Why Bush should be dropped in favour of McCain

[cut]

Bush today has testified and the 9/11 commission and he decided to abuse his power.

- he went with Cheney so that he could hold his hands and answer the questions.

-Bush is not under oath like everyone else has had to be, he can lie all he wants

- there is to be no recording, no accountability (what is the point of this commision)

-questioned in the oval office, why? doesn't he have time for democracy?


I'm not being leftist or posting this in support of the democrats

all I'm saying is; for heavens sakes get this idiot rich kid monkey out of the oval office and put a real politician in, like McCain.

-McCain would not be scared to take the stand alone, under oath and be recorded.

-McCain would take on Iraq and win, not let it slip away

-McCain can answer for himself and has experience of real poiltics

-McCain is real war hero, and wouldn't stand for the type of election bickering and mudslinging.


I know many of you guys support Bush because he is a Republican, but how can you support him over McCain?

[MEGR]

That's great and all, but here's the facts. Mcain is not running, and Bush is. Plus, you're opinion doesn't really matter in the US, because as far as I know, you aren't a US citizen.

[cut]

That's great and all, but here's the facts. Mcain is not running, and Bush is. Plus, you're opinion doesn't really matter in the US, because as far as I know, you aren't a US citizen.

yeah I'm aware of that, so there is no way that the republicans could choose a different rebulican for the next presidential elections, that's terrible.

Republicans are going to loose votes needlessly that way. Republicans who feel George Bush has not done a good job have no vote.

[Haiw]

Pretty much for the reasons you posted above I was really disgusted by the whole 'commision hearing' today. It was such a damn farce.

[Commander Cool]

Even if we Republicans agreed to drop Bush, why in the hell would we choose McCain as his replacement? McCain is one of my least favorite politicians in the US. He constantly criticizes Bush's handling of Iraq and the WOT (and I don't mean constructively), he praises the Democratic party and seems to agree with them on more issues than with Republicans. He just plays his political game to curry favors with the media, and he's the media's darling but look at his voting records he's been flipflopping all over the place, he doesn't like to stick to principles. He is just an opportunist, not a true republican. This guy belongs in the funny farm.

If Kerry is president I wouldn't be surprised if he puts McCain as VP.

Btw McCain cheated on his wife then divorced her for an 18 years younger trophy wife. And nobody say that's irrelevent because it's not. It shows what kind of person he is.

[UkrainianAmerican]

9/11 hearings is NOT a court case.
Besides placing a Prez under oath means JACK****.
remember this William Clinton dude?

[Tane Angle]

John McCain is the senior Senator from Arizona. He's pretty much the most respected-and gustiest-man in American politics today. He has more credibility than most of the rest of the senators combined. This stems from two things-he votes on issues the way he wants; and he was tortured as a POW for 6 years in Vietnam.

On the issues, he walks on both sides of the aisle, and actually represents his constituents. He is an elected representative who actually represents his electorate. That is why sometimes he votes with the Dems, and sometimes votes with the Reps-he does what is best for his people. This endears him to many, but annoys many too. He is not, however, a waffler. He knows what he stands for and makes no secret of it.

Very strong on defense, very strong on halting global warming (mainly for national security reasons), strong on serving his people, nearly everyone I know loves McCain, regardless of their party affiliation. I know far leftists, moderates, and far rightists who all think McCain is just the greatest thing since pre-sliced bread.

In Vietnam, he was a fighter pilot. He was offered a nice cushy desk because of who his father was (McCain's father was running the Vietnam War). Shot down, McCain was tortured. Then the Vietnamese found out who he was, and told him he was free. McCain refused to leave without every one of his fellow POWs, and so the Vietnamese tortured him even more. He didn't leave men behind. Every President since JFK has, but McCain knows what it is to be left behind.

If John McCain said "Let's go to war," I don't think I'd have as much a problem as when Bush or Clinton or anyone does, because McCain knows what war is. He has seen humanity at its worst.

Today, he can make or break a candidate's election hopes. He campaigns for Democrats sometimes, though for Republicans far more often. Most times, when he supports a candidate, that candidate wins the election. His friends in Washington, from what I understand, range from Ted Kennedy (the arch-Democrat, though not actually an arch-liberal) and Bob Graham to Elizabeth Dole and Bill Frist. Especially Ted Kennedy.

He isn't perfect, but who is? Of everyone in American politics today, I think he'd be the best president. And I think he'd actually be a great president, able to unify the parties to finally get things done that help both sides; he wouldn't just be a "least bad choice."

He lost the Republican primary in 2000 to Bush for two reasons-McCain is not a particularly rich man, especially as far as US Senators go; and Bush mudslinged McCain like there was no tomorrow.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

From earlier today. What kind of a person John McCain is? Have a good one all, and as always, just some thoughts...

[nerdman]

Btw McCain cheated on his wife then divorced her for an 18 years younger trophy wife. And nobody say that's irrelevent because it's not. It shows what kind of person he is.

Beholden to hot young ass instead of corporations?

[American Patriot]

Fook McCain.

[cut]

9/11 hearings is NOT a court case.
Besides placing a Prez under oath means JACK****.
remember this William Clinton dude?

your basically saying that this is an american problem not just a clinton problem. ;)

[cut]

John McCain is the senior Senator from Arizona. He's pretty much the most respected-and gustiest-man in American politics today. He has more credibility than most of the rest of the senators combined. This stems from two things-he votes on issues the way he wants; and he was tortured as a POW for 6 years in Vietnam.

On the issues, he walks on both sides of the aisle, and actually represents his constituents. He is an elected representative who actually represents his electorate. That is why sometimes he votes with the Dems, and sometimes votes with the Reps-he does what is best for his people. This endears him to many, but annoys many too. He is not, however, a waffler. He knows what he stands for and makes no secret of it.

Very strong on defense, very strong on halting global warming (mainly for national security reasons), strong on serving his people, nearly everyone I know loves McCain, regardless of their party affiliation. I know far leftists, moderates, and far rightists who all think McCain is just the greatest thing since pre-sliced bread.

