Total Vanity -My mind-to-mind combat with Obamalamadingdongs over appeasement.

I smell blood in the water after Obama's stop in South Dakota yesterday and I've been giving the surrender monkeys on Youtube some major hell. Sorry Freepers, I like to argue. Here are all my comments. Feel free to adopt them as your own. I probably stole them from guys far smarter than me anyways!

This first bit is all me though; This may be the most brilliant political trap I’ve ever seen. In a few short remarks, Bush has completely shifted all focus to the discussion of appeasing terrorists. Obama took the bait. And he’s self destructing before our eyes. We’ve got to hand it to W, he loaded the weapon, handed it to B.O. and Barack fired it at himself over and over at this press conference. And he promised to shoot himself more in the future; “anytime, anywhere!”

It’s a shame that he might do this before locking up the nomination. It will be interesting to see if the hyenas in press devour his carcass now that they smell blood from a gaping wound. Of course, his staff is now in total damage control and he’ll answer these questions better in the future. I wonder if we’ll see his anger in the days to come like we saw today.

We’ve got to get this up on Youtube, clips need to be excerpted and analyzed, his lies deconstructed, his sophistry exposed, his quotes from this conference need to be pamphletized, force the issue on the media, keep the full court press going and grind him in the gears of the machine… And pray the super delegates stay with him and that the Clintons don‘t have a video of Michelle blaming “Whitey“ from the pulpit of Wright‘s church.

This may be the Obama’s best minute in today’s press conference. I’m not surprised this is the only clip CNN is running Obama Speaks to Reporters in South Dakota http://thepage.time.com/obama-speaks-to-reporters-in-south-dakota/

Obama Fires Back at Bush, McCain http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/16/obama_fires_back_at_bush_mccai.html

Somebody please, please, please post the link to the press conference transcript or video.

I don’t believe what I saw at the press conference after his address and I fear it is getting lost in the weekend news cycle! Seriously, it was the worst I’ve ever seen him. He bombed time and time again telling huge whoppers along the way. For example, he said we shouldn't have supported democratic elections for Palestinians due to the possibility that Hamas might win.

This Friday afternoon I was blown away watching the live news conference with Barack Obama. He was struggling to keep on message, “Bush has strengthened Iran and so would McCain!” but he was having to fend off tough questions from the press about appeasement without the benefit of a teleprompter or speech notes. He may have self destructed because he totally bombed! I fear that the media missed how incredible his answers were. Because the speech he gave at a rally just before the press conference was the lead of all of the week’s final news reports, the world might miss what he said afterwards.

I need to see it again in order to believe my ears and eyes. But I think if we could get our hands on that tape, we’d have a smoking gun. I believe he was really tired from a hard week and the pressure was immense but I think he displayed three or four real cases of advanced athlete’s tongue similar to his wife‘s “first time in my adult life.” For example, he said we shouldn't have supported democratic elections for Palestinians due to the possibility that Hamas might win.

Saul, Could you please ask the RNC to get up on youtube all of Obama's press conference yesterday after the S. Dakota rally. It was a disaster.

For all his faults, since 9/11, Bush has surrounded Iran and has freed 50 million Middle Easterners, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon, Kuwait and Palestine all have freer, fairer elections, Ghadaffi gave up his WMDs, AQ Kahn's black market has destroyed and Syria's WMDs factories are now rubble.

Obama is as naive as Neville Chamberlain and would surrender the Middle East to the Islamofascists!

“No such concession has been made to Iran or Hamas.” -Yeah and they never will be made while Bush or McCain is in office. Concessions were made when Pelosi and Carter negotiated with Islamofascists. Since 9/11, Bush has Iran surrounded and has freed 50 million Middle Easterners. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon, Kuwait and Palestine all have freer, fairer elections, Ghadaffi gave up his WMDs, AQ Kahn's black market was destroyed and Syria's WMDs factories are now rubble.

Nice insult. Let’s talk about the substance of your remarks. Prior to Reagan, Carter’s strategy was one of détente with the Soviets and appeasement to the Iranians. Why didn’t Reagan go have public talks with the Ayatollah but he did with Gorby? Hmmmm? There must have been a difference, right? Let’s see what your dimwitted blind love for B. Obama can come up with an answer for that.

