I think that it is easy to be critical of either candidate, their positions often lack sufficient detail.

I believe none of the candidates will truly understand the full depth of the difficulties they will inherit until they receive their first full briefings. It is at that time that the character of the individual will become paramount.

What I have observed is that Obama appears to not respond too quickly to difficult questions, he appears to mull things over and provide a deliberated reaction, he cast a sense that he is guided by a strongly magnetic moral compass.

I like the idea of having a leader who looks before he leaps. After this heart stopping administration it would be nice to have someone at the helm who at least appears to be calm and thoughtful, rather than emotionally reactive without forethought of the full consequences of their words and deeds.

Call me a dreamer or that I am living in a fantasy world, but, I believe that a thoughtful intelligent leader, who the young will follow, that wishes to talk and educate as he or she carefully charts our course into an uncertain future is just what the doctor ordered. I feel that Mr. Obama can be that leader.

The Super Delegates or whomever should listen to the written word of William, give Obama time to mature. If he were to be elected President, he would have nothing to offer the world or the U.S. other than being a new U.S. President who has to start all over, to learn how to be a man in an office vs others who have controlled it for one too many years.
It would take Obama years before he is taken seriously, if he is able to work with the Republicans and the world leaders.

The world leaders know the Clinton's. Yes, that is a good thing. Hillary could hit the ground running. She is the one person out of the current candidates who can get the attention of the world leader's and have them listen and respect her ideas and get the U.S. back into the good graces of the world sooner than Obama could ever do.
That's just one of the beneficial things her experience could do for us, the American citizens. She has the right idea on many social plans and I believe she can gain the support of both parties to correct the ills of Bush and get America back to prosperity.
Plus, it would not be a bad thing to have Hillary be the President for eight years then her Vice President who gained eight years of experience, Obama, become the President for the next eight years! Keep one party in office for that long and maybe we can keep focused on one thing, America.

Still on Homeland Security:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HomelandSecurityFactSheet.pdf

This paper is somewhat biased, but it underlines some elements of truth about the political process related to any election, namely the adaptation of a candidate's discourse in order to broaden its targeted electorate.
On the Missile Defense debate, senator Obama has readjusted his policy by comforting both the opponents and the advocates of missile defence. One hand he endorses the sceptic concerns on the reliability and the costs of the system; on the other hand he reassures the supporters by affirming the necessity to deploy defensive systems. This way, he intends to maximize favourable votes on both sides of the Arms Control debate.

Yet, to respond to the alleged absence of "Homeland Security Positions" on Barack Obama's webpage, see:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/homeland/

Finally: quid of Senator Clinton's position on Missile Defense? Is it less complex and clearer than Senator Obama's stance?

The notion that Senator Clinton has serious foreign policy experience is just plain silly when you examine the case. She has no military experience, no serious executive experience, and a horribl temperment for negotiations of any kind.

The notion that she will make a good commander in chief really seems more based on the idea that she is tough and ruthless - rough and toothless would be going too far. Americans seem to think that a good commander in chief needs to be able to talk tough and play dirty. This sort of harshness in foreign affairs has been a disaster.

A good commander in chief needs experience, true enough. And Obama lacks it. But they also need a comprehensive view, the ability to listen to advisors who will always know more and synthesize their views. A good commander in chief needs to be able to forge coalitions and inspire the sort of respect for our nation that will make negotiations far easier. Obama possesses all of this - Clinton none.

As far as spending money on weapon systems that don't work goes, many politicians are willing to spend as much on the military as they can when it is to the benefit of their constituents and thus themselvs. That you have failed to recognize this almost universally recognized fact of American politics, Mr. Arkin, is rather strange. As to whether missile systems now work, I am not sure. But they were supported for years by many of our most brilliant strategists when they didn't work. They also could prove to exacerbate a new space race with China. Obama's position is perfectly sensible from this point of view.

The notion that Senator Clinton has serious foreign policy experience is just plain silly when you examine the case.

Theo Horesh

Theo means 'god'. Its good to hear from you god, I've wondered where you've been while the USA was busily going around the world invading other nations.

