Obama - Tough and Sensible National Security

I honestly have been confused over the brew-haha surrounding Sen. Barack Obama's recent statements on national security issues. First it was his "naive" statements about meeting foreign heads of state:

"I was called irresponsible and naive because I believe that there is nobody we can't talk to," said Obama, drawing loud cheers. "We've got nothing to fear as long as know who we are and what we stand for and our values."

Obama said his campaign was about "turning the page on a failed foreign policy and having the strength to engage our adversaries and protect American interests around the globe."

When dealing with renegade nations, Obama said, the Bush administration has mistakenly been led by a "guiding diplomatic principle" that it can punish a nation by refusing to talk.

"I am confident we can go before the world and talk to the worst dictators and tell them we don't believe in your values, we don't believe in your human rights violations, we don't believe in you exporting terrorism, but if you are willing to work with us in a better direction then we're willing to talk," Obama said. "We shouldn't be afraid."

This is bad? Confidence and engagement over fear and isolation? What's the down side of this statement, other than it was obviously twisted in post-analysis by his critics? We shouldn't be afraid to talk to adversaries, and he certainly didn't state that they would be visiting the Oval Office. Then people attacked his idea of going after Osama bin Laden in Pakistan:

Much of Obama's speech yesterday focused on steps designed to reinvigorate U.S. diplomatic efforts to combat terrorism, but the most noteworthy proposals dealt with military actions. Obama said he would deploy at least two more brigades -- about 7,000 troops -- to Afghanistan to combat what he said is the growing Taliban influence there while sending the Afghan government an additional $1 billion in nonmilitary aid.

But he said he would tie U.S. military aid to Pakistan to that country's success in closing down terrorist training camps, in blocking the Taliban from using its territory as a staging ground for attacks on Afghanistan and in getting rid of foreign fighters.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Absolutely correct! Tell me how going after the guy who killed 3000 U.S. citizens on September 11th is less important than pissing of the Pakistani people (they like us so much now...). Who knows - the Bush administration probably already has U.S. troops going in there. They certainly haven't demurred. And now the nuclear weapons issue:

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance" in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Obama said. He then added that he would not use such weapons in situations "involving civilians."

"Let me scratch that," he said. "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."
---------
By the afternoon, Clinton (N.Y.) had responded with an implicit rebuke. "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.

"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse," Clinton said.
---------
Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar, said Obama "clearly gave the right answer."

While Barack may have fumbled in his response, Sen. Clinton is absolutely wrong. The lack of a clearly defined national nuclear strategy outlining how the U.S. government might use nuclear weapons is exactly what the politicians have been arguing about in regards to the Reliable Replacement Warhead effort. At the least, we ought not make statements about nuking major centers of religions based on foolish ideas that this will deter terrorists.

Sen. Obama may be young (BTW, happy 46th birthday on Saturday) and relatively unexperienced in terms of years inside Washington, but he's got wisdom, instincts, and charisma. These are not bad qualities. He sounds like a moderate, and his national security ideas are sound. Unfortunately, the common modus operandi is for politicians to attack each other - both colleagues and critics - instead of agreeing on sound ideas and principles.

Comments

[Robot Economist]

I was impressed with Obama's speech as well -- he has certainly added some meat to the bones of his essay from last month's Foreign Affairs piece. Not to be too much of a wet blanket on his "get tough on al Qaeda" stance, but if Musharraf falls, I have three words for him: "loose Pakistani nukes."

[J.]

RE, I agree, but I think you have the risk of "loose nukes" with or without Musharraf. Maybe overt military action against Pakistan might spur such actions, there's no guarrantee that the lack of same action will result in secure Paki nukes. Besides, a few loose nukes would give the PSI and HLS people some real practice...

[Grandjester]

Good stuff from Obama, here's a little more common sense from the same speech:

"Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do
not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent
extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but
the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child;
Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive
caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting
against, and what we are fighting for...

The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al
Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in
Iraq – which didn't exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who
hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together
groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and
Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission...

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists
what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a
U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with
undetermined consequences.

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a
comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the
right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities
and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most
deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and
extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

As I told J., sure sounds fucking Presidential, I just might be able to get behind this guy.

[Robot Economist]

I'll acknowledge that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal isn't exactly secure right now, but I wouldn't be so stoic about the alternative. Even if the Army somehow keep the nukes secure after Musharraf's government collapses, I'm concerned about how India or China might react. There are just too many question marks for my comfort.

I know that two decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Near East confine us to a handful of realistic policy options. I just don't think the kind of radical policy rupture Obama is talking about is worth the risk -- especially at a time when we don't have the free military resources to back it up.