In Vietnam, he was a fighter pilot. He was offered a nice cushy desk because of who his father was (McCain's father was running the Vietnam War). Shot down, McCain was tortured. Then the Vietnamese found out who he was, and told him he was free. McCain refused to leave without every one of his fellow POWs, and so the Vietnamese tortured him even more. He didn't leave men behind. Every President since JFK has, but McCain knows what it is to be left behind.

If John McCain said "Let's go to war," I don't think I'd have as much a problem as when Bush or Clinton or anyone does, because McCain knows what war is. He has seen humanity at its worst.

Today, he can make or break a candidate's election hopes. He campaigns for Democrats sometimes, though for Republicans far more often. Most times, when he supports a candidate, that candidate wins the election. His friends in Washington, from what I understand, range from Ted Kennedy (the arch-Democrat, though not actually an arch-liberal) and Bob Graham to Elizabeth Dole and Bill Frist. Especially Ted Kennedy.

He isn't perfect, but who is? Of everyone in American politics today, I think he'd be the best president. And I think he'd actually be a great president, able to unify the parties to finally get things done that help both sides; he wouldn't just be a "least bad choice."

He lost the Republican primary in 2000 to Bush for two reasons-McCain is not a particularly rich man, especially as far as US Senators go; and Bush mudslinged McCain like there was no tomorrow.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

From earlier today. What kind of a person John McCain is? Have a good one all, and as always, just some thoughts...

Tane, I want to believe this but I never believe all I read. Is this biased in anyway?

Why is mudslinging not disregarded?

[Old300]

cut, the issue is called "separation of powers" and has to do with the fact that a congressionally-mandated commission does not have the power to force an executive branch officer to testify under oath; nor would a sitting President want to volunteer to testify before such a committee, because it would set a precedent that contradicts settled constitutional principles (this is why Condi Rice did not initially testify and why, when she eventually did do so, it was under the express understanding that no precedent was being set). Because John McCain is a Senator, there would be no such obstacle to his testimony.

P.S. The situation with Clinton a few years ago was different because it involved a ****** harrassment suit in federal court and a Department of Justice-related Special Prosecutor (i.e. executive branch) investigating whether the President committed a federal crime (i.e. perjury and/or obstruction of justice during depositions for that federal case).

In other words, today's testimony offers no reason (as if there were one anyway) why we should nominate McCain.

[cut]

rediculous, how the hell are you supposed to get to the bottom of this? It involves the president, therefore he should tell the truth like everyone else, and if he has done nothing wrong why makes sure cheney was there to hold his hand?, why choose not swear an oath.

If his desire to go to war in Iraq meant that he took his eye off terrorism as is alleged surely for such an important matter he must do so in public, unless he has something to hide. If he forces the commission to take him at the same time he is either an incompetent politician or he did something wrong, how the hell does that best serve the public?

[Trident-za]

Even if we Republicans agreed to drop Bush, why in the hell would we choose McCain as his replacement? McCain is one of my least favorite politicians in the US. He constantly criticizes Bush's handling of Iraq and the WOT (and I don't mean constructively), he praises the Democratic party and seems to agree with them on more issues than with Republicans.

I'm not sure this is a problem... the one thing I personally cannot stand is a politician who only votes according to the "party line". If Tane's post is accurate, this is a guy who can think for himself and votes according to his beliefs rahther than according to what his party tells him he should believe. Big plus in my book. And criticizing, where appropriate, your President is NOT wrong. No political party, or president, in the history of mankind has ever been 100% right on all issues!

Also, the POW issue gets a huge vote of support for me - I'd much rather have someone who has been through hell deciding to send me there than someone who has no clue of the reality of war.

Edit: I'm also quite staggered at Bush not taking the oath. I couldn't care less whether he is required to or not.... choosing not to is hardly a big thumbs up in the credibility stakes for me.

[Old300]

cut, it isn't ridiculous at all. In your country, Parliament is supreme; there is no separation of powers because there aren't separate branches of government (this is true even of the Queen who - please correct me if I'm wrong - is technically "Queen-in-Parliament" and must therefore assent to the passage of Bills from the House of Commons). Anyway, trust me on this: a sitting President cannot be subject to congressional subpoena. Period. Ever.

Now, this doesn't mean that President Bush should not have to explain relevant and unclassified decisions that went into his decision to go to war. On the contrary, we will elect a president in a few months based largely on such explanations. Alternatively, Congress could impeach and convict the President if they think that he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. But they cannot subpoena or depose him. That is how things work in my country.

[cut]

never heard of the house of lords then, no? Arcaic name but it's really not that bad, you should look into it.

[Old300]

sorry, cut, I don't understand how a snide mention of the House of Lords affects my argument. As I understand it, the Lords is a largely advisory house of Parliament that cannot override any decision taken by the Commons. And your point is... ?

Look, this is childish. I've given you factual information that you may either take seriously, and in the process of doing so become better informed about the topic you raised; or you may reject it, in which case you will remain as ignorant of my country as my countrymen are purported to be about yours. I mean that sincerely: we can all learn things from each other. I probably can't teach many people on this forum about military matters. But American constitutional law is a whole 'nother thing, my friend. In this matter, if in no other, cut, you have no idea what you're talking about. Cheers

[2Sheds_Jackson]

McCain is a Republican in name only. Why the F would the party faithful want him in there? It's ludicrous. McCain is not running, not electable, does not have the money, and does not have party support.

So there is no question who's name will be next to the "R" box on the ballot.

The real question here is - who should the Democrats replace Kerry with? His boat springs more leaks every day & the higher ups are beginning to realize they've shot themselves in the foot (if you'll pardon the excellent Kerry pun). By Dean self destructing, Kerry was sort of in by default, and now they’re all stuck with a new McGovern. This is gonna be interesting...

[Tane Angle]

Great post, Trident-za, and others.

cut, you are very wise not to just take it for granted that it is true. If only more people thought for themselves.

Sorry for the possible confusion guys , I wrote the thing I quoted earlier today in another post on here. So is it biased some? Sure. But I like McCain because he is all those things; I did not say he is those things because I like McCain. Is it really so bad that McCain thinks for himself? And that he represents the best chance we have for getting past political stagnation in our country?

There is a difference between flip-flopping and being moderate. A huge difference.

By the way, what exactly is it to be Republican? To be pro-small government? Bush certainly hasn't done that. The idea of the federal government involving itself in marriage-a state-mandated issue-is extremely big government. People might justify the Patriot Act as being necessary for national security, but why gay marriage? That's what we pay them for? To sit and discuss an issue that has always been up to the states?

Is it Republican to be pro-military? Where are those increased benefits and pay the military has been asking for since before Bush was elected? Don't just blame it on Clinton-it's his fault, but Bush has had three years to change that. If Clinton was so wrong for cutting the size of the military (which he was), why hasn't Bush increased the size again? He has had three years to do it. I would have thought that on September 12th, 2001, Bush would have seen that we would need more troops.

For me, national security is the most important issue. McCain is definitely not soft on national security, nor is Kerry. Both have voted with the Republicans on national security issues. (Do not bring up Kerry and the POWs in the early 90s. The POWs were dead by then.) I wouldn't support a candidate who was soft on defense. But Bush hasn't helped us in terms of defense. Look at what we're [not] doing in Afghanistan. A token, insufficient number of troops there, most of them in the interior of the country. Look at Iraq-we're sitting ducks, and we've proven what terrorists have previously lied about for decades-that the US wanted to invade the Middle East.

Look at 9/11-Bush could have at least read the report. No report should have taken priority over one with a label that clearly says "terrorists going to hit the continental US." What possible report could have taken precedence? And if George Tenet and **** Clarke are as horrible as they have been made out to be, why did Bush hire them at the beginning of his term? Standard procedure is to give people from the last president the boot. Obviously both are good enough at their jobs that they were worth keeping around.

The economy is a relatively small issue here. So are education, social security, even the environment (which is a long-term national security issue). Bush has not been tough with national security. Bush is soft on terrorism. We are not pursing terrorist groups as much as we should be because we have had to use so many of our SOF in Iraq. Pinned down in Iraq=we're going to get caught with our pants down, I hate to say it. Actually think about it-how has going into Iraq helped protect us from terrorist?

No WMDs there-and I was fortunate enough to meet with and talk with Dave Kay, the senior US WMD hunter in post-war Iraq, not too long ago about this matter. He said there haven't been any since 1994. He quit not too long ago because he was disgusted by the lies of the administration.

We've made the ME even more unstable. We're sitting ducks. We look bad in front of the average Arab now.

We didn't rescue Scott Speicher.

Yes, there were humanitarian reasons for going in there, but there were far larger humanitarian reasons for going into the Congo, which we didn't. And I hate to say it, but humanitarian efforts come second to protecting Americans from terrorism. Not that I think "Iraqi Freedom" was the main reason for going into Iraq, but Iraqi's getting freedom from Hussein should have been less of a priority than finishing the job in Afghanistan and saving our SOF for AT/CT operations. I hate to say it, but we must be pragmatic.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[Old300]

John McCain is a good man and a strong conservative. He'd do an excellent job prosecuting the War on Terror and I'm confident that he'd be a very good president. I disagree with him on campaign finance reform but that's it. Bush has mishandled a lot of things and it's entirely possible that McCain would have handled certain aspects of the Iraq war better than the incumbent. Having said that, though, the fact that Bush isn't testifying and the possibility that McCain might has absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming election or who should be the Republican nominee

[Tane Angle]

Just to add, let's face it, Bush has a 99.99999% chance of being the Republican nominee. But we can still discuss whether or not he should be.

[IDFM203]

Ok a bit of a change of pace for me for now ;) :D


John McCain is a good man and a strong conservative. ok that’s the thing.

I don’t know so I ask, can you elaborate on that (and what I write next).

For it seems that Bush is not a conservative at all (for even besides the Iraq war, he still spends way to much to be considered a conservative. correct?) and well the democrats from what I understand sure as hell aren’t ever so indeed is McCain one and if so why don’t more republicans (or conservatives) support him?


Thanks in advance for any answers that I might get.

Shalom :D

[SeanAshi]

John McCain is a good man and a strong conservative.
He's a strong conservative, thats why he lost the Republican nomination in 2000? ;)

[Old300]

The ironic thing about some of the speculation last month about whether McCain might be John Kerry's VP nominee is that he is as conservative as Kerry is liberal - which is to say, John McCain is one of the most conservative members of the senate. He is more fiscally conservative than Bush (even though he has advocated higher military spending than the president has); he was an early advocate of regime change in Iraq (going back to when Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, making the overthrow of Saddam Hussein official US policy); and he is strong on gun rights, abortion restrictions, and other traditional conservative causes.

In 2000, Bush ran as a "Compassionate Conservative". A lot of people thought that was a joke at the time, but the past three years have demonstrated that, even though Bush remains a staunch hawk, committed to the death penalty, and all the rest of it, he has been willing to support massive increases in spending on health and education. Compared to Kerry, Bush is conservative. Compared to McCain, well, I don't know. John McCain might be more conservative than the president.

[Trident-za]

John McCain is a good man and a strong conservative.
He's a strong conservative, thats why he lost the Republican nomination in 2000? ;)

Perhaps he was too principled ;)

(This is meant in jest - I know nothing about the guy).

[Old300]

Sean, in my opinion, McCain lost the 2000 nomination because he lost South Carolina. I don't know why he lost that state, but it probably has more to do with the fact that Bush is from Texas and is a born-again Christian than whether he was more conservatice on specific policy issues.

[Royal]

cut, it isn't ridiculous at all. In your country, Parliament is supreme; there is no separation of powers because there aren't separate branches of government (this is true even of the Queen who - please correct me if I'm wrong - is technically "Queen-in-Parliament" and must therefore assent to the passage of Bills from the House of Commons).


sorry, cut, I don't understand how a snide mention of the House of Lords affects my argument. As I understand it, the Lords is a largely advisory house of Parliament that cannot override any decision taken by the Commons.

As you ask. You're wrong.

Both the House of Lords and the Monarch can scupper legislation. Blair passed (and has used) the Parliament Act to reign in the House of Lords, but they still regularly amend and even throw out legislation. The Monarch can refuse to sign the Royal Assent (I don't believe that one has done it since Queen Victoria, but I may be wrong).