What is your definition of foreign policy experience? Would you not agree that after 7 years in office, that George Bush still does not have any foreign policy experience?

He hasn't resolved any foreign policy matters or crisis, that he has mostly created. What Hillary has is what this nation and the world needs right now, particularly given the damage that has been done by Bush and the Bushtanista Party.

She has the requisite knowledge, understanding, world-wide connections and worldwide support verses the vying novices.

Again, I like John McCain, however, he will only cause more mistrust of the United States, and he will further alienate America's allies and other nations of the world.

Obama should spend the next 4 years pursuing more knowledge, then he will make a great President.

We need an erudite, experienced individual who is capable of building consensus, and that's Hillary.

Men simply want to 'play war', we always have and apparently we always will - it has never gotten out of our systems!

Down with misogyny and missiles!

plainfacto,

American foreign policy and the scriptures are light years apart.

Those other nations who have reacting, are reacting to the fact that America has been, and is still trying to do them harm.

America appears to be the eschatalogical Babylon, that was referred to in biblical prophecy. And to boot, we are currently occupying Babylon, while dictating to all other nations what they will and will not do!

My feelings are that once we solve America's problem, 3/4's of the world's problems will be solved!

Missile defense is going to become a very big issue in the 10 years or so, but it's not big on voters minds now. The reason that missile defense will become a big deal is that over the next decade or so, many countries will develope the ability to make nuclear weapons (if not the weapons themselves). Nuclear power is going to expand greatly due to the increased cost of oil and gas. If you have a nuclear reactor you can probably get fuel for a bomb.

Missile technology is also going to inevitably come down in price and is going to become more accessable to a larger number of countries or even countryless groups. With some good people and perhaps a few tens of millions of dollars, several groups of hard working experimenters were able to build reusable spacecraft (Rutan and Spaceship One, etc.) There is no reason to believe that some group in Iran, etc. won't be able to at the very least copy what those guys did.

We will need a limited missile defense capability. The person we want for president will be able to convince the big guys (Russia, China) that the missile defense is not able to defend against them.

//American foreign policy and the scriptures are light years apart\\ -The Rev

Perhaps they are. I'm not expecting nor asking for a theocracy; I am hoping that whatever leader is in place is aware of the Law of God. My point is to say that regardless of who may be in office, their choices affect the poor as well as the rich. It affects the poor and rich in foriegn countries - when we must intervene.

The article lacks any relevance and just pushes fear. The bias is lauded at points that make me sick to my stomach. We just had 8 years of a moron as our president. 8 years of a moronic individual leading us. Now, either we want special interests/morally corrupt Billary, or we want a candidate that is a lot more untainted and willing to work with everyone to find solutions. Hmmm. This article seems tipped with politics rather than any balance. MISSILE DEFENSE - yeah, that should really be our main concern. Not educating the ignorant public that pumps thousands of dollars in an economic system that exists only to rape their hard work. Give me a break. Let's stop wasting money on the military. We wouldn't have so many enemies if we weren't so damn gun crazy. Get a grip you sexually impotent humans and throw away your phallic obsession.

I remain amused by the "Hillary has a plan, Obama doesn't" argument.

In my experience, plans proposed during a Presidential campaign seldom (never?) manifest themselves during any President's administation. The more detailed the plan, the less likely it will ever see the light of day. As Arkin has rightly pointed out in several previous blogs, the power of the President to actually implement a specific course of action/detailed plan is severely restricted by (first) the compelling intertia of government bureaucracy, and (second) Congressional checks and balance. In short, IMHO, the power of the President as CEO is vastly overrated.

That said, the President's real power is in establishing and focusing the agenda. Setting the theme and tenor. Chosing the background music that Congress and the Executive Branch will dance to during his/her four year term. Exercising THOSE powers is the real test of Presidential leadership.