[NVH]

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
--Clinton, a democrat, had this, and failed to act IN TIME or APPROPRIATELY--talk is cheap my friends. Don't forget, Musharaff was Secretary of the Army before he came to power, and it's him against the intell guys in his country, who aren't slouches either, so the real question is what kind of country does Pakistan become as he continues his stranglehold grip on power. Secure nukes aren't going to be the problem, it's going to be not putting our guys in a sling when the Prez says go ahead and the intel guys are busy supporting the other side with warnings of raids, etc.
That being said, Obama is talking the talk, but charisma J., last guy that had that was getting BJ's under the desk, so no worth there.

[Sven Ortmann]

Obama's national security opinions seem mostly sound to me - except his willto engage even mroe in Afghanistan.
Two brigades mroe won't do much there as the country is still too large. Logistics are difficult anyway and it's expensive to keep troops supplied there.

But the worst is the Afghan national custom to let foreign troops in with marginal resistance but to throw them out violently after a couple of years.
We shall learn of history or we're damned to repeat it. Well, military history clearly shouts " Don't stay with foreign troops in Afghanistan for long!".

The western troops there do simply motivate the Afghans to rally under the taleban's banner as they're the only ones who resist the foreigners on a national scale. Every Afghan man who wants to get rid of the foreigners and possibly also of their puppet government needs to join the Taleban, as there's no alternative for "national" resistance tot eh foreign infidels yet.

So far the former Northern Alliance warlords seem still stronger than the Taleban, so why not leave the coutnry and therefore truly give it back to its own leaders?
Afghanistan can only become a AQ base aagin if the Taleban win, and they'll lose much of their motivation once the foreigners are gone.
Even if Afghanistan was ruled by Taleban and AQ back (I as Taleban wouldn't let the AQ back, as I'd have learnt of the 2003/2004 experience) - Afghanistan would only be one more safe hevaven. It's been proven in the meantime that AQ does not need Afghanistan. They have their alternative regions to hide themselves.

[J.]

NVH, you seem to fixate on the Clinton BJs, I hate to remind you that during Clinton's last two years, his popularity was, oh, at least twice that of the current PrezNut. You're right, charisma isn't a deciding factor; after all, look at Pres. Reagan - lots of charisma, didn't do shit to Saddam (other than give him arms and funding) or the Syrians (Beruit bombing) or the Sandinestas. In fact, didn't Ronnie lose the strategic bases in the Philipines for us? What did Ronnie do right?

Sure, Pakistan is a tough problem. But any candidate who says, given actionable intelligence, he/she won't go into Pakistan to kill Osama with conventional weapons, doesn't deserve to be the commander in chief. Period. Or do I need to give you a tour of the Pentagon's 9/11 memorial room to convince you?

[NVH]

Forgive the fixation, but what guy doesn't have it? Sorry if I associate the leader of the democratic party of the last decade of the last century as having some kind of influence and TAINT over every single democrat from NOW on, now Obama may overcome that individually, but he still thinks like Clinton does on plenty of stuff, and I'm ALWAYS going to be lopsided b/c of it. REAGAN ACTED, in time, and on target, making any of the same mistakes Bush has, did, whatever. AT least he wasn't sitting on his hands getting a BJ...

[Robot Economist]

J - I would only go into Pakistan without Musharraf's approval unless there was a change in the U.S.'s current position. If the only way out of this hole is to dig deeper, I wouldn't dig. We have plenty of other national security problems to fix and most of them don't involve fulfilling America's need to revenge.

[Maxtrue]

Stupid DCL

Pakistan reacts

Gee, and I thought it was Obama's idea

view from CQ

As one Kos comment says, "why would Obama say this 18 months before he could be in office? His answers raise more delicate questions. Shouldn't this be discussed behind the doors?

CFR isn't thrilled, are they? Attack a country that is an ally? Bush has done nothing? Hillary is right on this one. Obama said take troops out of Iraq and put them in the battlefield of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Read his words. And no mention of Iran. No mention of his 2004 speeches. Does he deny Iran is helping the Taliban and insurgents in Iraq? Pandering -because he fumbled answers in the debate. Surgical strikes do crap. Large scale bombing anyone? Invasion anyone up the KHyber pass? LOL Pandering, and because he is Chicago's favorite son, not even Kos attacked him, nor did Huffington because they hate Hillary.

Yep, what's Obama's brilliant solution for those loose nukes he ranted about in 2004?

Maybe some are just reacting to the Republican attack on Obama. Maybe not, who knows?