Also, if you’re holding out a Reaganesque style of diplomacy as ideal, then surely you can see that in dealing with Iran we must observe the axiom proven by all of history; peace through strength, right?

Hitler’s people were supportive of his fascism. The people who voted for Hamas support their armed doctrine of ‘death to Israel.’ Should we then just appease their leadership? Hamas with funding from Iran is determined to destroy Israel. What do you think is going to make them change their evil ways and learn to love us? -Talks?!?! -Like the ones Jimmy Carter had? Look at how many talks there have been with fascist leaders throughout history. How many deals made in ‘talks’ have these Islamofascists broken immediately?

I will cede to you the point that Iran is not totally surrounded and there’s some of it’s border that doesn’t adjoin Iraq or Afghanistan if you’ll cede that our presence there keeps the pressure on Ahmadinejad and the mullahs to meet the demands of the international community to abandon their nuclear weaponry and recognize Israel’s legitimacy.

The point is not to weaken just Iran’s enemies but to create thriving republics next door to them. It’s why Iran is so desperately fighting them. It would be disastrous for them. You seem to want to surrender the region to them. 50 million people have been freed in the region and combined with our presence and the tough sanctions we’re enforcing, they ARE weakened. In Iran their people are burning down gas stations because of the oil rationing!

here’s a clip from the press conference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMGgyPm9kh4 In it he says, “I wasn’t the one who suggested that we have elections in the Palestinian territories.” Is Obama against freedom for Mideast Muslims?

Here’s another clip. He stumbles his way through this but it’s not the worst of his disastrous press conference. “I don’t take Bush’s attacks personally“; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD83MZbmLTQ

In this clip B.O. stammers his way through his distorted attack on what McCain said about Hamas and says, “I will meet with…without preconditions. “ He then says what he would demand of Iran and offer inducements.

What the mental midget doesn’t understand is that WE ALREADY HAVE MADE THOSE DEMANDS AND WE ARE BACKING IT UP WITH THE PRESSURE OF HAVING IRAN SURROUNDED! Obama is as naive as Neville Chamberlain and would surrender the Middle East to the Islamofascists!

“No such concession has been made to Iran or Hamas.” -Yeah and they never will be made while Bush or McCain is in office. We see though, that concessions are made when Pelosi and Carter go and talk with Islamofascists.

“I wasn’t the one who suggested that we have elections in the Palestinian territories.” Is Obama against freedom for Mideast Muslims?

Of course you want Obama, you sound like you are rooting against Israel. If you're not an Islamofascist, you sound like one. It's remarkable how similar a Dem and an Islamofascist are when reading only their words.

In Friday's speech, Obama's proposed weapons against Iran were "deeper isolation and steeper sanctions." Would such tactics have changed Hitler's behavior in the 1930s? Why would it change that of another madman like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

You asked, “Really now? Are these countries truly "free-er" as you put it or have they simply had puppet regimes put in place by the United States?” Well you tell me; would you call it ‘freer’ when women and people who aren’t in the royal family can now vote when they couldn’t before and UN recognizes the improvements made to the fairness of elections?

Ruined our economy? 52 months of uninterrupted job growth while exporting capitalism (aka outsourcing) and absorbing 20 million illegals? Until just recently the quarterly growth was outstanding since after 9/11. Revenues to the treasury are way up too (More for the looters to spend in Washington!) and that‘s after huge tax cuts when all of us who pay taxes got a cut.

I agree we're in a tough spot right now. I'm just not ready to surrender like you and Obama want to do.

Do you think if we just pull out of the region they'll change their evil ways and learn to love us? That's the dream from which you need to wake. The whole Muslim world does not hate us. Iran's own people, who are young, sophisticated and have become very 'western', hate their leadership and the rigged voting system. But they’re ruled by tyrannical dictators who fund Hamas and Hezbollah.

Yeah, you're right. (sarcasm) The people of Israel don't think Bush is a great ally and Ahmadinejad and the boys from Hamas and Hezbollah aren't pulling for Obama.

Why do you think Iran is fighting us in Iraq? And what do you think Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah will do if we pull out of the region? Stop their evil ways and learn to love us?!?!