So. As I see it. The question before the country is not "Who has the best plan?", but rather "Who best demonstrates a vision, and can it articulate sufficiently well enough, to inspire action which will address those issues that need to be resolved?" Once inspired, focused, set free to think, and compelled by the rightness of doing 'the people's work', the intellectual capital resident in the professional staffers of the Executive and Legislative Branches can do great things. And make vision become reality.

In short, asking about a Presidential candidate's plan is foolish. What is important is knowing each candidate's vision and priorities. And then judging whether they may have the requisite leadership wherewithal to command and inspire.

I'm not sure Arkin's blog today offers any insight into the answer to those questions.

John Kyl has a fan club

http://www.jonkylisaliar.blogspot.com/

"We'll start by seeking a global ban..."

That's nice, until one remembers that the US is not part of the 'global'...

We're EXCEPTIONAL!

IOW, empty-of-real-content sloganeering... and also please note that neither the US nor Russia's nuclear weapons systems are ON 'hair trigger alert'. Premeditation to commit a pre-emptive strike is the current strategy.

Think Iran as a TARGET... not preparedness for a sneak attack by a nuclear power.

Again... blankness from Obama... Hillary...

Just so much blahblahblah.

It's the only way a president can get elected in the US.

Platitudes dude.

What the HELL is the point of this article? This article is a typical example of ways in which Big Media (like Big Oil) has intellectually polluted political thought and discourse in America. The problem is, unlike Big Oil, Washington Post and others don't even acknowledge their pollution, its consequence.

Whether Obama is ready or not - the question is, Is Bill Arkin out of sync with times or public expectations when it comes to espousing opinion pieces on Missile Defence and the 2008 Presidential Politics. Judging from this article, I conclude that he is far from it. This opinion piece is essentially a "PARROTING" of preset media and campaign storylines with time spent gathering some facts. Here are the supposed conclusions/suggestions that are put forward and while counched as intelligent commentary, they are no different than O'Reilly's "Talking Point Memo" on Fox News. Both for their logic and for their implied impact on the 2008 campaign.

Point: Obama has little experience with missile defence. The Republicans will point this out and WAALLLAA, he will lose the general elction.

Just as he has lost so miserably to Clinton in all these primaries? Ahh, I see the counter argument, Clinton is nothing, wait until the Republicans get going. See below for how far from reality this logic is.

Point: Republicans will make ludicrous accusations based on twisted facts (which I, Bill Arkin, will cut and paste from Defense Daily into my opinion piece - that way I can get home early for dinner).

And HENCE, Obama is not ready for Prime Time because we the journalists are paid by the word/page views/exposure etc.. and not for thinking about wrong accusations let alone questioning or invalidating them.

It is as if a Policeman is suggesting that only criminals should work at a bank because other criminals can rob the bank. No Mr. Policeman, it is YOUR job to protect the bank.

Point: If Obama's team thinks seriously about policy questions, in response to attacks, they are fools. Real successful politicians - like John Kyl - and George Bush - don't do that. They just make ludicrous accusations back (which I, Bill Arkin, can again cut and paste in my piece and go home early for dinner next week also).

So in a national race of John Kyl vs Obama, Kyl wins hands down....unless Obama dirties it up as he has so effectively done thus far....????

Point: If Obama has not laid out fully detailed position/plan on every aspect of Missile Defense, he will either loose (so democrats please pick Hillary since she negotiated tough arms control deals with Brezhnev and Krushchev) or he is not ready for presidency.

In fact the Bush administration is reformulating its own position on Missile Defense following Putin's posturing. And the fact is that Clinton/McCain/John Kyl/or the Defense Daily itself/ do not have a detailed position or plan either. And the fact is that a real plan on Missile Defense is not even in the TOP 10 issues that voters are concerned about. But none of this is relevant to the argument Because..???

Screw, logic or common sense. I, Bill Arkin, and my bosses, want to write a piece that can potentially get air-time, maybe on Situation Room, OR Hardball. And the current hot storyline is "Obama is inexperienced!!!" - OOOOHHHHH I am soooooo EXCIIIITED to be on TV !!!