[Jonathan Baum]

I get the feeling that if Bush did exactly what Obama said that he would do, everybody in this discussion would go ballistic.

[Robot Economist]

All I will say is this:

If Obama made this 'a bomb on Osama or bust' with the intent of making himself look tough, he picked the wrong topic at the wrong time in the wrong forum.

I don't consider myself biased towards or against any particular candidate, but this whole flap makes Obama look pretty green.

[J.]

Actually this has been a very good discussion. RE, maybe you're right, maybe the argument is right but the timing is wrong to play it out. Jonathan, I'm betting that Bush ALREADY has SOF guys in Pakistan. He'd be crazy not to. Maxtrue, he didn't talk about Iran directly because Iran isn't the problem until the US makes it a problem. They're blustering. As for the loose nukes, Obama's in tight with Sen. Lugar on nuke non-proliferation ideas. It's the Bush administration that's not keen on implementing Lugar's ideas that's been a holdup.

[Maxtrue]

Now J, please read the quote below. And have you followed what Obama has said at AIPAC meetings about Iran and Pakistan, Hamas and Hizb’Allah? He tells select groups of Americans that as President he will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. Oh really? He gave a speech in 2004 defending the very same stand Kerry took against Iranian nukes. Obama tells AIPAC he stands with Israel and will resist Hizb'Allah in Lebanon as Syria, Iran and Russia supply more missiles. If you read the Foreign Affair self-promotion for President, you can see how Obama is saying he will fight terrorists across the globe. Well, does that mean in North Africa, in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Somalia etc? Let us be clear. Obama says he would put more US troops in Afghanistan. Why? Where is his outrage against lame European investment? He can’t scream about other nations while he promotes diplomacy as a solution (and selective strikes from over the horizon while in the same breath talks about "boots on the ground"). Remember, Koreans are hostages now in Afghanistan, not Italians or the French. And where is Obama on the Taliban getting weapons from Iran? Do you think Iran is out of the equation until WE make them a part of the terror network?

The following is from DK (ah, the irony):

‘As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.

"... I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks." ‘

When Sullivan compares Obama to JFK, I thought he meant the good parts……not the flip-flopping and mistaken aspects. Note the term “violent Islamic extremists” part and tell me that doesn’t apply to the Mullahs. Shall I quote MEMRIBLOG’s hundreds of “violent Islamic extremists’ declarations http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/2366.htm”> or are you already familiar with them?

Obama talked about force being used when allies are threatened, when Liberal Democray is threatened, Geez,,,when Self-Interest is threatened, so I think it is perfectly valid to call him on his selective rhetorical strikes that triangulate appeasing both his base and moderates. That is an amazing feat if he could pull it off. It would however, be inconsistent as our NSS.

[Maxtrue]

Memriblog link again

[Galrahn]

Obama is a solid candidate, but he showed he is an amateur on foreign policy. That isn't a mortal wound, but it does raise legitimate questions.

While I don’t disagree with his answer in the debates, I disagree with the General on whether the Pakistan statement is right or not. I tend to think it was a blunder, and not so right as you are implying.

As you know, diplomacy is about reconciliation on choices between parties, you can either force a foreign policy on someone or convince someone (usually over a long period of time) to agree where there is mutual benefit and direct energy towards a unified position, even if it isn’t the best position for either side in the diplomatic effort.

While the Bush stance on Pakistan is not popular, I’d argue it is the less complex and less dangerous position for the US in trying to build support against the Taliban than a unilateral action scenario, even though it is also less effective. Bush loses credit publicly though in his Pakistan policy because he can't explain it. Obama unfortunately, fell into that category with his blundered answer.

I give credit to Obama for rightfully acknowledging the US has an option to take on the Taliban inside Pakistan unilaterally, however like any unilateral action in foreign policy once you go down that route things get a lot more complex, and a lot more difficult. Also note one thing, Clinton didn’t have to explain her Pakistan position, and avoided the nuke position, then was given a pass which is unfortunate because she could have very easily blunder her position as well, as could any candidate of either party for that matter. Foreign affairs answers are complex, and they usually don’t make a good sound bite. The press sold a Clinton victory on the issue for giving a non-answer, ironic since that is exactly what we have today with Bush on the same issue.

I would have preferred Obama to emphasize a unified position with Pakistan first, with the options open for unilateral action under circumstances as they evolve in both the political and military situation on the ground. His answer was not so sync, came out clumsy, and he rightfully got beat up on by Hillary for the mistake.

[Maxtrue]

Good points, but WAPO did report month-long efforts by the administration to pressure Musharraf. Should everything have to be telegraphed in public? Is that Obama's idea of diplomacy?

