The same assessment is sitting on the desk of every leader in the world – including the Middle East, Russia, North Korea and China.

Yep. Those lame-ass bumperstickers “He’s not my president! I didn’t vote for him! Not in my name!” are for panty-waisted liberals. What are we going to do?

Alan is a good example of what’s wrong with the MSM.

Let’s roll.

“What will he say to them?”

……. Did you know I’m black?

Anyone else remember the the British ambassador’s “leaked” assessment a couple of weeks ago?: “Obama is an inexperienced Marxist whose ambition got the better of his (and everyone else’s) common sense when he decided to run

Fortunata on October 21, 2008 at 4:32 PM

There’s nothing secret about that. The same assessment is sitting on the desk of every leader in the world – including the Middle East, Russia, North Korea and China.

the truth or falsehood of climate change is a history yet to be written – trailboss on October 21, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Climate change has been a constant since the atmosphere formed, dummy. Google ‘maunder minimum.’ Then observe that, at present, there is virtually NO sunspot activity. Then observe that the meteorological trend is moving toward a COLDER climate, as indicated by the most recent metrics.

Thank you for demonstrating not only your ignorance, but your agenda. Spare us your expressions of a desire for a McCain victory.

You are a troll…a sophisticated troll, to be sure…but a troll. Now fuck off.

GWB thought rejecting Kyoto was being strong and resolute, and in the interests of the US. The rest of the world, not so much.

trailboss on October 21, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Hey, brokeback trailboss. Maybe you should get your head out of the steer’s rear before you try to talk. 95 – 0.

Is everyone missing the point here? Joe Biden was comparing or suggesting a comparison of Barack Obama to John F. Kennedy? Never. Not even. Just never.

But I agree with Biden: Barack Hussein is not qualified, too inexperienced and radical, to be president of anything.

AdrianS on October 21, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Maybe you’re missing the point. Yeah, Obama is weak, inexperienced and soft. So was Kennedy. Yeah, Obama is a blank; so, in some ways, was Kennedy. Yeah, Kennedy’s short term was a disaster – so would Obama’s be.

Kennedy was an immoral womanizing scumbag, with mob ties, a drug habit from a bad back, who hired his brother as Attorney General, the single worst nepostist incident in the history of the Presidency.

Obama is a lying, terrorist coddling, Marxist. Kennedy was the son of a criminal bootlegger. Obama is the son of a drunk Kenyan Arab black guy who knocked up a loopy white communist college girl, then left her a couple years later, to go back to Kenya and drink himself to death.

Which part of the analogy don’t you like?

And, as history has demonstrated, Dubya was right.

ManlyRash on October 21, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Are you calling from the future, Rash, or just another dimension, cause just like your ‘I know McCain will beat Obama prophecy,’ the truth or falsehood of climate change is a history yet to be written.

I really hope McCain wins, cause I’d hate to be witness to your HA fungicide.

alan colmes is so dismissive of anything questioning the sanctity of The One. he won’t even listen to Bolton

Putin, Chavez and all the others just want to know what side Obie is on. Joe B has told us that when Obie chooses, we won’t like it.

billypaintbrush on October 21, 2008 at 3:50 PM

No kidding. Bolton explains the muscular diplomacy by the Europeans was as our surrogate and Colmes still has to sneak in “it wasn’t the US”.

Gollum is a better man than you.

ManlyRash on October 21, 2008 at 6:42 PM

You warm the cockles of my heart, HeoftheRestlessGroin.

GWB thought rejecting Kyoto was being strong and resolute, and in the interests of the US. The rest of the world, not so much. – trailboss on October 21, 2008 at 6:16 PM

And, as history has demonstrated, Dubya was right.

Well, you’re a better man than I. – trailboss on October 21, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Gollum is a better man than you.

Not sure what point you’re making here. Being aware of other people’s interest and negotiating with those in mind is what we have diplomats for, and always will, even a a hot-headed McCain administration.

Granted, diplomacy and self-interest are inextricably intertwined, but the POTUS sets, or is seen to set, the agenda and tone of diplomatic relations. GWB and his former UN Ambassador Bolton set a confrontational, with us or against us tone that has harmed greatly the interests of the US. (the Kyoto thing was the first, but only the first.)

