About Me

My photo
Nazareth, Pa., United States

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Obama Passes Commander in Chief Test in Dull Debate

Tonight's debate between Presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain, conducted at Ole' Miss., was supposedly focused on foreign policy. I'd rate it a tie in a game where Obama seems to be ahead.

Moderator Jim Lehrer spent the first forty minutes of the debate focused on the Wall Street meltdown, where Obama clearly has the edge because no one can tie him to our failed economic policies. McCain was much more forceful than I would ever have predicted. Also, I don't see what the hell earmarks have to do with our failed economy.

When the conversation turned to foreign policy, where McCain clearly shines, Obama still passed the Commander in Chief test. McCain constantly accused Obama of not understanding, but he did.

Both candidates, in my view, clearly failed to hit any resonating notes that connect with voters. In that respect, they both failed. McCain came closest, and distinguished himself from George Bush at the same time. Bush has previously claimed to be able to see Vladimir Putin's soul when he looks into his eyes. But McCain claims he only sees three letters - a K, a G and a B.

A CNN snap poll gives the win to Obama.


Anonymous said...

Obama is tied to the fiscal meltdown.

He was an "affordable housing" advocate when he was a community organizer and he worked for ACORN. Both promoted the very policies that created this financial meltdown - forcing banks to loan money to low income people.

He also has deep ties with Fannie and Freddie executives - the ones who cooked the books and bankrupted those institutions.

Anonymous said...

You are going to have to do better than that. McCain does not want to go toe to toe on ethics and fiscal integrity.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Joe, none of those points were made in the debate.

Both parties are responsible for the Wall Street meltdown, and McCain supported much of the deregulation that led to this crisis. He handled himself better than I would have predicted, but will not win an argument on the economy. In fact, nobody will.

Obama, although he lacks McCain's foreign policy experience, clearly held his own. He appeared presidential. He appeared like a person you could call at 3 AM.

McCain needed to win this debate, not draw even.

Neither candidate was all that appealing.

Anonymous said...


"Get off my lawn, you young whipper snapper!"

Pitiful -- and Sarah, the Cheerleader, is next?

Oh MY!

Bernie O'Hare said...

It was by no means "pitiful." I'd call it a draw. But because Obama held his own on foreign policy, he's the one who ended up looking pretty good.

Lighthouse said...

McCain kept hammering about not meeting with Iran because they have spouted off about destroying Israel.....isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran".

Also, "experience" is so important to McCain that he picked someone with NO experience to be a heartbeat away.....oops, I stand corrected. I saw on her Katie Couric interview that she has quite extensive experience....Heaven help us if she ever becomes president.

Chris Miller said...

The blame for the fiscal meltdown is tied to the Democrat party due to their insistance on banks making "liar loans" to those who did not even come close to being able to afford those loans. It was community organizations such as ACORN and guys like Bruce Marks and Barak Obama who Phil Gramm wanted to hold accountable for their association with the banks. Under the Community Reinvestment Act, revised under Bill Clinton, banks needed a satisfactory CRA report from the regulators. ACORN and Marks threatened the banks with demonstrations and claims that the bank was racist and discriminated against blacks and other minorities. The Community Reinvestment Act is at the center of this economic mess. Frank and others want 20% of the money from the bailout to go to ACORN and others. McCain has spoken out against this as has George Bush. If we do not eliminate the Community Reinvestment Act we will be back to the same thing in months.
As to the debate, McCain clearly won. Obama admitted 8 times the "John is right". It is my understanding that when your opponent concedes you are right you have won the debate. Obama could not name one thing he would give up to get spending under control and McCain is correct that spending is the core issue for the next administaration. We need to do what he suggested, a spending freeze except on the essentials. I also believe we need to go to zero based budgeting and I do mean zero on a yearly basis.
McCain also cleaned his clock on foreign policy. Obama is naive when it comes to military strategy. Let me suggest that we have killed a lot of al Qaeda in Iraq. Those who remained are in Afghanistan. We will sent troops there and kill off the bunch of them along with the Taliban.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"I saw on her Katie Couric interview that she has quite extensive experience....Heaven help us if she ever becomes president."

Did not see but read excerpts of the interview. Not very impressive. I say this as someone who really likes Palin as a person.