How do facts from this election bear this out? The reason Obama is ahead and McCain has won against all odds is that - Real People Who Vote - are generally sick and tired of baseless charges (like the one's from John Kyl) and the positioning of those accusations as facts and/or real challenges facing a president.

The same Baseless-Charge-Making-Republicans that you and many others (Clinton Camp??) opine/hint will trip up Obama in a national election, have already failed against McCain in their own party primaries. Yes... it is the same ones whose high decibel shouts supposedly doomed the McCain campaign.

Notwithstanding the echoing echo chamber, the percentage of americans who are seeing through the intellectual bankruptcy and real cost of the Rush/Hannity/Kyl/Clinton approach to political discourse is high enough and getting larger everyday.

So can I dare suggest, that Mr. Bill Arkin, in keeping with the times, you could be really doing your job much better and the country a greater service by really preparing an opinion piece that thoughtfully addresses any one of the issues below or perhaps some that you yourself outline at in Para 8.

"What one actually thinks about missile defenses stems from how one views the threat, whether one thinks missile defenses are the right approach, the prospects for diplomacy and arms control, the advantages of early deployment versus continued research, the superior position of coercion and sanctions and pressure backed up by force, and even preemption."

Your opinion piece did not even attempt to inquire or inform the reader on any candidates real views (not just based on Lexis/Nexis) on the above issues. I am sure they all have views on the above even if not articulated on a website or cited by the Defense Daily. Or is that not as important for the country as what John Kyl claims their opinion is?

There are some other questions that perhaps some day the Washington Post can write an informed opinion on :

Should missile defense be a critical foreign policy issue in this campaign?

If so, why should it be?

And if so, what would it take for the country to achieve it?

What kind of budget will it take given the new realities and based on what has been learned from efforts so far?

What kind of bipartisan co-operation will it take to have successful missile defence?Is that cooperation possible - if not why not?

What kind of foreign policy approach will it take? What are the pitfalls of that approach? How could the new president and/or congress handle these pitfalls?

All the questions above are worth discussing in the REAL AMERICA - not the REALITY TV NEWS/INFOTAIN world in which your opinion piece above and much of the campaign coverage lives today.

But perhaps Big Media is as confused as Big Oil was a few years ago. There are obvious signs of the coming green revolution in media and the associated appetite for authentic journalism. Election 2008 thus far is one such big sign.

strong fiscal responsibility
reign in the federal reserve crisis/dollar decline
non-interventionist policy
says "NO" to pork barrel politics

Ron Paul's still the answer

Also from Obama's website:

"Here's what I'll say as President: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons.

We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we'll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons. We'll work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, and to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material. We'll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we'll set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.

As we do this, we'll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules. It's time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse. It's time for America to lead. When I'm President, we'll strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that nations that don't comply will automatically face strong international sanctions.

This will require a new era of American diplomacy. To signal the dawn of that era, we need a President who is willing to talk to all nations, friend and foe. I'm not afraid that America will lose a propaganda battle with a petty tyrant - we need to go before the world and win those battles."

DickH has a great idea. Putting a fence around them would be cheaper and more effective. No, I'm not joking. Let us put a fence of a different kind around them. Put our money into alternative fuels and watch thier way of life whither and die on the vine. Missile defense will not work, but putting a missile strike on their pocket book will.

Spoken like a true hero of the republic Plainfacto. When do we slay Ceasar and call in Octavian to declare the republic dead? The plain and simple fact is, Republican or Democrat, missile defense is a pipe dream concocted by money grubbing theives. If it is so great, let the private sector develope it, then let the military buy it. After it's been perfected. Do we not trust the market to do it's job. Never before have we not stood up to defend ourselves, but in this instance, who are we defending ourselves from? Is it the Russians, the Chinese, Terrorists, or the bottom line? This is fantasy, so let us work on better and time tested armaments and techniques.

Does anyone remember Chamberlin and just how well dealing with the devil works. After thousands of years they kill each other just for something to do. Put a fence all the way around the middle east and let no one out. They thrive on hate and it is all they have.

I don't think a multi-billion dollar missile defense system will stop an RPG from Pakistan. However, if we work with Russia and China to limit the ability of Pakistan to create ICBM's, I think that would be a bit more practical. If we would work to end poverty in Pakistan, that would deter those who wish to join extremist groups. If we would pressure, and I mean really pressure Saudi Arabia to stop supporting mudrasas and terrorist groups we could make progress, yet we call them ally. Dear Osama change your name to John Wayne.

//The rest are for Obama so my fellow republicians you are going to see in november just how many of us are tired of this bush crap\\ -james

Then - you can allow HillBilly or Barak to end up doing the same thing, and gas will be ten dollars a gallon - huh? Where will you run when they fail? Where will you run to?

It is unfortunate that people cannot see or refuse to recognize that the external/foreign forces opposed to the US is meaning do it great harm - especially if one buys into their rhettoric. Look, this is your country AND you are responsible to protect and defend it from all enemies - both foreign and domestic. That isn't just the responsibility of the military or law enforcement, it is a responsibility of any and all American citizens...

You have demonstrated that you are a liability to whatever party you choose, because you aren't well-aquainted enough with the facts to make a proper decision. But you have that right...

As long as I'm still alive you may want that missile defense system...

I am a republician and i have had it with my party. Demorcrates no matter who it is Hillary or Obama who gets the nominiation you got to rally behind them. With all the republicians like me and others i know who will be crossing over to vote, and the indenpenedents also its time to change this country. When bush went in office gas was 1.98 a gallon, oil was 48.00 barrel our dollar was worth more and the stock market was up. look where we are today with this republician controled country. We are in a mess and its going to take someone who is ready for a change to get us back on track. ALL YOU REPUBLICIANS OUT THERE like me i ask you one question ARE YOU BETTER OFF TODAY THAN YOU WERE 8 YEARS AGO. the answere is NO. America can not afforde another republician president till the demorcrates straighten this mess out bush has got us into. If mccain wins we will all be unemployed and gas will be over 5.00 a gallon and up. If Mccain wins office We will lose the rest of our supporting countries. With Mccain you get Bush no.3 same on crap just different person in charge. So no matter which canidate is picked you got to get out and vote for a demorcrate. I am for Obama but if hillary is picked i will vote for her before i would vote for McCain. I work in The biggest Home Improvements store in the United States and everbody i talk to has the same opinions about this republician mess we are in. I have asked hundreds who are they for in the presidency and so far i have had 1 woman tell me Hillary Clinton. The rest are for Obama so my fellow republicians you are going to see in november just how many of us are tired of this bush crap.

Yeah, Mad TV is where I get my news. Please.

The middle east problems didn't appear overnight, and certainly won't be resolved in any less time. The truth is that there is a strong political establishment on both sides that does not wish to coexist or make compromises. These politicos were prominant during the initial 6-day war in 1967, and they are not about to back down now. There is not nor will be a president of America that will be able to bring lasting peace to that region. Obama, Clinton, McCain...they all have the same odds of resolving the middle east conflict; 0%. Mutual obliteration is the only thing that kept the US and Russia from coming to blows for nearly 40 yrs, so who are we to assume we can resolve this mess?

As for experience and capability to lead America in the future, all 3 candidates have qualities that MAY be noteworthy.
McCain has a steadfast persona, reminiscent of Reaganism. As of late he appears to be just trying to fall in line with his political party without thinking for himself...that's a shame.
Obama is new to the world stage, bringing possible change to a system that has been doing the status quo for over 50 years. His lack of on-the-job experience is both his strongest attribute and weakness. Refreshingly new can also mean surprisingly inept.
Clinton heralds from a time in our history just before everything went bad. 9/11 hadn't happened, but things were already in motion. She claims her experience as 1st Lady prepared her for the presidency. I don't know if that is the best thing to rest your laurels on. Let's face it, her experience consists of dealing with a unfaithful husband and dodging judicial inquiries for nearly 8 years. And what kind of credit can you take for that experience? My wife likes to garden, but that doesn't make me a farmer.
We worry about missle defense and waging wars, yet we don't see the world is changing around us. Russia is quickly becoming a superpower again, due to increasing profits from oil. China has become a trade-based powerhouse, despite being synonymous with lead-based poison peddlers to the world. I worry about letting children play with toys in Walmart because it may be covered in lead paint or a derivative of GHB. I even lost one of my pets to animal food poisoning...everybody got screwed on that one.

