Vaj wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2009, at 9:53 AM, raunchydog wrote: > >> It's hard to imagine some one didn't tell Obama to fact check his >> history books about what happens to countries determined to "finish >> the job" in Afghanistan. It looks like we're in it for the long haul. >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/politics/25policy.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss >> >> > > One can't help but wonder how different things would have been if > Hillary was President. With her innate diplomacy skills, I just cannot > imagine her getting us entangled in Afghanistan or any other wars. > Really at this point, while politicians cry over where we'll get money > to provide universal healthcare, it really has to boil down to who > will be the person who will be willing to de-escalate the need to go > to war or remain at war and who will bring that money back home. Who > will downsize the military budgets that hog up over half of the > Federal taxes we pay? Is there such a candidate?
I think that Hillary would have been bought off just like Obama. After all I didn't approve of Bill's incursions into Eastern Europe either. Our only hope may be that the economy collapses so much that the big boys are broke too and can't afford to run the show. That retort to Manning's post about the economy improving was from a major investment firm for the rich saying that they fear the economy *is* going to collapse bringing hard times for the rich. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people. ;-)