Obama should have known about the US effort in Pakistan (Cheney didn't visit to go quail hunting) and he must have had some wind of this. There is also some problems with the democratic cry (also Obama's suggestion) for doubling SOF to hunt all these terrorist down. With Obama's CFR background, he must certainly understand ">http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/330frnuq.asp"> this (HT to Pat at Stubborn Facts for last two links).

So the problem is that Obama should have known what was going on for months and the need for behind the curtain diplomacy which JFK advocated during the Cuban Missile Crisis..

Obama then when questioned, takes nukes off the table in any terrorist counter strike (while Democrats rave about retaliation with nukes as our best option against Iran and others should they attack with WMD or WMC), and again begs MORE questions of his position on nukes and possible Iranian proliferation. This is fair, given his speeches in 2004 and recently to AIPAC.

All these things, including his responses during the debates should give one pause, though Hillary avoided much detail by sticking to reasonable short answers. I suspect their policy positions aren't very different, but Hillary has mentioned problems in Afghanistan (besides Iraq). Two years ago, I didn't hear Obama complain about meager EU support against the Taliban which let them regroup. This all gives the impression of pandering using various foreign policy strategies/slogans as tools for such political triangulation. Many candidates do this, some more than others. I did find much to agree with in Obama's Foreign Affair article, but that doesn't excuse the full record of questionable declarations.

[Grandjester]

Max,

"questionable declarations"? We are living in the time of questionable declarations: "Mission Accomplished", "Bring it on", "Wanted Dead or Alive", and my personal favorite "You're with us or against us". The last of which would imply that Pakistan has made a choice, unfortunately the choice articulated is not the choice acted upon. This behind the scenes cry is crap, Mushy signing off on the bad Waziristan deal was a thumb in the eye to the US, we should have cut all aid the moment it was done. Eff him.

[Maxtrue]

Eff him and let those nukes go to the very violent Islamic extremists Obama thinks we should terminate EVERYWHERE. Imagine Bush did what you said and now Intel is not so sure, where those nukes (including neutron bombs) are? Surely you jest. Were the British so successful in the Khyber region? You do understand the terrain, yes? Surgical strikes are not going to work. Heavy bombing? Again, what if our bombers carpet-bombed the area killing hundreds of Pakistanis? So you want to lower our reputation more than we already have? Would Kos be giving that a pass? Ground invasion? Please tell us how we do that as the Taliban mount opposition in Afghanistan? Diplomacy? Ask our allies to do more? French, Italians, Germans don’t want to be in fire zones in Afghanistan.

You know my position GJ, I say screw em all, but that is not reality and very far from the Democratic plank. Perhaps, Congress should issue the same declaration they issued for Saddam, but now the world hardly backs our invading Pakistan, though Iran would love it. Waste all our SOF in the Khyber Pass? Hell, I say tip those bunker busters with neutron bombs, but then Liberals will call me a friggin NEOCON. China has a stake in a stable Pakistan. So does India and Afghanistan. Iran doesn't want AQ to be a threat (though to screw us they'll arm them. And still they won’t act, will they?

We were talking about Obama. He is not likely to be sending the Marines into FATAland. He warned everyone in 2004 to be concerned about those loose nukes. If Hillary called for unilateral action, Kos would have thrown tomatoes at her and you know it.

I don't like the Bush slogans as far as they remain unaccomplished. The Democrats don't want to finish the job and I find it absurd that Kos and Huffington found little to object to in Obama's words BECAUSE ANYTHING is better than Bush, even if its a more aggressive tact that Bush. Therefore, I agree we can't wait forever. I agree to taking it to those who want to screw us. I don't have much faith our allies give a shit. I don't want a President all over the place triangulating what might work politically. Hillary has done less of that than Obama, who looked stumped when asked what he would do if we were attacked. Hillary said, "Find them and terminate them”. No one in the Bush administration has said that if they had actionable intelligence, they would not terminate OBL where ever, when ever. The idea however, from the DOD is to build local alliances like the Northern Alliance, that can supply long-term stability against terrorists. We can't be everywhere and we should all know that action AND inaction have unforeseen consequences. After playing to the Far Left, I'm not suddenly going to assume Obama is our new Liberal Hawk, bombing the crap out of villages from a far, in an effort to get terrorists. In short, I don't want to go from shit to bigger shit. If you remember, India and Pakistan were at nuclear tensions when Bush told Musharrah to get off the pot. To say there has been no progress or that the Pakistanis can invade the NorthWest region is bluster. For Musharraf, it might be more like Custer. No. I'm not happy with the last seven years, but give us the details that improve things, not make matters even worse..