Let Obama dream of being president, Clinton try to recapture the "good old days", and McCain promise to protect us from a war that no longer requires borders.

//Or do they really believe in the seperation of church and state?\\ -The Rev

Yes. I really do believe in a separation of Church and state. My intention was to draw a spiritual connecyion. My point was meant to point out what I consider the definition of just vs unjust gov't. I think that was where you were going with your idea of learning and understanding. Ultimately the truely wise presidential nominee will remenber what the LORD has already written/spoken concerning gov't, and those who chose to forget it will be the ones that will be the solicitors of woes.

Five billion, ten billion, even twenty billion doesn't matter. Since the advent of Regan's vaunted "Star Wars" we have wasted too much money on this failed ideological stunt. I am sick and tired of the military budget being some sickened sacred cow. When was it that militarism translated into patriotism? We cry about our budgets, fraud, and wasteful spending and yet we will cry from the purple mountains majesty to save a wasteful and fraudulent program. Get over it! Spend our hard earned dollars on something other than fear from the missile mongers.

How can anyone still call the Republicans "strong on defense"? With all their "experience they've recklessly flung the US into it's worst foreign policy disaster in decades, weakened the Armed Forces and shown callous disregard for the troops, both in Iraq and after they've returned home. Add that to their ideological opposition to a functioning Federal government and you can't be any weaker on defense!

America's problem...

...it seems to me is not necessarily who becomes President. America needs to change the way that it does business from the ground up; and one unnamed Party, is never going to let that happen.

Those folks would nuke America before that were to occur! Which Party? You know...!

No matter who becomes President they are going to need to rely upon those who have military expertise.

Perhaps having served in the service should be a prerequisite for being President. How else can you qualify to be a commander-in-chief, if you've never been in the military?

The LORD isn't a respector of persons ...

Plainfacto, let's face it, we are not living in a theocracy. The American people have made it clear that they believe in the seperation of church and state.

Or do they really believe in the seperation of church and state?

At any rate, what president can serve two masters? Bush tried and failed...!

This man Obama does not have a clue he can read a speech We had better ask quetions because we can not afford another off the cuff president

Seem's like for a system that does not work they've been doing a pretty good job hitting things. Oh yeah I guess that dead satellite they tore apart had a locator system so they could find and hit it..bull. They've proven they have the sensors and the ability to not only hit warheads but also problem satellites and possibly small earth colliding space bodies (meteors,comets). One day God forbid we may be glad we have the options that a limited missle defense gives us. If attacked by one of the many second rate missle powers out there, or there is an accidental launch from a world power and we intercept it, not only would we have protected American lives and the economy, we would have the option to not respond immediatly with war and or nuclear weapons and save hundreds of thousands on the other side who might otherwise die in a very horrible way (Hiroshima,Nagasaki)from our response.

Missile defense? What about all the missiles we would send back towards whoever fired one at us? I thought that was our defense shield, and it seems to be working pretty well. Isn't this just another neo-con brain child designed to funnel money into military spending? Why does anyone still buy into this?

Missile? You must be kidding while I am out job and my healthcare is taken away, you are talking about missile. Let's see which one needs to be addressed.

You wrote:

"There, Obama said he supported shifting funds from "the unproven missile defense system" to proven technologies and that missile defense needs to be "developed in a way that is pragmatic, cost-effective and will work."

Taken literally, "unproven missile defense systems" are R&D. To shift money from R&D is entirely consistent with his position as stated by Kyl :
"This leading Democrat has gone from statements such as, 'I don't agree with a missile defense system,' to promising that he would save billions in wasteful defense spending by cutting missile defense system research by as much as $10 billion,"

Let's not forget how well-spoken and articulate Obama is, and that words have meaning and that he is (at least for now) speaking from the heart. It seems to me that whatever the speech-geeks try to clarify later, he is a "few guns, lotsa butter" kinda guy, and when he runs out of defense money to buy mo' butta, he's going to come looking for change he can shake loose from our pockets.

Yes he can! Yes he can! Yes he can!

While I think that his positions, philosophy and methods are an anathema to the American way, at least he's speaking forthrightly and we know what we're supporting or rejecting. Its refreshing, so far.

this is only one of the blind spots of obama. after all this laughable craze calms down, it's the american people who will be paying for the price. not too late, people. obama is NOT the one.

HEY KEN..CAN U NAME ME ONE TIME THAT HILLARY HAS HAD A FOREIGN POLICY EMERGENCY,AND WHAT SHE DID???

SHE LOOKED OVER THE BILL TO AUTHORIZE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST Iraq.....

NEVER SECOND GUESSED IT OR SAW THAT THEY WERE GOING INTO Iraq ANYWAY....

HILLARY IS DUMB..
OBAMA IS THE ANSWER

I don't think that anyone would attempt to claim that any president ever took office with an answer for everything and a policy in place for everything. In fact, doing so is impossible before being briefed on the stuff that only presidents get briefed on.

What Obama brings to the table that none of the others do, however, is an unprecedented ability to actually mend fences, restore respect for America abroad, and engender good feelings towards America among the people of the world. Is that going to solve everything? No, but it is a form of "missile" defense in and of itself that is in fact far more effective in general, not to mention cost effective.

As the tragic events of 9/11/2001 aptly demonstrated, Missile Defense is a waste of money. There are plenty of extremely low tech, low cost delivery systems available to fanatics.

Money and time is much more wisely spent understanding and addressing the human and diplomatic aspects of national "defense".

To Born in Chicago: Genocide is fun!

You wrote, "The U.S. or NATO should be able to donate demolition equipment to the Palestinians to get the job done."

I agree. I think that's a great idea! The US and the Israelis gave the so-called Palestinians guns and ammo which they then used to kill Jews after Oslo concluded and the many intifadas began. Now that they are being equipped by the Iranians and the Syrians and have been infiltrated by Al Quaida, I think the wall that's protecting the Jews from the genocidal hordes in the West Bank and Gaza should be taken down immediately. I think we should allow the Arabs to do what they broadcast they will do over their loud speakers, the Internet, their TV broadcasts, and their textbooks and pamphlets. We should let them kill as many Jews as possible. That'll keep the Muslim world off our backs!

Do you work for the Obama campaign? With the quality we see coming out of his foreign policy team, they might give you a senior position.

Hillary can answer this stuff and provide solutions in her sleep. Obama has no clue. Go Hillary

To born in Chicago: Were you born yesterday???

"What we should do immediately is insist on adherence to international law, including the finding by the International Court of Justice that the "wall" should come down"

You are QUITE the idiot!!! First off, SCREW THE ICC. Second, if someone is sending people to kill MY people, YOU WANT TO TEAR DOWN A BARRIER THAT IS PROTECTING THEM?? ARE YOU THAT BRAINWASHED BY YOUR PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGY??? Arghhhhhhh........

The media should investigate as to why Obama brought in David Wilhem into his campaign. Mr. Wilhem was deeply involved Rezko scandal and he knows what role Obama played in it. My guess is that to keep his mouth shut, Obama brought him in his camp. Come on guys dig the truth and let the people know the deceptiveness of Obama. Obama is surviving with the black vote if not he would have gone fishing! He has no credentials or respect with women, hispanics and Asians. I can't imagine he winning the general election without their support.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8

Why is this covered up?
Clinton should apologize

//Let's face it, we need someone who is competent, and has the requisite ability to learn. Senator John McCain, I like him as a person, however, is he teachable? Will he respond to the will of the American people, whether he disagrees with us or not?\\ -The Rev

Sure.
I like to see it as the Bible points out concerning gov't. Paraphrasing it into essence, when any gov't stops concerning itself with the needs of the common person and oppresses them - then that gov't stands in the scales of judgement. It is a terrible thing to be in the wrong and in the sight of the Living God.

