Comments on: Obama foreign policy no different from Bush

By: Bob Morris

Bob Morris — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:44:52 +0000

That’s why ANSWER is saying, let’s put a million people in the streets in DC and make it the biggest antiwar protest ever. Because that will influence the election.

By: Bob Morris

Bob Morris — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:42:56 +0000

Silly me, of course the imperial United States should, by dint of its innate superiority, be allowed to invade anyplace it wants. Even if the country being invaded poses no demonstrable threat.

Of course, Vietnam, and now Iraq, are showing the stupidity of such arrogance.

By: DJ

DJ — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:27:41 +0000

You write as if Obama is unique in this. Show me a candidate that promises no military intervention and I’ll show you, well, not a Democratic-Republican– and not the next President, either. Clinton was an interventionist, and even Cart refused to rule it out (remember the Carter Doctrine?).

The sad fact is, what we get to choose for our next President is not military vs. non-military approaches, but the degree to which he/she has thought through non-military options as a potential alternative to military “solutions.” There are very few candidates for which that degree rises above insignificant. Once again, we’re faced with trying to identify the best of a very poor lot.

By: Alison

Alison — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:18:33 +0000

I had to comment since this was one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. Saying that we shouldn’t rule out military action is a sensible thing to say. It’s completely different from saying that we need to invade.