We would be looking at the same mess today with Saddam in power, If the further Left had there way. We need to be extra clever, not partisan, shrewd and not shrill.

Now its time for a Bass.

[Grandjester]

Max,

You don't seem to get my point OR Obama's, you're are overstating the threat to the Mushy govt, overestimating the reach and grasp of Obamas statement and genrally being a bitch about Kos and HuffPo lately.

BUSHCO (TM) has had actionable intelligence, they have played pussyfoot with the entire Afgan/Pak theater to play their fantasy war in Iraq and have generally effd up everything they have touched. If their brains matched the size of their balls (or the rhetoric I mentioned above) we might have wrapped this thing up by now. We got Hitler and Tojo in less time.

One of the larger points of the Obama speech that has eluded you includes TALKING to our adversaries, so this "Liberal Hawk" meme you are pulling smells of BS.

[Maxtrue]

Musharraf has escaped death several times and you need to read Obama's own http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html”>words about his spin on the GWOT. In regard to the threat he stated about Musharraf and Pakistani nukes, is there something you fail to understand in Obama's 2004 comments, which he has repeated on more than three occasions?

Yes, I have bitched about Kos who said zero to Obama about his comments of unilateral action. God forbid Hillary or Bubba said anything like that. More than one comment here asked what Kossaks or the Democrats would think should Bush do what Obama suggests.

We presently have held discussions with Iran. Pelosi went in viel to Assad. Tell me exactly what he did after she left. Do you know? We talk to most parties, but Obama said talking with terror groups are pointless, yes? Has "talks" with Europe led to more support in Afghanistan, or are we to get terrorists, as we defeated "Tojo and Hitler", without the blood of allies or a draft and mobilization of millions? You're comparisons are wild. Perhaps you should read Obama's Foreign Affair article again. Are you aware most Democrats believe the GWOT should really be a police action?

I'm not sure what you mean by playing pussyfoot with the entire Afghan/Paki region. Shall we send more troops, bomb more villages? Shall we invade Pakistan? Shall we carpet-bomb and send armies up the Khyber? You imply alot of things, but your details are all fuzzy. Perhaps we should negotiate with the Taliban. Maybe we should strike groups in Iran supplying them with support. Maybe we should just go into Pakistan and take their nukes before they present a problem. Durbin is in Pakistan right now watching Mushy assault some suspected hideouts in the North West. At least I provide links Jester, but go on and defend Kos and Huff and say I overstate Obama's JFK bluster (not that I object were it not so triangulated for effect).

Where's the beef?

[Grandjester]

Shit, wrote you an eloquent reply Max, but Typepad ate it.

Bottom line, I am not the defender of KOS, Huffpo or Barack Obama for that matter.

As I put in my 1st post, I (me, personally) like the tone and direction he's going in, you are free to disagree (and you have), I don't believe his comments entail dropping Divisions in Waziristan but perhaps I am wrong.

You give links, good for you, too damn many for me, can't follow you down every rabbit hole Max, sorry.

[Maxtrue]

Okay dude, I see the Alice in Wonderland reference...LOL. I have had many posts swallowed too upon posting (aren't you all lucky?). Please check out the article about increasing SOF and see if it makes sense. The WAPO article is good. I also base some opinions on speeches Obama made in 2004 and to AIPAC. Perhaps, I went a bit over the top because I hate this playing to the various groups game to get elected, but JFK did spike up the missile gap. Maybe this is all primary crap. I am not supporting the administration in all their profoundless glory, though they have done a few things right. I just hate B.S. from my side.

I assume that you all walk your own line regardless of the extremes, so again, I did not mean to paint anyone here into a corner. Obama WAS vague about what he actually would do. The "concerned troll" part of me wonders how together Democrats are on foreign policy and their view of the world. The base the candidates play to is opposed to the DLC. I don't waste my breath attacking every Bush blunder, but I do argue with Liberals because I suspect a dangerous undercurrent is rotting out the notion of what was once the Liberal Consensus and sound NSS.

Thanks to all for being civil and allowing me some rant room. Why would I dismiss a critical base of coherent Democratic foreign policy in the chaos that is today's political Matrix? After all, Billary and Obama will probably be the ticket to America's next best hope. Sorry NVH, but Mitt and Rudy (he was my Mayor) just don't do it for me and Fred seems a bit too lazy for the job. That won't keep me from bitching about Democratic foolishness. Bush/Cheney have a little more than a year to go. I want something better, not worse and the global crap is just beginning to heat up.