people, possibly his daily intellegence briefings and has successfully executed the War on Terror in most respects including eliminating most of Al Qaeda leadership including Bin Laden. If you order the attack that killed Osama Bin Laden who tied with Hitler is the greatest enemy in American history, why is his reelection bid even close?
Click to expand...

Bush Sr. did what now?
 
MaggieD said:
Our military intelligence did the "ready...aim" part. Obama? He just said, "Fire." Who wouldn't have said that...
Click to expand...

I don't agree its that simple. During the 2008 campaign Obama raised eyebrows and got a lot of flack over a policy position of conducting intelligence and military operations inside of Pakistan without Pakistani permission or consultation. Ready, aim, fire was all directed by Obama, not just fire. Meanwhile the GOP position was to "respect the sovereignty of Pakistan, our key ally in the War on Terror". Now, with the benefit of hindsight and Obama's policies we know Pakistan was actually hiding him from us thinking they had him safely tucked away right down the street from the Pakistan equivalent of West Point. Meanwhile, this was the GOP policy:

"There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world," Romney said. "We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them."

Romney attacks Obama over Pakistan warning | Reuters
 
Last edited:
George HW Bush lost because he would not try to bolster the economy when it was recovering on its own and Clinton made it seem a lot worse than it was. I am not so sure the same dynamic isn't going on today.
 
Smeagol said:
I don't agree its that simple. During the 2008 campaign Obama raised eyebrows and got a lot of flack over a policy position of conducting intelligence and military operations inside of Pakistan without Pakistani permission or consultation. Ready, aim, fire was all directed by Obama, not just fire. Meanwhile the GOP position was to "respect the sovereignty of Pakistan, our key ally in the War on Terror". Now, with the benefit of hindsight and Obama's policies we know Pakistan was actually hiding him from us thinking they had him safely tucked away right down the street from the Pakistan equivalent of West Point. Meanwhile, this was the GOP policy:

"There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world," Romney said. "We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them."

Romney attacks Obama over Pakistan warning | Reuters
Click to expand...

Thank you, Smeagol. I was mistaken. For others:

Remember back during the 2008 election when John McCain — and Hillary Clinton — pummeled Barack Obama for saying he would go into Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden if the Pakistani government wouldn’t?

We do…
It began with comments Obama made in August, 2007 that if elected, he would make U.S. aid to Pakistan conditional: “Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.”

He continued:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom