The following opinions and history revisions are Bruce's, and they deserve their own thread that I don't don't have the time or energy to refute.
On Sep 27, 2008, at 9:54 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > > > On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:03 AM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > >> Some are criticizing McCain for not attacking Obama on the financial >> crisis. (See video clip in my "Who did this to us?" post.) > > > > Well, that left McCain open to his close association with Phil Gramm, > whose legislation Gutting Glass-Steagal lead directly to the current > crisis. > > Also, McCain needs to tread carefully there...it's widely acknowledged > that he announced he was suspending his campaign to rush to washington > to help solve the thing in 'a bipartisan way' and ended up getting the > House Republicans to walk out of the negotiations, and come back with > their completely unworkable plan to provide insurance (hint look up > the financial term 'moral hazard'...guaranteed insurance promotes > riskier, not more conservative behavior) and cut the capital gains tax > (which is just laughable. People aren't not investing in this market > because they'll pay taxes on their gains, they're not investing > because they don't think there are gains to be had. Besides, what are > people going to do with their money, stuff it in their mattresses?) > > I was kind of stunned, though, that McCain called Pakistan a 'failed > state' when Musharraf pulled his coup. He deposed a democratically > elected government. (And lets not forget the entire A.Q.Khan nuclear > weapons network...which occurred under Musharraf's watch. Either it > was done with Musharraf's consent, or Musharraf never controlled > Pakistan)...and his take on North Korea was laughably wrong. > > When Bush came into office, North Korea did not have a nuclear weapon, > did not have enriched uranium to make one, and their reactors were > cold, under seal and monitored by the IAEA. > > The Clinton administration left the Bush Administration with a deal, > an unsavory one amounting to blackmail, to be sure, but it was a deal > and the North Koreans WERE sticking to their word. All we had to do > was keep oil and food flowing. > > Then the Bushies had to go show the world by turning into the cowboys > they are with their 'yer with us or agin us' worldview. > > The Bush Administration is going to hand the next president a nuclear > armed North Korea who shows no inclination to honor deals The US makes > because clearly we'll happily renege on any that don't suit our > current political needs. > > THAT is the Bush Doctrine (the original Krauthammer(R) Bush Doctrine) > in action. > > Obama should have hammered him on that. Mr. 90% supports the same > 'tough' stance on North Korea, a toothless 'toughness' because, > frankly what the hell CAN we do now that we let them get the bomb? > Nuke them into submission? > > I think Obama needs to emphasize putting that he'll be putting adults > in charge of our foreign policy again. > > -- > Bruce Johnson > U of Az College of Pharmacy > Information Technology Group > Institutions don't have opinions, merely customs > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
