I would just like to point out to those people who have a hard time recognizing who's in charge except if their guy isn't...
*All these acts by Presidents were done without Congressional approval.* Both parties created the problem, and now neither party will do anything about it because we're still at war and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Hence the $750 billion stimulus to offset the $750 billion wars. With both spearheaded by a Republican President. And both may grow at nearly the same rate. Why pick one when you can have both? Or as the rich guy in Contact said about building the experimental transport using quasi government funding; "why build one when you can build two at twice the cost"? Note: one was apparent, and one was hidden. I'm simply waiting for Iraq and Afghanistan to turn into a Soviet style defeat unfortunately. If someone in a house down the street is doing something you don't like, you don't camp out on their lawn forever to see that it doesn't happen again. As I've said before in how war should be waged; you react to when it does happen, repeatedly and consistently. Then they'll get the message. Staying there is inefficient, wasteful and uncomfortable. So in conclusion; Obama could be a LBJ and ratchet the war up, or a Nixon and come to the conclusion that it's simply not winnable by certain definitions of the term and pull out. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
