Comments on: Barack Eisenhower Vs. John McNixon

The Nation: One Proposes To Be A Leader, The Other Proposes To Be A Manager Of Misery

[cofmanaaron]

Sharn Cedar said:
"Barack Obama - a few years of self-serving career moves and pandering to Chicago voters, with a record in a local legislature of mostly voting "present" on any controversial issue which might hurt his reputation or slimy calculated political career. No experience managing anything, ever, No humility, no service to anyone or anything but his own pandering self, no record of success, any success, in anything except selfish little career moves amid local elections."

Whoa now, I know you''ve got all these notions that Rush and the conservative spin machine have put in your head, but the above completely discounts the good work he has done helping people at the bottom (in Chicago). Of course, I''m sure helping the poor and needy is of no concern to you, as you are another Republican elitist, who wants perpetual war in the middle east to kill some more Arabs, whether or not they were involved with attacking america. To hell with Americans right? Who wants to help people in our country when we can be at war with brown people! The Republican philosophy. That is why you don''t want to end the war. Besides, a lot of those people getting really s*rewed are just more darkies to you right? Like those people Obama didn''t serve and didn''t succeed with, because they''re not really people unless they''ve got over 50 grand a year and white skin right?

[flreason]

"The author makes it sound like he called the right shot all along when, in fact, we would be in dire straights right now if we listened to him."
Posted by scottyusa

Actually, if we had listened to Obama we would never have gotten involved in a war in Iraq. Most Americans now agree that our involvement there was a mistake and was based on intelligence that government sources now admit was questionable at best, and criminally misrepresented at worst. It''s hard to argue that McCain''s experience translated to better decisionmaking, or that his saber-rattling bravado would make a better outcome than Obama''s pragmatic plans for withdrawal. You also need to consider that Obama''s plan isn''t something that he decided without counsel from experts. He has a team of military and security advisors who have helped formulate his plan for withdrawal.

One of his advisors, retired Airforce General McPeak, had this to say:

"I think Obama is going to be an outstanding commander in chief, not just an ordinary commander in chief," he told The Washington Times. "He has the potential to be one of the all-time greats. I think the senior military will learn that about him starting from the first minute he occupies the Oval Office."

[ubrew12]

zoopster1 said: "The fact is we''re fighting vicious, savage enemies. "

Oh pulleeeze! If we were fighting the vicious, savage enemies you speak of, we''d be in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia right now as we speak. Most of those we''ve killed in Iraq are, by contrast, women and children, who had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11. Killing a half-million innocents doesn''t serve as payback for our 3000 dead on 9-11. Instead, it creates an entire generation of enemies who may hatch WORSE on our shores at some time in the future.

It does, however, free up Iraqi oil to be exploited in no-bid contracts by Bush''s texas oil friends (check out how well Ray Hunt has done by all this death).

You''re a neocon fool. You swallowed that ''end-days'' bvllsh*t whole cloth.

[sunshinegal7]

Anyone who suggests that there are ANY Similarities between Barack Obama and Dwight Eisenhower ( other than gender, and US Citizenship), needs to have their head examined AND go read history-- or better yet- talk to someone who knew Eisenhower. This article is a waste of words, a waste of internet space, and a waste of time.

[sharncedar]

Eisenhower - a life of sober, humble service in the military culminating in the leadership of the WWII war effort in Europe, in which his humble, quiet, effective leadership while managing in detail the most complex operations in history won freedom for the whole earth. One of the greatest men of solid accomplishment who has ever lived.

Barack Obama - a few years of self-serving career moves and pandering to Chicago voters, with a record in a local legislature of mostly voting "present" on any controversial issue which might hurt his reputation or slimy calculated political career. No experience managing anything, ever, No humility, no service to anyone or anything but his own pandering self, no record of success, any success, in anything except selfish little career moves amid local elections.


Yeah right, Barack the phony is just like Eisnehower. And the pimple on my buttt is Mount Everest. Liberal media are idiots.

[zoopster1]

IRLiberal, you just described what most of refer to as "war". War was declared on us, 5 years before Bush''s inauguration, by the very terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Muslim terrorists attacked US targets over 20 years before Bush''s inauguration. Yet look what good ignoring it did for us.

Hundreds of thousands dead? You ain''t seen nothing pal. Most of those dead (in Iraq) are known to have been killed NOT by US forces, but by their own countrymen. Just wait until WE really get started. 4500 American dead over 5 years may also sound like a terrible tragedy, and I lament every one of those brave kids. Lest we forget that we lost that many in 5 HOURS on D-Day, and in ONE HOUR at Antietam, we must conclude that we have improved our efficiency by quite a bit. But NO war, no matter how cleanly or efficiently fought, can be done on the cheap.

The fact is we''re fighting vicious, savage enemies. They are not the kind to throw down their guns and run away. They will shoot back. They will try to inflict as much hurt as they can, by any means possible. When that happens, people will die. That is war. We can either face that reality and deal with it decisively, or we can all convert to Islam, renounce Israel, and start living in caves. I have already chosen the former. If you prefer the latter, why are you still here?

[irliberal]

The Nation got this spot on. Thanks!!

Republicans: The party that wouldn''t even exist at all anymore except for their platform of hating gay people and anyone who doesn''t subscribe to their particular brand of religion. These days, being a "conservative" has nothing to do with being conservative fiscally, it just means you hate minorities, love war, fetuses (until they are born) and have no sense of fiscal responsibility whatsoever. The last eight years have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Over SIX years of war. Civil rights breached by our commander in chief. Internationally recognized torture sanctioned by the White House. Two invaded and currently occupied countries. Hundreds of thousands dead, including OVER 4500 American soldiers. Billions of our tax dollars spent, and yes, are still being spent to this very moment.

Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11, is now an occupied country which will implode when we get out of it, whether that happens one, two, ten or five hundred years from now. A society that CHOOSES to be ruled by religion cannot become a democracy; it can only be a theocracy with voting cards.

Bin Laden still lives. The mastermind of 9/11 still walks free.

The one, simple word for this is: failure. No amount of deception, indignation or wailing by republicons can change these facts.

Failure of Bush. Failure of Cheney. Failure of the republicans.

Time for a change.

[noloyalisti]

McSame has no foreign policy experience. He certainly is worse than McBush in economic matter if you can even imagine that level of incompetence.

I think Obama is wise enough to not let those that want to kill us fly airplanes into buildings like Shrub did. I think he is also wise enough to recognize that we need to change direction so that all of our enemies and many of our friends don''t want to wipe out Americans where they breed.

[scottyusa]

I must disagree with the article''s author. He is saying that, in all his wisdom, Obama was right after all about his withdrawal plans. A lucky streak for him that, given enough time, we have turned things around considerably enough where Iraq wants a time table. Obama showed no leadership whatsoever calling for an immediate pull out before the surge even started. The author makes it sound like he called the right shot all along when, in fact, we would be in dire straights right now if we listened to him. Now again, he is making rash decisions before he even gets to Iraq or talks to our generals. This is not leadership, it is politics. Stinky politic and a stinky article to boot! The only politician that is worse is Reid. According to him we lost the war 2 years ago.

[citizenusa-2009]

Bravo! The best and most accurate aricle yet. Keep telling it like it is Mr. Nicols. It is NOT falling on deaf ears THIS TIME. I believe after the horrible consequences we experienced after electing Nixon and Bush, hopefully, after a bloody 7 years with the economy in the trash can (like the businesses Bush bankrupted before he took office) we''ve learned SOMETHING!!!