J. SPIKE ROGAN said...


With your 1:46 am post you sound like Ralph Nader. BTW NADER is the most well read person on the "wall st crisis" he has been sounding the alarm since the Clinton admin was still at 1600.

Did anyone elese wonder if McLame thinks he is running for Prime Minister of Isreal? With all do reaspect why should America care about "protecting Isreal" so much? Does Tel Aviv give two shits about gentile Americans?

I could mention McCain want to protect a nation that once attacked a US navy ship but to his defense I think he was a POW when that went down.

And Chris Miller for someone who claims to be a teacher and stuent of History...... ITS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, NOT DEMOCRAT!

Stop showing off the fact you repaet Rush word for word, will you!

M.McShea said...

"Obama Passes Commander in Chief Test in Dull Debate"


Chris Miller said...

j.spike rogan
So you are a registered Democratic? It is the Democrat Party and I say that as a historian who has used that framing for a long time. Many in that party, particularly at the national level, are now calling themselves Progressives and really should be calling themselves as Fascists or Socialists if you prefer.They are far from being democratic.
As to the matter of Israel, you might notice that they are our only ally in the area. We use to be friends with Iran but Jimmy Carter took care of that situation for us.

J. SPIKE ROGAN said...

Chris Miller. Yeah when the Shaw a blood thirsty dictator was overthrown we lost Iran. No shock a guy as bad as the current leader of Iran would get overthrown.

But From Kennedy through Carter (Nixon included) backed the Shaw. No shock his overthrow made us the "Great Satan" in propaganda.

We also backed Augusto Pinochet another blood thirsty dictator.

You half hazardly toss Fascists or Socialists about Progressives. Shows you clearly keep your head where the sun rarely shines. Bernie Sanders current Senator from Vermont is a modern Socialist.

China while still using the "Communist Party" name is now shifted from Communisim to Fascist rule. Fascist are anti democratic dictatorships. Run under authoritarian rule , but allowing private bussiniess to operate and often hold little regulation over them.

Laize-Fare capitalism. Facist allow that. Communist (the extreme far left) the people own everything. SO that means the governement runs all business including home building, car manufacturing, even resturants all run by the governement.

Now in light of that, the current administration has taken us down that road.

Hard for me to take any Neo-Con serious when they are really taking us down that road, I might add.

And By the way my county elections office sent me a new election card. DEMOCRATIC Party is listed not Democrat.

Great talking point some GOP high ups like rove have doen with AM talk radio over the years to manipulate the converstation with semmantics.

Chris Miller said...

You might want to do a little research on fascism, communism, and socialism. You will find that there isn't a real big difference among them.
As to the Shah's overthrow, President Carter failed to move to his assistance and we have what we have today. The president of that country wants another holocaust and the arrival of the new caliphite. He is doing his best to get nuclear weapons on line. That will be a very bad time for the rest of the world. Your Democrtat candidate wants to meet with him without pre-conditions. I suggest you take a look at Woodrow Wislon and the matter of the Versailles Treaty and remember Wilson was dealing with our "friends".
I also have a couple of questions. What exactly is a modern socialist? What is the road we are being taken down? How do your define Neo-Con? I consider myself a conservative in the mold of William Buckley, Jr.
Congratulations, you are now a registered Democratic.
As for the insidious Karl Rove, while I like him, we really aren't as close as you imply we are. In fact I have neveer met the man.

Anonymous said...

I saw it as a toss up as well.
But McCain did control the debate by dictating the pace and subject matter, keeping Obama on the defensive most of the time.

McCain was very dismissive by refusing to even look at Obama and not addressing him directly.
I think that was a tactic, (or is that a strategy? ;0) to make Obama look insignificant.
I think it may have backfired for most viewers.

But what I am really wondering is if McCain and Mr. Magoo are actually the same person?
We never see them together at the same time.

Bernie O'Hare said...

I did not get the impression, reached by many, that McCain was disrespectful. I just think he felt more comfortable in speaking about his opponent instead of to him. A few think Obama was being disrespectful by interruptong, etc., but I never got that, either. Lehrer was encouraging them to mix it up. Obama was a bit more flexible.

TYhey are both sharp guys. Everything about them says they deeply care about this country and the people in it, but they themselves failed to make that connection.

I don't think it means much to say that Obamaa won or McCain won.

As a matter of full disclosure, I had some muscle spasms in my three remaining muscles on Thursday night and had to pop a valium, so I was real mellow.