So, the winner of this election - whomever they may be - would be the wiser if they remember this; and utterly foolish if they don't. The LORD isn't a respector of persons (great or small), but shows favor to those who do those things that are pleasing in his sight. Anyone - including those politically elected - would do well to remember this...

I'd like to think that under President Obama America can become an honest broker in the Middle East. I'm thinking we should shift our foreign aid away from the Israeli government and toward the Palestinian people, until we have spent as much helping them out as we have given to the govt of Israel over the past 60 years. When the Occupied Palestinian Territories are developed to the point where real estate is worth as much there as it is in Israel, maybe everyone will be ready for a unified secular state with full civil rights for all ethnicities and religions. Such a state would be the envy of all its neighbors, as well as a model for the region. Maybe it will need defensive missiles, but I really don't think that sort of thing should be our primary focus right now.

What we should do immediately is insist on adherence to international law, including the finding by the International Court of Justice that the "wall" should come down. The U.S. or NATO should be able to donate demolition equipment to the Palestinians to get the job done.

A Novice Who Never Learned...

President George W. Bush is the reason that we should be careful who we place
next into the Oval Office.

Let's face it, we need someone who is competent, and has the requisite ability to learn. Senator John McCain, I like him as a person, however, is he teachable? Will he respond to the will of the American people, whether he disagrees with us or not?

I will give John credit for what he said the other day, i.e., that America should have listened to General Colin Powell. The question is respect to Senator McCain is, will he be willing to listen (more than GB did).

Of course he was the first to say that Donald Rumsfeld should have been sacked! Obama is yet to be tested. I wish that he would go and spend the next years getting prepared...!

Someday, he will make a great President!

As a former analyst for a DoD contractor at the LA Air Force Base, I had the job of reconciling contracts for the satellite portion of the missile defense shield. I saw first hand the thousands of line items dating back to the late 70's of billions spent for a system that everyone associated with the project knew did not work and most likely never will work. Over the years, the missile defense shield has proven to be merely a cash cow where defense contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon can bill huge amounts to the federal gov't with virtually no accountability for performance.

I agree with Senator Obama that we should end the missile defense program as it imposes an unnecessary burden on the American taxpayer.

Statements made by Obama in regards to $10 billion budget cuts and cooperation with Israel were taken out of context. $10 billion in budget cuts could accumulate over the course of several years. A missile defense shield for Israel would be a fundamentally different and a more feasible system than the one designed for America in that it would only be required to protect against attacks from neighboring countries. Mr. Arkin's editorial is a great example of how the politics of fear in this election are now in full swing.

Your interesting analysis ended noting that Obama "called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems". In the context of the rest of your article, that tells me he is beginning to think about missile defense, and is beginning to decide details of his position. You decided it had to do with "kowtowing", and demonstrate "drive-by" attack writing on Obama and Israel. C'mon. Your piece was good until the sudden spin at the end.

a little defensive huh?

" "He's proposing to cut $10 billion out of a budget that wasn't even $10 billion this year," Kyl sarcastically added. "

What a great idea. Make the worthless contractors that have wasted billions of dollars on a system that isn't even close to working pay us back!

Missile defense has been a scam since Regan's Star Wars 80's and continues to this day.

Please explain your use of the phrase "Israel lobby". How do you know that Obama's pledge to work with Israel is the result of a "lobby" (a cabal), or a coordinated "lobbying effort" to impact his viewpoint, rather than a decision that he made on other grounds. Explain, while you're at it, your use of the phrase "kowtowing." I anticipate your posting a response immediately.

I mean... that's what American voters REALLY care about (sex), not silly things like war, budgets, and the ongoing Waxman Blackwater USA investigation into tax/labor law/SBA fraud, gun running.

But when all else fails... there's always THIS issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9AH-ufAkCU

Obama's got a 'missile'... and Hillary wants it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTAfGuLA-0

MAD-TV