Bush never mentioned Obama. His comments fit Carter and Pelosi better because THEY have actually met with known terrorists. Obama is just talking about negotiating with Iran.

This may be the most brilliant political trap I’ve ever seen. In a few short remarks, Bush has completely shifted all focus to the discussion of appeasing terrorists. Obama took the bait. And he’s self destructing before our eyes. W loaded the weapon, handed it to B.O. and Barack fired it at himself over and over at this speech in support of détente with Iran. And he promised to shoot himself more in the future; “anytime, anywhere!”

FatElvis, I’ll respond to your filthy mouthed, ignorance. Seriously, what do you think are going to be gained by direct, unconditional talks? Should we not learn the lessons of history about negotiating with terrorists? How bout peace through strength? What the Obama and you don’t understand is that WE ALREADY HAVE MADE THOSE DEMANDS AND WE ARE BACKING IT UP WITH THE PRESSURE OF HAVING IRAN SURROUNDED!

Obama is as naive as Neville Chamberlain and would surrender the Middle East to the Islamofascists!

Is that all you got, sirfingerlock? name calling and insults? Yeah, you are the party of tolerance. Go back to your female wrestling videos and leave the standing up to Islamofascism to people who understand peace through strength.

Since 9/11, Bush has freed 50 million Middle Easterners, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon, Kuwait and Palestine all have freer, fairer elections, Ghadaffi gave up his WMDs, AQ Kahn's black market has destroyed and Syria's WMDs factories are now rubble. -Oh, and we have Iran surrounded!

laleeloolelo, I respect your cordial debating style. I know it’s easy to simply justify Obama wanting to talk with Ahamdinejad by to saying it “is exactly the same situation in USSR in the 80's when REAGAN TALKED WITH GORBACHEV.” But it’s not exactly the same. Similar, but not exactly. There were years of lower level talks with the Soviets before Reagan had a meeting with them. Demands and conditions were implemented. Before Reagan Carter engaged in détente and dramatically shifted the US foreign policy to one of standing up to the Commies at every turn. Plus, Gorby had nukes. We must prevent Iran from ever getting nukes. They’re only going to buy more time with détente ala Obama.

You said "diplomacy always yield better results when taken with cool heads instead of "Gung Ho" approach of Bush administration." It's the same thing they said about Reagan when he walked away from the bargaining table with Gorby. It takes carrots and sticks. Obama is all carrots. He would surrender the region to Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. Destroying the chance Iraq has of becoming a peaceful ally and stable republic in a region that has too few.

Way to generalize a very specific comment I made about how under Clinton, our intelligence-gathering capabilities were decimated. And then you call me a sheep for stating “peace through strength“ which is a timeless principle that has been ratified by the entire human experience. What is worse? Believing that terrorists can be appeased?

Barack Obama and his many friends in the mainstream media have projected Obama into Bush's speech, alleging that Bush made a veiled reference to him as a supporter of appeasement. From Hamlet we learn that the play's the thing wherein to catch the conscience of the king. Bush's "play" in Jerusalem was not about Obama. Yet Obama purports to see himself as an object of its critique of appeasement.

Bush's speech treats Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran as common enemies with whom negotiation is impossible. Obama purports to distinguish Iran from Hamas and Hezbollah, rejecting unconditional negotiations only with the terrorist groups.

Yet, I’m the one you attack as somebody who doesn’t understand the region. Geez. You know who else is allied with Iran? North Korea.

Laleelooledo, Ok let's use your premise; Obama pulls us out of Iraq and goes to Tehran for talks. What stick does he have in talks with Ahmadinejad? Mahmood would laugh at him and say, "Now that you've been driven out of the region by the freedom fighters of Islam, you cannot stop us from getting nukes and we now have a straight path to Israel."

Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are different groups and cannot be joined together at the hip. You have no understanding of this region.

Dear Jeffreymcneill, You said, "Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are different groups and cannot be joined together at the hip"

I will not insult your intelligence by suggesting you actually believe what you said.

Yet, I'm the one you attack as somebody who doesn't understand the region. Geez. You know who else is allied with Iran? -North Korea.

Nice try, ignoramus. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't true. Time for a little reality. Thank goodness most of the rest of the country has woken up to the nightmare of an idiot president controlled by the oil industry and rapacious greedy thugs.