Anonymous said...

Mr. MIller you do realize that Mr. Buckley despised the neo-cons and the corrupt new Republican Party. As a historian and fan of Mr. Buckley myself. The modern Republican Party that resembles more of the New Deal Democrats than anything else was denounced by him in his later writings and conversations.
You claim to be an impartial historian with a nice picture but you are another Fox disciple.
I can back up my claims with facts from true Conservatives like George Will. You are merely parroting Fox News.
Where and what are your sources for all your charges and claims.

The Prof.

Anonymous said...

Joe Hilliard, I believe the operative words here are "affordable housing".
That didn’t happen, and many of the defaulters were suckered into taking out adjustable rate montages when they would have qualified for a lower fixed rate.
They were told by the time the higher rates kicked in the value of their properties would have risen and because of their accumulated equity they would be able to refinance with a lower fixed rate .
That also didn’t happen. So now they are stuck with a high rate adjustable they can no longer afford and their properties are now valued at less than what they owe. Which of course prevents them from refinancing to a fixed rate.

Anonymous said...

Just as the campaigns for each candidate predictably gushed victory for their respective candidates, we each heard and watched what fit our own hopes and expectations.
But today after absorbing reaction from various sources I'd say McCain lost by default. McCain was preaching to the choir with his distortions and attacks (experience ... understand ... naive). He needed to get beyond that and do so much more.
Like Obama said today in a speech, where was McCain's concern for the middle class last night? John, my friend, it's not 2003 any more and it's not about 9-11 any more.
I liked McCain when this campaign started so long ago. Then I started listening to Obama and watched McCain move to the right to, I suppose, find a base. That is when I changed my registration from GOP to Dem, right before the primary.
Last night's debate gives me confidence that despite having elected Bush twice, Americans will decide the time is now for change.

Anonymous said...

The next time that Senator Obama decides to use a dead American serviceman as a prop in a debate -- he could do that soldier the courtesy of remembering his name.

That's all I need to know about Senator Obama.

Anonymous said...

No, 6:52, I'd rather vote for the man who remembers the name of the dead soldier's mother, rather than prop-maser McCain who was the first to pull the dead-soldier bracelet stunt. Obama cleaned McCain's clock when he said no soldier dies in vain. McCain himself almost died in a war caused by a lying government, now talks about not having people die in vain in another lie of a war, and this is his benefit of experience? Who needs experience like that?
I can't wait for the cheerleader.

Anonymous said...

Mr. 5:10

Thank you for providing a very good point. The idea of affordable housing and loans certainly wasn't without flaws. It didnot in and of itself create the crises

Unregulated lenders contorted the law into doing exactly what you claim. People were 'traded-up' if you will to higher priced homes and higher morgages.
Some peop[le naive to the system were suckered into signing things they never had signed before and truely should have understood better.
The greedy realtors and lenders looking at fat commissions and fees went along for the ride.

In the end the greed is again rewarded and life goes on.
This Blog has become very neo-con tax-cut and spend Republican. The Democrats have become the Trojan Horse for the misdeeds of my own Party.

The Prof.

Anonymous said...

Bob Jr. --

I'd rather vote for the guy who remembers both -- like McCain did.

Blue Coyote said...

"I did not get the impression, reached by many, that McCain was disrespectful. I just think he felt more comfortable in speaking about his opponent instead of to him."

I agree that McCain was not disrespectful, however Bernie, what's McCain going to do when he talks with other heads of state that are more difficult? Not look at them? This was a tactic, I am sure, that his advisors told him to take. And he blew it big time, in my book.

If he won't look at people in a debate, what's he going to do if elected President? That cemented my vote for Obama. Many may not like some of Obama's policy statements, but at least he has the firmness of conduct and civility to confront face to face.

Blah Society said...

FOX News said, this morning, that McCain won the debate [without doubt] as the "television journalists" and did nothing but bash Obama. The rest of the MSM, this morning, didn't declare any winners and some said it was too close to call.

Just a couple of my observations, and I'll try and be fair...

-McCain responded directly to the moderator instead of Obama or anything or anyone else.

-Obama acted very immature at times, especially at the end.

However, these observations don't prove who is better fit to lead our country.

I declare this another failed debate.

Anonymous said...

Bernie and Chris,

Yes, it was the policy of forcing banks to approve mortgages in low income areas that created this mess. And it is correct that both parties are to blame.