Tane, once again I agree. But I'm not a Yank, so it doesn't really matter. Thanks to Shrub and his lapdog Blair we've tripped from a difficult and doable, albeit badly planned Op (in Afghanistan) to an all-out cluster f**k which is loosing us friends and generating terrorist recruits by the day.

Comment from an Aussie officer who visited today "any officer above the rank of Colonel has his head so far up the politicians arses he can't see daylight". A slight generalisation but it works for me...

[Trident-za]

Royal:


Thanks to Shrub and his lapdog Blair we've tripped from a difficult and doable, albeit badly planned Op (in Afghanistan) to an all-out cluster f**k which is loosing us friends and generating terrorist recruits by the day.

Comment from an Aussie officer who visited today "any officer above the rank of Colonel has his head so far up the politicians arses he can't see daylight". A slight generalisation but it works for me...

Now I remember why you're on my "listen carefully " list rofl

Tane, as always... the voice of reason. If I could, I'd vote you for president.

[Old300]

Really, Royal? The House of Lords can override the Commons? I was under the impression that, if the Commons want to pass a Bill, they will do so. It may be held up in the Lords for some time; and the Lords may send it back to the Commons for multiple "readings"; but they cannot do what, say, the US Senate can do - scupper Bills entirely.

And I'm pretty sure the last time the Crown refused to assent to the passage of a bill was in 1707, but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, it is my understanding that whatever the formal powers that the Lords and Crown may retain (within the informal British constitution), as a practical matter, each institution is subordinate to the Commons. In this way, again, as a practical matter (as opposed to a constitutionally theoretical one), there is no separation of powers between the legislative and the executive because the legislative (read: the Commons) is supreme.

Or no?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Good gravy, people. Kerry with McCain as the veep? What kind of platform would that be exactly? That would be like Bush running with Hillary Clinton as his VP.

Where do the campaign funds come from...both parties? Or does McCain trade in that dusty old R for a D and run with it.

A veep who disagrees with everything his boss stands for? The guy is the tie breaking vote in the Senate (when needed) - so how does he vote, since he'd be 180 degrees out of phase with his own administration?

Then again, it would be totally in line for Kerry, who's position is to take both sides of every issue. His administration could be the very embodyment of that principle.

I'm not saying McCain isn't a good guy or anything, but it just ain't gonna happen. We may as well argue about nominating Darth Vader. Now there's a guy who could handle terrorists..

[cut]

The ironic thing about some of the speculation last month about whether McCain might be John Kerry's VP nominee is that he is as conservative as Kerry is liberal - which is to say, John McCain is one of the most conservative members of the senate. He is more fiscally conservative than Bush (even though he has advocated higher military spending than the president has); he was an early advocate of regime change in Iraq (going back to when Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, making the overthrow of Saddam Hussein official US policy); and he is strong on gun rights, abortion restrictions, and other traditional conservative causes.

In 2000, Bush ran as a "Compassionate Conservative". A lot of people thought that was a joke at the time, but the past three years have demonstrated that, even though Bush remains a staunch hawk, committed to the death penalty, and all the rest of it, he has been willing to support massive increases in spending on health and education. Compared to Kerry, Bush is conservative. Compared to McCain, well, I don't know. John McCain might be more conservative than the president.


Bush is all over the place, Blair likewise, but interms of foreign policy they are very right wing, and getting carried away with it.

[Royal]

The Lords can and do scupper legislation. Multiple attempts to ban hunting spring immediatly to mind. That is why Blair introduced the Parliament Act. To date he's been too scarred to use it more than a couple of times.

Queen Victoria certainly refused to assent to the bill banning lesbian activities in the 1880's (she didn't believe they existed).

The legislative (in both it's parts, Lords and Commons) is separate from the executive (no thanks to Tony and his cronies). So it would appear that you're under the wrong impression...

[Old300]

Royall:

The Lords cannot scupper bills

http://www.parliament.uk/works/parliament.cfm#parlacts

The Crown has not exercised a legislative veto since 1707

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page336.asp

What does this have to do with the military? No idea. I just brought this stuff up this morning to help explain why Bush isn't testifying under oath. Anyway, thanks for the debate

[SeanAshi]

Really, Royal? The House of Lords can override the Commons?That just made me think of the time watching The House of Commons on Saturday night live rofl Them Britts are brutal in that place.

[cut]

Really, Royal? The House of Lords can override the Commons?That just made me think of the time watching The House of Commons on Saturday night live rofl Them Britts are brutal in that place.

saves a lot of time I reckon.

[Royal]

Royall:

The Lords cannot scupper bills

http://www.parliament.uk/works/parliament.cfm#parlacts

The Crown has not exercised a legislative veto since 1707

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page336.asp

What does this have to do with the military? No idea. I just brought this stuff up this morning to help explain why Bush isn't testifying under oath. Anyway, thanks for the debate

It's got bugger all to do with the military (other than the fact that we're controlled by those clowns).

As I've already said - the government can use the Parliament Act - doesn't mean they do...

[Old300]

Blair has used it twice.

[cut]

Blair has used it twice.

so? what are you getting at?

[Mark_Aspen]

I'll tell you what scares me, but then I'm not an American, so its not really my business. Also, please don't take what I say the wrong way.

I think at heart the shrub is more of an ideological conservative than his father, but less so than the right wing of his party. On the other hand, he plays to the right wing's "needs" to keep his support strong. What scares me is the depth to which his beliefs as a born-again Christian guide his desicion making. I think its one of the factors in his relationship with Sharon, and his view of the Middle East situation. I don't believe its the influence of Wolfowitz and Perle, or the Texas Jewish Lobby; I think - and I don't mean it disrespectfully to Christians - George W. has and is guided by messianic ideals. I think its sincere and heartfelt. I also happen to think its entirely inappropriate from what I learned about the US political system. The other part of the Sharon appeal is the cowboy's approval and respect for the independent tough-guy.

My observation from working in both Europe, the US and the Middle-East is that W. is an intellectual (dirty word there) light-weight, who sees issues in the most filtered black and white ways. I think you'd have been better served by McCain, or by cutting off Clinton's pecker, and re-electing him.

