2009 Chickens and Their 2010 Roost

[SB Shock]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/31/2009_chickens_and_their_2010_roost_99734.html

Editorial by Victor Hanson and basically says the following will happen in 2010:


1. Obama assumed the terrorist (and other foes) just didn't like George Bush. Therefore Obama reached out and the Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Puti saw it as a weakness to be exploited.

2. Islamic militants continue to show that:

So, while we assured the world in 2009 that we wouldn't be overzealous in our various efforts to stop terrorists, the terrorists proved they most certainly would be in theirs to kill us.

3. US will either have to to do something with the runaway budgets or watch the exponential growth of the national debt and inflation hit this country.

4. World recession held down fuel prices but will energy prices will likely start increasing again in 2010. US Government did nothing positive for our country energy policy like add additional nuclear plants (in fact Pelosi was stopping wind farms in her state).

[ISASO]

Isn't it true that the Soviets felt Kennedy was weak on national defense as well, embolding them to move missiles to Cuba?

Given that history lesson, why would Obama believe that his muslim roots, his heaven-sent personality and style of reconciliation and apology would be perceived as strength and would magically cause them to lay down their terrorist ways and fall head over heels in love with the U.S.?

Does this administration think that Obama is exempt from the lessons of history?

[rjl]

Isn't it true that the Soviets felt Kennedy was weak on national defense as well, embolding them to move missiles to Cuba?

Given that history lesson, why would Obama believe that his muslim roots, his heaven-sent personality and style of reconciliation and apology would be perceived as strength and would magically cause them to lay down their terrorist ways and fall head over heels in love with the U.S.?

Does this administration think that Obama is exempt from the lessons of history?

Interesting that you make a very opinionated post based off of an editorial--which is, by definition, an opinion--yet you treat it all as fact.

Of course, that seems to be your mantra: making straw arguments so outlandish that attacking them is easy.

Shouldn't you strive for something more difficult? Attacking reality, perhaps? If not, why?

[ISASO]

I'll re-phrase part of my post as a series of questions then, asking if this is reality.

First confirm my recollection of history:
Isn't it true that the Soviets felt Kennedy was weak on national defense as well, emboldening them to move missiles to Cuba?

Now to the heart of the matter:
Does Obama believe that his muslim roots, his heaven-sent personality, his style of reconciliation and apology would be perceived as strength, magically causing them to abandon their terrorist ways and fall head over heels in love with the U.S.?

Does this administration think that Obama is exempt from the lessons of history?
**************************
I seriously doubt we will get an honest effort made towards answering these questions. The most we can hope for is another Alinsky-prescribed killing of the messenger.

[Maggie]

Isn't it true that the Soviets felt Kennedy was weak on national defense as well, embolding them to move missiles to Cuba?

Given that history lesson, why would Obama believe that his muslim roots, his heaven-sent personality and style of reconciliation and apology would be perceived as strength and would magically cause them to lay down their terrorist ways and fall head over heels in love with the U.S.?

Does this administration think that Obama is exempt from the lessons of history?

Interesting that you make a very opinionated post based off of an editorial--which is, by definition, an opinion--yet you treat it all as fact.

Of course, that seems to be your mantra: making straw arguments so outlandish that attacking them is easy.

Shouldn't you strive for something more difficult? Attacking reality, perhaps? If not, why?

If you have an issue with the opinions expressed by VDH or anyone else for that matter, then say so and why. Interestingly (or not), you disapprove of others and accuse them of logical fallacies while committing one yourself.

It would help if you would explain why you believe the reasoning is flawed.