HR 3474, August 1994 approved the amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 which required ratings based on the amount of loans to low income areas. It also approve a lot of deregulation. It passed the House with 244 Democrat votes, and 165 Republican votes.

The Senate passed it by unanimous voice vote.

President Clinton signed it into law.

The politicians are to blame for tihs mess.

Geoff Brace said...

I have watched the Community Reinvestment Act do a lot of good for communities across the state.

The debate: I agree with AJ... more of the same terrible debates.

Chris Miller said...

I am well aware of the fact that Buckley was no fan of the Neo-Cons and that the current Republicans have strayed far afield. I also agree with you that the Republicans did indeed decide to become the popular kid on the block by putting their own New Deal into place.
As to my parroroting FOX news, I watch Brit Hume and Chris Wallace and that is pretty much it. What would you recommend, MSNBC or CNN? I will not and have not looked at the three majors for years because of the fact that they are in the tank for anyone that calls himself a Progressive.
As for charges and claims what exactly are you talking about and since you would like to reveal sources why not yours. Let's start with your comment on the "greedy realtors and lenders". As a licensed realtor since 1986, I want you to know that I personally had two young buyers who had a subprime loan that I explained to them and told them to make sure that they got out of it within a year. They had good jobs and good credit in the low 600s but no down money. They took a subprime and were able to handle the loan. They listened to what this greedy realtor had to say and both were out of the subprime situation within a year.
The Community Reinvestment Act particulary as it was handled by the Clinton administratin was a lousy and dangerous program. Since when does a bank lend money to someone because of their skin color, the fact that they are in poveerty, they do not work or their sex. In some cases they did not even have to provide ID or any ID. Do you think you or I should or could ever get a loan like that? Keep in mind that among this group are illegal aliens who not only received home loans from Bank of American and Wells Fargo. Bank of America gave these people credit cards. Why do you think Pelosi and her friends want to bail out credit cards? The CRA was an Act that had the FDIC, OCC, OTS, and FRB as regulators. As is usually the case, Congress passed a law that put a burden on Bureaus that did not have the manpower to do the job. You might want to check the IBD editorial of September 17, 2008, the NYT Business section of October 23, 1999 a real conservative watchdog, the Winter 2000 edition of City Journal and numerous articles in the Wall Street Journal as well as their excellent editorial page. Hope I meet your criteria for sources. Waiting for the same from you on those greedy realtors and lenders.

Chris Miller said...

bob,jr 7:36PM
Just one comment for you Bob, be careful what you pray for, you might just get it.

joe hillard 10:31
My only comment Joe is that Phil Gramm attempted to get his act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, to force community organizers like Bruce Marks and community organizations like ACORN to file their relationship with the banks that were providing loans both personal and developmental for the downtrodden neighborhoods. Keep in mind the initial intent of the CRA was to stop the practice of "redlining". That has been pretty much accomplished. But what do you think is going to come out of this mess? Last evening it was reported that the bailout was going to plow additional money back to groups like ACORN. This morning, thank God, that had been removes as it should be. We have to realize that some people are going to have to rent. We cannot provide a home for every indigent person at the expense of the rest of us who work hard and pay our bills.

Anonymous said...

I confess my opinions are skewed by my feelings of distrust and contempt for those who have enabled the Bushies. But I believe my opinions are validated by the buyer's remorse so many voters have today.

Anonymous said...

i think obama is a racist and a muslim dont trust him at all. i dont care how well he speaks!!!!!

Anonymous said...

"I saw on her Katie Couric interview that she has quite extensive experience....Heaven help us if she ever becomes president."

She(Palin) is the Republican's vice presidential candidate. Heaven help us if the Democrat's presidential candidate ever becomes president.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

What worries me is both parties are promising to give us “the government we deserve.”

Ouch! That’s exactly what we already have!

The promise of a Democratic system, where every citizen has a vote, is that we will always get the government we deserve.
I believe the cure for such a curse is self evident, but beyond probability; at least anytime in the foreseeable future.
“Some of the people all of the time” is a fact of a Democracy and a politician's wet dream.

Which begs the question; is the choice for President of the United States too important a decision to be left up to the politically ignorant masses?
I mean, we let ANYONE vote, even dead people!