[Old300]

to be perfectly honest, I can't remember. All I know is that you, cut, opened this topic with an intemperate rant about McCain being a better nominee because Bush wouldn't testify before the September 11 Commission. And I noted that Bush couldn't, as a constitutional matter, so testify, and I tried to contrast the importance of the principle of separation of powers in the US with the UK - the chief difference being that Parliament (i.e. the Commons) is supreme in the UK while in my country the executive and legislative branches are co equal and have express limitations placed on their authority to compel members of the other branch to do certain things. That's all. This is my last post on this topic and my point remains: President Bush did not testify under oath because it would be constitutionally improper for him to do so; it is indicative of nothing more. He may be a right wing clown closely resembling a "Shrub"; but if that is the case, today's testimony was not evidence of it.

[cut]

to be perfectly honest, I can't remember. All I know is that you, cut, opened this topic with an intemperate rant about McCain being a better nominee because Bush wouldn't testify before the September 11 Commission. And I noted that Bush couldn't, as a constitutional matter, so testify, and I tried to contrast the importance of the principle of separation of powers in the US with the UK - the chief difference being that Parliament (i.e. the Commons) is supreme in the UK while in my country the executive and legislative branches are co equal and have express limitations placed on their authority to compel members of the other branch to do certain things. That's all. This is my last post on this topic and my point remains: President Bush did not testify under oath because it would be constitutionally improper for him to do so; it is indicative of nothing more. He may be a right wing clown closely resembling a "Shrub"; but if that is the case, today's testimony was not evidence of it.

is he prohibited from appearing alone in front of this comission? It seems like he has done everything short of stopping it get to him. If you want to make comparisions, despite all his faults Blair has defended his corner on numerous occasions. I think it's worse to have a leader who is told want to do then one like Blair who has a load of cronies to back him up.

[pinkeye]

Great post, Trident-za, and others.

cut, you are very wise not to just take it for granted that it is true. If only more people thought for themselves.

Sorry for the possible confusion guys , I wrote the thing I quoted earlier today in another post on here. So is it biased some? Sure. But I like McCain because he is all those things; I did not say he is those things because I like McCain. Is it really so bad that McCain thinks for himself? And that he represents the best chance we have for getting past political stagnation in our country?

There is a difference between flip-flopping and being moderate. A huge difference.

By the way, what exactly is it to be Republican? To be pro-small government? Bush certainly hasn't done that. The idea of the federal government involving itself in marriage-a state-mandated issue-is extremely big government. People might justify the Patriot Act as being necessary for national security, but why gay marriage? That's what we pay them for? To sit and discuss an issue that has always been up to the states?

Is it Republican to be pro-military? Where are those increased benefits and pay the military has been asking for since before Bush was elected? Don't just blame it on Clinton-it's his fault, but Bush has had three years to change that. If Clinton was so wrong for cutting the size of the military (which he was), why hasn't Bush increased the size again? He has had three years to do it. I would have thought that on September 12th, 2001, Bush would have seen that we would need more troops.

For me, national security is the most important issue. McCain is definitely not soft on national security, nor is Kerry. Both have voted with the Republicans on national security issues. (Do not bring up Kerry and the POWs in the early 90s. The POWs were dead by then.) I wouldn't support a candidate who was soft on defense. But Bush hasn't helped us in terms of defense. Look at what we're [not] doing in Afghanistan. A token, insufficient number of troops there, most of them in the interior of the country. Look at Iraq-we're sitting ducks, and we've proven what terrorists have previously lied about for decades-that the US wanted to invade the Middle East.

Look at 9/11-Bush could have at least read the report. No report should have taken priority over one with a label that clearly says "terrorists going to hit the continental US." What possible report could have taken precedence? And if George Tenet and **** Clarke are as horrible as they have been made out to be, why did Bush hire them at the beginning of his term? Standard procedure is to give people from the last president the boot. Obviously both are good enough at their jobs that they were worth keeping around.

The economy is a relatively small issue here. So are education, social security, even the environment (which is a long-term national security issue). Bush has not been tough with national security. Bush is soft on terrorism. We are not pursing terrorist groups as much as we should be because we have had to use so many of our SOF in Iraq. Pinned down in Iraq=we're going to get caught with our pants down, I hate to say it. Actually think about it-how has going into Iraq helped protect us from terrorist?

No WMDs there-and I was fortunate enough to meet with and talk with Dave Kay, the senior US WMD hunter in post-war Iraq, not too long ago about this matter. He said there haven't been any since 1994. He quit not too long ago because he was disgusted by the lies of the administration.

We've made the ME even more unstable. We're sitting ducks. We look bad in front of the average Arab now.

We didn't rescue Scott Speicher.

Yes, there were humanitarian reasons for going in there, but there were far larger humanitarian reasons for going into the Congo, which we didn't. And I hate to say it, but humanitarian efforts come second to protecting Americans from terrorism. Not that I think "Iraqi Freedom" was the main reason for going into Iraq, but Iraqi's getting freedom from Hussein should have been less of a priority than finishing the job in Afghanistan and saving our SOF for AT/CT operations. I hate to say it, but we must be pragmatic.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

speaking of threats to security, the bush administration cut funding to international family planning initiatives. despite what religious conservatives preach, female reproductive health is absolutely critical to social cohesion and prosperity, thereby eliminating many future threats to national and international security. post-industrialised societies are (generally) not breeding the kind of security threats we frequently associate with terrorism, in part because women are able to have varying degrees of control over their reproductive health. i am obviously simplifying this issue for the sake of brevity and the simple fact that i cannot spend more than a few minutes on this website.
ever wonder why africa is such a basketcase? among other factors, examine the plight of african women. what about the middle east? examine the plight of arabic women. go to pakistan. same deal. and so on and so forth... violence, bloodshed, turmoil, etc. breed in places where women are denied their fundamental rights, including control over their reproductive health. this is basic developmental 101 stuff. women's issues are directly linked to peace and security.

[California Joe]

Bush believes that God wanted him to invade Iraq. How scary is that. Really. Replace "Bush" with any leader from history that we consider "bad" Still think it's a good idea?

Evangelical anyone is absolutely frightening.

This is a military board. We claim to support the troops, some are "troops". There are people dying in Afghanistan because the resources that could have helped them were diverted to that goatf*ck in Iraq. That is a fact.