So I take it you support the George Bush/John McCain bankrupting of the country, destruction of our military, making this world MORE dangerous and undermining our future. Nice!

The reason why VRWCnetwork (clearly a paid Republican hack) is so vociferous in comments here is that this is such a damning video, it uncovers the lies of "Maverick" John McSame and the destructive and militarily asinine and ridiculous policies. Just because you are willing to expend the lives of our soldiers doesn't make you a wise general. In fact it has been the absolute opposite here.

So far Jeffreymcneill, has said that Hamas Hezbollah and Iran are not joined at the hip. Then he launched into a Mr. Mackey, “George Bush is bad, mmmkay” and dismissively generalized, “everything is bad, mmmkay.” Then jeffrey complemented me and admitted he couldn’t deal with the substance of my remarks and labeled them vociferous. Then he floated a theory that the speech in which Obama proudly takes the side of appeasers is destructive to McCain. I am obviously in the battle of the wits with an unarmed person, mmmkay.

I'm sure America's military brass agrees with you that "The presence of carriers on his ocean is more than enough "stick"."

Come on. Why do you so vociferously deny that our liberating Iraq and Afghanistan puts tremendous pressure on Iran? Why do you think the NIE said that Iran stopped advancing their nuclear weapons programs when we liberated Iraq? Why is that Iran is trying so desperately to co-opt Al Sadr and are fighting us in Iraq? How can you not see that what the Ayatollah, the mullahs and Ahmadinejad want more than anything else is our speedy retreat from Iraq?

Azania, thank you for your comment. I disagree when you asked, “Do you think killing over 160 000 of their people (mostly women and children) will make them love you??”

The people of Iraq have seen America pull out too soon before. But today they see that our military will fight alongside them for their freedom. -That’s how you get people to love you. In the last year, 100,000 Iraqis have enlisted to fight Islamofascism alongside side us. 70, 000 more have joined with the cops. They’ve had a few purple finger days and another coming this fall. If you want them to hate us, then pull the rug out from underneath them and surrender them to terrorists.

Vampiress, did you get all of your conspiracy theories at the latest Orwellian two minutes hate?

In other words; is that what they're teaching you down at Dem HQ? Maybe you ought to lay off the kool aid, er, um, I mean; blood sucking. Fascism

Because, Vampiress, you’ve got this 180 degrees wrong. Did the Nazis invade a country and try to set up a government where they could rule themselves with free and fair elections? Hmmm, I seemed to have forgotten the Gestapo were attorneys helping them build roads, schools and hospitals like we’re doing for Iraq.

Yup Vampiress, I even went and looked it up to double check; "centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism Encarta ® World English Dictionary"

Let's see now,,, That is definitely Nazis, Marxism and that's what Iran has got with their rigged elections and what Saddam had. It’s why Hezbollah is using the generous donations of Iran to overthrow the peaceful Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. They sound like the Taliban and Arafat. Yup, They’re Fascists -every one.

So what do we do? W should put pressure on them with carrots and sticks, with words and guns and economic sanctions to clean up their act and join the world of civilized nations.

Yes, those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it? If you'd like to get a good read about how Nazis came to power, check out Road to Serfdom(Hayek). http://jim.com/hayek.htm Then ask yourself how you can support Obama who wants to enact socialism here in the US and allow Islamofascists to take over in Iraq.

It would be nice to defeat Iran without firing a shot but they’re responsible for most of the IEDs killing our boys in Iraq, and they’re the primary donors to Hamas and Hezbollah.

How can you not see that what the Ayatollah, the mullahs and Ahmadinejad want more than anything else is our speedy retreat from Iraq?

W should keep up the pressure on Iran with carrots and sticks, with words and guns and economic sanctions to get them to clean up abandon nukes and join the world of civilized nations.

“Though i agree that US retreat from Iraq would make Iran happy it would not make them suddenly become the new power player in middle east.”

You are correct, with Saddam gone and the Saudis cooperating so well that al Qaeda is bombing the House of Saud now too, Iran is now the main ‘power player’ of Islamofascism. Thye’ve always funded Hamas and Heazbollah and now they’re responsible for most of the terrorism and the IED attacks killing our sons in Iraq. They know what we want, do you think they can be talked into changing their evil ways and learn to love us.

asdff, You're a Kung fu master, huh? Sun Tzu would mop the floor with your mind-to-mind combat.