Which brings me back to one of my biggest fears right now; computer voting.
Do any of our votes really count, or is the “fix” already in?
Polls can be manipulated to show anything the pollsters wish. I already had one with leading questions that were meant to make sure I replied “correctly.”
As long as the polls show a close race no one will question if the key states are won by only a few percent; within the polls margin of error.
With the new computers there is no paper trail and no way of confirming your vote was counted for the person you voted for, if it was counted at all.

I have a feeling none of our votes really count, and the important decisions are still being made for us in the “smoke filled back rooms”; now minus the smoke of course, where they really belong.

In the 2004 election they were counties that had more votes cast then there were registered voters. You can look it up.
Yet we are asked to trust the voting process and computer voting.

What I would like to see is each polling place have a bag of pin numbers issued according
to county and polling station. Each voter picks an anonymous pin out
of the bag to activate the computer. You keep the pin and the votes be posted on line.
Once the tally is on line you can go to the web site and look up your
pin number to check if your vote was recorder correctly.
In some cases there were only about 1200 registered voters and over 1600
votes counted. Numbers like that will be easy to catch if the number of pins are limited to the number of registered voters making it more difficult to fudge the vote.


Anonymous said...

Will the leader listen to the parents of a dead solder?



Anonymous said...

Re: 2:21, above:
(For those of us who have not checked the source: According to a web site that attacks media for not reporting the truth (yawn), the ex-husband and father of dead soldier, who supports McCain's stand on Iraq, claims his ex-wife and Mother of dead soldier wants Obama to stop using the bracelet story on his campaign. Conveniently, Mother does not wish to say this publicly, so 2:21 leaves it up to the ex-spouse to state "family's" position.)
Funny. The Mother who gave Obama the bracelet, so Obama would help stop other Mothers from being heartbroken over a failed ideology, doesn't join in Father's bitter rant that the "family" wants Obama to stop talking about dead son. Could it be, they don't agree? After all, there's probably a reason they are divorced.
2:21, better get Fox News on this story, pronto.

Lighthouse said...

"She(Palin) is the Republican's vice presidential candidate. Heaven help us if the Democrat's presidential candidate ever becomes president."

It doesn't take much effort to vote the party line come Hell or high water without question does it? Even if you respect and like John McCain (and I supported him back in 2000), I don't see how you are not insulted by Palin, or think with McCain's age and overall US History, that Palin is remotely capable of stepping into the Presidency. If she were a man, and subjected to the public vetting every one else receives, she would have been driven out of town....and McCain knows it....he wanted Leiberman, and instead bowed to the ditto-heads.....very "Maverick" of him.

Anonymous said...

“…McCain....he wanted Leiberman, and instead bowed to the ditto-heads..”

I agree. A McCain/Leiberman ticket would have been hard to beat. Especially since Leiberman is a registered Democrat! Even if he is a DINO it would have ensured dissatisfied Hillary and Independent votes.

But so would a Obama/Hillary ticket been hard to beat. I still think Hillary would have taken the VP spot if asked. Probably why all the bad blood with Bill.

McCain/Leiberman vs. Obama/Hillary. Now that would have been an interesting contest!

Sorry, but I just don’t see the McCain/Palin ticket making it.
Just too many Palin Moments.


Anonymous said...


Palin? How is Obama even remotely qualified to be president?
He is a product of the extremely corrupt Chicago Democrat machine. Now he is merely the vessel in which the power brokers of the Democrat Party and various business and investment interests have poured their time and talent.
You may win the election with this candidate but then the onus is on you (Obama/Democrats) to govern. How comfortable are you with that prospect? How comfortable should any of us be with the likes of Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama running the country?

Scott Armstrong

Lighthouse said...

Mr. Armstrong,

I suppose to answer your question re Palin v Obama, I would just say that Obama was publicly vetted and ultimately chosen by millions of voters to be the nominee, whereas Palin was a pick of one man (McCain).

Re the "onus" on me for supporting Obama....I already have the unfortunate onus being someone who voted for Bush in 2000, and held my nose to again vote for him in 2004. Considering the disaster of our foreign policy and economy, I am prepared to "give the other guy a chance." We had six years of unchallenged Executive, Legislative, and even Judicial branches when the foundation of today's problems were built, and the stagnate divided govt the past two years. Since I used to believe every thing the GOP preached, only to see them practice something much different.....and even when they did practice what they preached (trickle down), in the end the top got richer, and the rest of us are "bailing" the country out.....