[Old300]

Pinkeye, I suppose the President's opposition to paying for foreign women's abortions has allowed some future terrorists to be born. But surely his support of paying for domestic defense contractors' weapons systems has killed far more.

[Tane Angle]

Nice post, CJ. p-)

I've been saying that AIDs and such in Africa has been causing major social breakdown and thus sub-Saharan Africa is fast becoming an ideal recruiting ground for terrorists.

Also cut from our aid to Africa were things like teachers to explain how AIDs works. Right now, a huge number of Africans believe that condoms spread AIDs-partly because condoms are relatively foreign to them, and partly because that's what the Catholic Church tells them. Education is the only way to stem the epidemic. Condoms too, yes, but condoms have almost no effect on stopping AIDs. They are rarely effective, but it's better than nothing. And lets face it, people will have *** either way. Better they be smart about it.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[Trident-za]

California Joe and Tane Angle.... great posts! Agree completely with what both of you are saying.

As a matter of curiousity, my wife is fairly anti-Bush, not because of anything he has done really.... but the fact that he is essentially a "fundamentalist" type personality scares the sh** out of her....

[Tane Angle]

Thanks bud. :oops:

No offense to any fundamentalists out there, but I have trouble believing in much of anything 100%. I'm wary of those who do. If it helps them get through the day, and doesn't hurt anyone else, I say good for them though. Of course, Bush is hurting others, so not good for us.

I would make a question about religion, but I don't think this is the place for it. Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

My observation from working in both Europe, the US and the Middle-East is that W. is an intellectual (dirty word there) light-weight, who sees issues in the most filtered black and white ways. I think you'd have been better served by McCain, or by cutting off Clinton's pecker, and re-electing him.

The UN is full of pointy headed intellectuals, who are so stymied by their own internal conflicts that they are unable to actually do anything. There's a lot to be said for a leader who does not suffer from crippling moral relativism. A leader's job is to lead...not govern by polls or focus groups. Or hey, let's consider all opinions and actions valid - that way we don’t' have to be mean and say anybody is wrong (and as a bonus, we don't have to do anything!)

Heh, Clinton's problem was not his pecker, it was his other head. You know, the one who decided to deal with terrorists as if they were shoplifters.

I consider myself a fairly intelligent and competent person. And yet I have accomplished not even a fraction of what Bush43 has. A bachelor's from Yale, an MBA from Harvard Business, a pilot, managing general partner of a pro baseball team, governor of Texas (twice), now the President of the US...and yet for some reason some who are not even qualified to park the man's car will sit in their own filth & call him the idiot. Maybe he should have spent more money on his hair & that would do the trick.

If it's all that easy, why aren’t we all the President / PM / King / whatever? And don't tell me "money" or whatever - no amount of money can hide incompetence or inability at the levels these people function at. At the risk of repeating myself;


"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
(Paris Sorbonne,1910)

[Trident-za]

Some good points 2Sheds_Jackson (odd name btw - where did you get it?)

"Paralysis through analysis" is a common thing in the intellectual world. Unfortunately, in the "real world" the following are just as common: "dumb stuff cause you didn't think it through" or "dumb stuff cause you think the world is divided into black or white issues".

Some sort of compromise between the two is best, I think.

Personally, I admire Bush in many ways - its no small thing to stand up and speak to the whole world when you have dyslexia and can't do public speaking well. Takes a lot of balls. And, he obviously believes in everything he is doing. However, his fundamental approach leads to a "black or white" mentality which doesn't come close to reflecting reality.... this I don't like, not to mention the religious angle which is scary. I admire him, I wouldn't vote for him.....

And, if you paid me $50 trillion dollars to be president of the USA, I'd turn it down - the job is too difficult and stressful for that kinda money :lol:

[Tane Angle]

I consider you a pretty intelligent and competent person myself, bud.

Some people on here are American citizens and of voting age, and others are not but are still greatly affected by Bush's actions. That's enough reason to question what he's done, no? How else would we qualify who can question him and who can't? Is James? What about California Joe here? Or XASA? Am I? Who would get to? Taxpayers? Parents? Citizens? People who've seen combat?


The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly;...Bush's blood?


...spends himself in a worthy course;... Bush detractors will say Bush has not spent himself on a worthy course, while his proponents will say that Bush has.


...so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." Bush has never seen war. The victories and defeats he knows are only in mergers and baseball games and elections. He has never seen war.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[Truthsayer]

I would like to rate this thread 'one of the better so far'. Not much mudslinging and many lenghty or well-thought-out posts.

Some very nice reads and a lot to ponder about.

[Durandal]

Just out of curiosity, what is McCain's record with special interest groups? He is not from my State and admittedly I pay more attention to those that represent me.

For the most part, I respect the man, I disagree with his stance on Gun Ownership, but that is about it...at least what I admittedly know about him.

Ultimately, I would love to see a third party. Filled, mainly, with Libertarians. Our current "two party" system is failing us both in the legislature and the executive branches. We are getting less representation, more taxation (regardless of what Bush has "given" back), and, in my eyes, a ruling party (yes, single party) that is more and more dissassociated with the people that, in theory give them power.

I'll leave it at that for right now, and come back to it. Admittedly I have skimmed this thread so if this topic has already been discussed, please ignore it. :)

[cut]

Bush believes that God wanted him to invade Iraq. How scary is that. Really. Replace "Bush" with any leader from history that we consider "bad" Still think it's a good idea?

Evangelical anyone is absolutely frightening.

This is a military board. We claim to support the troops, some are "troops". There are people dying in Afghanistan because the resources that could have helped them were diverted to that goatf*ck in Iraq. That is a fact.

I couldn't agree more. I'm glad you believe that Bush believing God gave him a reason to go to war scary.

[SeanAshi]

couldn't agree more. I'm glad you believe that Bush believing God gave him a reason to go to war scary.Have you talked to G-d? Maybe G-d did tell President Bush to goto war :P

[usa320]

IM definately voting for Bush, but if McCain was running against Bush, id have to choose Mccain. Him and powell are the only people i would vote for over bush.

[Fox2]

Very interesting discussion, guys.

A question from me, though, what is the problem with the man's religion? He's religious. So what? Are those with a religious faith ineligible to hold political office? Please.

Freedom of religion extends to all citizens, even the President.