And yes indeed, diplomacy continues under even a hot-headed McCain, the question is what kind and of what effect? If it is hot-headed and rigid, it will be to our detriment.

trailboss on October 21, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Not sure what point you’re making here. Being aware of other people’s interest and negotiating with those in mind is what we have diplomats for, and always will, even a a hot-headed McCain administration.
Rejecting Kyoto was in our interests. Other countries signed up to it knowing that they would not be able to meet emissions targets and didn’t really want to. Just wanted to be seen to playing to the global warming crowd. If threatening to throw Russia out of the G8 has useful leveraging power, use it. All these methods are better than war, and useful alternatives and adjuncts to it.

Threaten to walk away from old Europe and watch their tails drop and the whining start. Bolton just likes to remind them of that fact and that burns them up.

Fortunata on October 21, 2008 at 6:08 PM

They have become dependent on the US, and it both scares and galls them immensely. Some of their national interests are often overshadowed by that dependence, creating resentment. To have Bolton shove it back down their throats creates additional resentment, and that will come back to haunt the US. I think it already has with the crappy NATO response in Afghanistan. European leaders understand that The GWOT is in their interests, but local resentment infuses their response with a lack of enthusiasm or a willingness to make sacrifices. The burden is still largely on our backs.

I agree with you on clinton, we shoulda hit somalia hard and sacrificed to stabilize that region…we’d be reaping the benefits today.

ernesto on October 21, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Yep, it’s too bad Clinton was too busy “hitting” an intern instead of doing his most important job as POTUS; protect the republic by supporting its military and troops!

Clinton decimated our military and intelligence capabilities during his tenure, after all that’s how he was able to have that budget surplus he was always bragging about, and what did it get us, it got us got with our pants down on 9-11!! In addition, Clinton had several opportunities to get Osama and the USS Cole was attacked (an act of war) yet Clinton and his administration failed to act at all as they were paralyzed by their pacifism and the fact they had all but destroyed our military might and intelligence capabilities!

Bottom line is Clinton wasn’t as far left as Obama IS, so when it comes to keeping our enemies in check by being strong what do you think is in store for our country if Obama is elected?

In my opinion Bolten is exactly right; Obama will be perceived as weak because HE IS WEAK! It’s not a matter of if a president will be tested, our enemies have always tested our resolve no matter who was POTUS, the real question is how far our enemies would be willing to push Obama as opposed to how far they would be willing to push McCain! There is no doubt in my mind our enemies would be emboldened if Obama was POTUS and would push much harder than if McCain were elected, and as confirmation o this one only needs to look at whom our enemies endorse, like Hamas, Iran, Chavez, etc!

You seem to have forgotten that old saw of international relations: Countries have no permanent friendships, only permanent interests.
Let people know that you’re strong, resolute and dependable; they’ll want to be your friends soon enough. Like all those satellite countries of the former USSR.

The old saw is still relevant, but it is because they also have interests that the US must be aware of and at times cater to those interests. Self-induced blindness to the interests of others is not strength but severe weakness.

As far as being strong, resolute, and dependable in the eyes of others, those don’t always square with US interests, and are often in the eye of the beholder. GWB thought rejecting Kyoto was being strong and resolute, and in the interests of the US. The rest of the world, not so much.

So kicking Russia out of the G8…thats a cool headed way to start the ball rolling on cooperation down the road?

Where have you been studying foreign policy, on the front page of the New York Times, Pravda maybe?

It’s Russia. It’s Putin. Name a time in the last hundred years when the Russians cooperated with us, and kept their word. Who do you think is supplying Iran with everything they need to build a nuclear reactor/weapon?

THEY CAN’T BE TRUSTED. YOU CAN’T PLAY NICEY-NICE WITH THEM. THEY WILL EAT YOU UP AND SPIT YOU OUT IF YOU SHOW ANY SIGN OF WEAKNESS.

Want to know how to handle the Russians? Read up on the Reagan years.

trailboss on October 21, 2008 at 6:05 PM

well ive been here a while, and on some issues i am way further right than the democrats. kind of an anomaly here i guess