Anonymous said...


Time will tell…Don’t forget however for the past two years the Democrats have controlled the house and senate. What have they accomplished?
There is currently a global financial crisis; all governments’ right, left and center are scrambling to cope with the current situation. Our country is part of that scramble. It just may be the case that in mere months the Democrats will be in total control of the government. For a time they can blame misfortune on the previous administration but with all the reins of power in their own hands sooner or later they will have to own up to their culpability. Being on the outside may in fact be the best place to be. Be careful what you wish for…

Scott Armstrong

Bernie O'Hare said...

I want to commend the readers here for a spirited discussion in which people talked to each other instead of at each other. I have to try that someday myself.

Anonymous said...


Many of us are here because of the welcoming climate you foster on this site.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

I really thought it was predatory ‘bait and switch” lending practices that contributed to mortgage crisis.

The GOP is responsible for pushing deregulation that in part permitted the risky behavior on Wall Street to continue. McCain even says so. The truth is that he was the one pushing for it. McCain said Washington was sleeping and allow this to happen and scapegoated the SEC chair for failing to adequately monitor financial institutions. Then on CBS he was asked what qualifies him on the economy and he said “I am chair person on the Commerce committee responsible for oversights of every part of our economy". Were you sleeping on the clock John?

Affordable housing is not a bad thing, deregulation to the point it breeds corruption is.
Remember ENRON brought to you by GOP deregulation. So what really happened in those closed door Energy Policy meetings. It certainly wasn’t talk about energy independence.

McCain cannot even say the words “middle class” because he hardly represents their interest. When McCain says Main Street, he really means “K-Street.

Trickle down economics does not grow the economy. Trickle down handed HW Bush a recession. As we can see history repeats itself.

Anonymous said...

I saw the recent SNL skit on Palin today. It was funny and typical of the spoof they make on candidates. Then I saw her interview to Couric. The were identical. Now that is Scary. They could have played the Couric interview on SNL and everyone would have thought it was Tina Fey.

Palin is not ready to lead and just shows the poor, shoot from the hip, judgment of McCain. Palin is no Condi or Hillary.

Anonymous said...

"How is Obama even remotely qualified to be president?
He is a product of the extremely corrupt Chicago Democrat machine."

Oops! Mr. Armstrong, I think you just answered your own question! ;o)

But how is this any different than the corrupt Republican machine backing McCain?
In our current unethical Capitalistic (is that redundant?) system it takes oodles and oodles of money to be elected to just about anything.
Those of you who are office holders reading this know how true this is.
Running for President of the US takes a whole lot more than $5 or $10 from mom and pop middle America.
As one of those middle Americans I think I can safely say we know our system is corrupt, but we also know there is very little we can do about it.
So all we can really do is pull the lever, then hope and pray we made the better choice and we will get a better government than we deserve.
Anyone with opposable thumbs knows better than to believe much of anything coming from either FOX or MSNBC. Or anyone who simply parrots the bias spin of either party. (You know who you are, and so do we!)
Yeah, you can fool us some of the time, but you cannot fool us all the time.


Anonymous said...

McCain gave up his opportunity for they "town hall" meeting he wanted by not choosing to engage Obama. McCain stuck to script and Obama demonstrated he is dynamic and has the qualities to lead. McCain was tactical and did not want to give Obama respect on stage. Furthermore, maybe McCain felt he would not fair well if he came of as trying to defend his record. McCain looked shakened by his actions. I think this fueled Obama. I still think Obama restrained himself too much. I suspect this was tactical but he missed a real opportunity to pull the campaign away. IMO.

Chris Miller said...

Bob,jr. 8:03AM
I understand your remorse and a lot of people have it right now. But let me ask you a question. Given the "success" of the current Democrat Congress, can we really believe that they will work in our interests with Obama in office? I and countless others cannot believe that we have these two guys as the nominees. Is this the best America can do?
As to Bush, I think we will find out a lot more on the positive side after Bush leaves office. One issue has already come to light in the new Woodward book where he points out that General Casey and additional Pentagon brass did not believe we could win in Iraq. That's when Petraus came in and the surge started. Woodward also tells us that Bush lied to us. Boy, I was surprised by that, a President lying to the people. I must admit that I have the book on my reading list and am citing reviews here but it will be interesting to read the Bush legacy.