Personally, I'd rather have a President who's a bit religious and possesses some moral fiber than a President devoid of morals whatsoever. (read: Clinton)

[budanski]

Wow Cut™, when did the DNC recruit you?

Bush not wanting to talk alone? Yes he was president at the time of 9/11 for all 8 months (not to mention the democrat majority senate at the time stalled Bush's nominees for his administration for months) while Bubba (Clinton) who had all 8 years, was accompanied by not one, but two. Three weeks ago, Clinton was accompanied by his White House counsel Bruce Lindsey and his National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. All three were "grilled" (more like wanting to know when to meet up for dinner: ahem, Gorelick) by the same commission and get this, they werent under oath either.

You may ask what does Clinton have to do with this? Well, to some liberals here on this side of the pond. Hate for America only started brewing when Bush was sworned in.

[Royal]

Very interesting discussion, guys.

A question from me, though, what is the problem with the man's religion? He's religious. So what? Are those with a religious faith ineligible to hold political office? Please.

Freedom of religion extends to all citizens, even the President.

Personally, I'd rather have a President who's a bit religious and possesses some moral fiber than a President devoid of morals whatsoever. (read: Clinton)

Because religious fundamentalists scare me.

Whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or anything else. Their religious beliefs blind them to criticism and moderation. They lead them to think that they are invulnerable and that 'thier' answer is the only one. Sadly Blair also fits this catagory.

[Durandal]

How about Condoleezza Rice in 2008?

[Old300]

Most of the people I went to university, graduate school, and law school with were just as vehement in their secularism as the Southern Baptists I grew up with were about the Lord. I think we can all agree that non-religious ideologies like communism, various forms of fascism and even, perhaps, free-market capitalism can and do demand the same level of adherence and commitment that a religion does. For that reason, a militant atheist or a condescending agnostic is at least as frightening to me as a committed Christian: both groups have the same know-it-all air of superiority and self-righteousness as the worst holy rollers around here (while lacking the traditional moral precepts that religious believers of all kinds are meant to follow).

Another point: George Bush is an evangelical Christian, but he is not a fundamentalist Christian. The distinction matters. A fundamentalist believes and endeavors to follow every word of the Bible. Bush is actually quite moderate on many points in this respect, as demonstrated by his positions on female roles in society, the prominence of non-Christian advisors on his staff, and (among many other ways) in his general bearing. Nevertheless, he's a committed believer in God.

Final point: he has never said that he invaded Iraq because God told him to do so. He's explained that he prayed about the decision, but, if anything, doing so is a sign of humility, thoughtfulness, and seriousness.

[Durandal]

For that reason, a militant atheist or a condescending agnostic is at least as frightening to me as a committed Christian: both groups have the same know-it-all air of superiority and self-righteousness as the worst holy rollers around here...

A great point...

[cut]

How about Condoleezza Rice in 2008?

she'll have to find a first lady first

[cut]

Very interesting discussion, guys.

A question from me, though, what is the problem with the man's religion? He's religious. So what? Are those with a religious faith ineligible to hold political office? Please.

Freedom of religion extends to all citizens, even the President.

Personally, I'd rather have a President who's a bit religious and possesses some moral fiber than a President devoid of morals whatsoever. (read: Clinton)

Because religious fundamentalists scare me.

Whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or anything else. Their religious beliefs blind them to criticism and moderation. They lead them to think that they are invulnerable and that 'thier' answer is the only one. Sadly Blair also fits this catagory.

do you honestly believe that Blair is a christian to the extent he portrays?

To me just the fact that he claims to be anglican and catholic and the same time shows he's just out to get the religious approval, seemingly from amercans

[Durandal]

Three weeks ago, Clinton was accompanied by his White House counsel Bruce Lindsey and his National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. All three were "grilled" (more like wanting to know when to meet up for dinner: ahem, Gorelick) by the same commission and get this, they werent under oath either.

And its overlooked by the media. Which pisses me off. Just like the supposed links of those Jordanian suicide bombers (caught) with AQ training IN Iraq.

*shakes head*

[Old300]

cut, Blair's religious conviction has earned him the sneering condescension of much of middle class and metropolitan Britain. I doubt that he would pretend to be something that he is not just to make me happy while alienating most of the people who write columns and produce news programs about him.

[weedman]

Let's drop Bush and send him to Iraq as a soldier. :lol:

[pinkeye]

How about Condoleezza Rice in 2008?

i hope you are not serious. rice is thoroughly incompetent as national security advisor; there have been numerous articles explaining just how lousy she is...

frankly, there are no great candidates on either side, no one that genuinely merits general public support.

[Old300]

Condi Rice has been National Security Advisor at the most dangerous and complex period in our history since the Cuban missile crisis. You won't find a prominent US politician who has anything bad to say about her (whereas plenty have unkind things to say about Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc.) - she's universally respected by those who matter. By the way, she was the provost of Stanford, is fluent in lots of obscure languages, and is a world class cellist. And she's accomplished all these things since starting out as a poor little black girl in Alabama. Not an easy thing to do. She rocks.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Condi Rice has been National Security Advisor at the most dangerous and complex period in our history since the Cuban missile crisis. You won't find a prominent US politician who has anything bad to say about her (whereas plenty have unkind things to say about Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc.) - she's universally respected by those who matter. By the way, she was the provost of Stanford, is fluent in lots of obscure languages, and is a world class cellist. And she's accomplished all these things since starting out as a poor little black girl in Alabama. Not an easy thing to do. She rocks.

I'd agree with that. As a totally racist/sexist etc. etc. right wing bastard myself, I'd totally support her if she ran for president. She completely bitch-slapped the 9/11 panel into submission - they couldn't get a single explosive sound byte out of her, nor did she lose her composure. I would have shat myself several times, were I in her shoes.

Condie Rice in '08 with...mmm maybe with Bill Bennet as VP...naw he's got that gambling thing going. Man, it would be a frickin' hoot if the Republicans were the first to elect a Black woman as prez.

Then maybe a big chunk of the Dem's (completely taken for granted) constituency would wake up & smell the coffee.

[IDFM203]

Since we are talking about condie well I can just see this matchup…….

Condie Vs Hillary in 2008

Now that is what you call a real catfight ;)

Shalom :D

[pinkeye]

Condi Rice has been National Security Advisor at the most dangerous and complex period in our history since the Cuban missile crisis. You won't find a prominent US politician who has anything bad to say about her (whereas plenty have unkind things to say about Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc.) - she's universally respected by those who matter. By the way, she was the provost of Stanford, is fluent in lots of obscure languages, and is a world class cellist. And she's accomplished all these things since starting out as a poor little black girl in Alabama. Not an easy thing to do. She rocks.

you obviously have not read the many articles that have appeared in well-respected publications such as newsweek, the atlantic monthly, harper's, the new yorker, etc., etc. she is universally perceived to be incompetent as national security advisor for well-documented reasons. here is an excerpt from salon.com:

"Rice is, in fact, a classic example and beneficiary of the political mores of Bush's Washington. In the second Bush administration, to a degree unprecedented among any of its recent predecessors, Democratic or Republican, courtier skills matter far more in rising to and prospering in high political office than political skill, sagacity or knowledge of the issues. Being too attached to any principles or prudence will assuredly mar or destroy your career if they get in the way of key policy goals -- like blaming Iraq for 9/11, or backing the drive to conquer it. Rice has thrived in this environment.

Rice had neither academic background nor serious policy experience in dealing with the Middle East, terror groups or extreme Islam. She was the top national security official on watch for eight months before 9/11. As Clarke has made clear, that should have been ample time for her to ratchet up the national government's level of alert and efficiency against the well-documented threat about which she had been exhaustively and presciently warned. She did no such thing. Instead, she has used her first-rate forensic and diplomatic skills only to obfuscate, excuse and sidestep to protect Bush and maintain her own perfect record. In the year and a half since 9/11 Rice has compliantly served the personal obsession of the president and the neocon clique running the Pentagon to rush to war in Iraq.

Her unimpeded rise is especially remarkable because Rice's actual record as national security advisor has been, to say the least, spotty and controversial.

Indeed, the record of her failures and coverups is deep and long. Arguably, one has to go back to McGeorge Bundy and the Vietnam War to find a national security advisor with one half as bad a record. Clarke's new book, "Against All Enemies," adds further documentation to the record that Rice was blasé and unconcerned about the al-Qaida terrorist threat before 9/11. She received serious warnings about it, as Clarke has documented, from the outgoing Clinton administration and from Clarke personally. But she did not take them seriously and took no action to maintain the level of priority, let alone upgrade it.

Rice's role was especially egregious on the issue of the entirely false report that Saddam Hussein had sought "yellowcake" uranium in Niger. On Jan. 23, 2003, she published an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times titled "Why We Know Iraq was Lying," in which she claimed Iraq's then-recent declaration of weapons "fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad." Five days later, Bush included the bogus allegation in his State of the Union speech. On June 8, 2003, Rice admitted on ABC's "This Week," "Clearly that particular report, we learned subsequently, was not credible." On July 9, 2003, then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer admitted, "This information should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech."

At no point has Rice played the wise and moderate "vicar" of national security policy, reining in the neocons and playing the moderate but crucial "swing" role between neocon hawks and old internationalist veteran Republicans in the administration. On the contrary, she has repeatedly opposed and undermined that "moderate" wing, led by Secretary of State Powell and his right-hand man, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, at every stage."

and this is just the tip of the iceberg. as i have stated, there are numerous articles on ms. rice. here is another:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2098499/

and for your information, ms. rice was not a poor little black girl. why would you assume she was poor? in fact, she comes from a middle-class family.

so she was provost of stanford, fluent in a number of languages, and a cellist. is that supposed to be indicative of something? no one is debating her intelligence, just her competence as national security advisor.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Oh gosh, she's incompetent because she doesn’t' think the way Salon.com thinks she should. Or because she's made "controversial" decisions? The best way to avoid controversy is to do nothing. And Newsweek? Come on, what do you expect from them? How about some examples from publications that aren’t' well documented mouthpieces for the left?

It's very odd to me that the very rags that preach racial preference 24/7 are the ones now saying that this woman got the job without the requisite qualifications. Tsk tsk..can't have it both ways fellas. Where were they when Clinton appointed Jocelyn Elders - you know, the Surgeon General who recommended that we teach our kids to masturbate in school?

They just hate the fact that it's a Republican who's got minorities performing successfully at high levels. Why, that's the left's job! These black folks can't naturally be thinking this way - thinking as conservatives - they must simply be puppets..because all black folks think alike right? The all-loving, all-including left are the ones who are unable to come to grips with the fact people are not to be pigeonholed based on skin color.

[Old300]

Pinkeye, it should go without saying that Newsweek, The New Yorker, and Salon (inter alia) would find her incompetent, just as The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and the Weekly Standard loathed Sandy Berger. People that I respect (of both parties) and who know a lot more about these things than a journalist (of whatever political persuasion) think that she's great. Nothing I have seen or heard from her - in op-ed pieces, interviews, and her performance before the 9/11 Commission - contradict that.

I mentioned her non-political attributes not as a way to argue that she's a competent NSA, but rather, to suggest that she's a remarkable person and a good presidential candidate (as everyone knows, biography is an extremely important factor in elections), which is what the discussion was about by the time I posted the message.

As for being "poor": her father was educated, but her family was nevertheless poor. Even if she were rich, however, she was a little black girl in Alabama during segregation, and achieving what she has achieved is amazing.

[Durandal]

Oh gosh, she's incompetent because she doesn’t' think the way Salon.com thinks she should.

rofl

Hit THAT nail on the head....

You can also add that these same publications LOVED Samuel Berger.

[Fox2]

Because religious fundamentalists scare me.

Whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or anything else. Their religious beliefs blind them to criticism and moderation. They lead them to think that they are invulnerable and that 'thier' answer is the only one. Sadly Blair also fits this catagory.

I respect that opinion, but at the same time, you understand that "secular fundamentalism" is just as scary, right?

Saying that a leader who is religious is more dangerous or less capable than a leader with no religion is just as deep into fundamentalism as those who say only they're religion is correct. It is in effect saying, "None of your religions are right, the only right way is secularism."

Just some food for thought.

On the topic, I'd definitely vote for Condoleeza Rice, if she ran. p-)