Yes, let’s talk history. All you libs have surprising pluck today. Yes, it’s true we sided with Iraq against Iran and we armed the Afghanis to fight the Soviets. You also failed to mention that the Saudis liked Saddam because Iraq was a bulwark against Iran. We were right in defending those allies and we’re right to oppose Iran’s longtime funding of Hamas and Hezbollah and we ought to fight them hard wherever we find Iranians trying to spoil Iraq’s chance at an elected republic.

Listen megagrey, both sides and every political campaign has an attack machine. The problem in Iran is that they kill the political operatives of the opposition. Can’t you see the dramatic difference?

You say “Iraq has descended into what's practically a civil war.” but you might want to look at all of the reconciliation going on, the political process is moving forward (another purple finger day coming this October!) and violence has decreased dramatically. One thing you can be sure of is that Iran will try to destroy any chance of Iraq becoming a strong, stable republic. America’s challenge is to have the spine to stand up to Iran. Not be their show horse at a mockery of a peace summit with Ahmadinejad.

From Reagan's '64 speech:

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

Here is a better excerpt. It gives more context:

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Ronald Reagan, 27 October 1964, Los Angeles, CA

This is the reason that Barack took Bush’s statement seriously. He had been waiting for the attack for a week, but he expected it to come from McCain or Hillary, not President Bush.

Obama Fires Foreign Policy Adviser for Meeting With Hamas

May 09, 2008 7:57 PM

The Times of London reports that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has fired one of his foreign policy advisers — Robert Malley — for meeting with the Palestinian group Hamas, which the U.S. State Department classifies as a terrorist organization.

“He was one of literally hundreds of informal, outside advisors,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton told ABC News, confirming the Times account.

Malley, a former official in the administration of former President Bill Clinton, is Middle East and North Africa program director for the International Crisis Group, a conflict resolution group.

“I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” Malley told the Times.

Malley has been a criticized in the past as insufficiently supportive of Israel — the New Republic’s Marty Peretz has defended Obama as pro-Israel but assailed Malley — though several Clintonistas have defended him from the charge.

He participated in the failed 2000 Camp David accords and said that Yasser Arafat was not the only one to blame for those talks breaking down.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has been attacking Obama over the fact that a senior member of Hamas praised the Democrat.

In an interview on CNN, Obama called the attack, “Offensive, and I think it’s disappointing. Because John McCain always says ‘I am not going to run that kind of politics,’ and to engage in that kind of smear is unfortunate, particularly because my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his. I’ve said it’s a terrorist organization and we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they are willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. So for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don’t need name calling in this debate.”

McCain top aide Mark Salter then took issue with Obama saying McCain was “losing his bearings.”

“First, let us be clear about the nature of Sen. Obama’s attack today: He used the words ‘losing his bearings’ intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain’s age as an issue,” Salter write in a memo. “This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.”

- jpt

his staff is now in total damage control and he’ll answer these questions better in the future.

I'm not sure about that. It's like the bitter clingers and the reverend Wright thing. Barry has been shielded from all criticism his entire life. He honestly doesn't understand what he said that was offensive. He's been told his entire life that if someone takes offense at him, that the person is a small-minded bigot.

One thing the Democrats have a capacity for is overreach. The 24 hour media loves Dems and will broadcast anything they say. Meanwhile, the worst attack you can launch at a lib is to quote them accurately. Yet, while the Dem is actually saying the stupid thing that will get them in trouble, the media is eating it up.

The bitter clingers comment was publicized by a person who thought it made Obama sound brilliant. Rev Wright was having a grand old time when he was torpedoing Obama, completely unaware that he was doing it. Obama threw his grandmother under the bus as a typical white woman, and the media thinks it's the Best Speech Of All Time. When Rev Wright was God Damning America, he was getting thunderous applause. The clip appears on his Best Of video. The Dems thought the Paul Wellstone Memorial was uplifting and inspiring.

Barry has the weakest glass jaw in the history of the world. All you have to do to provoke outrage is to quote him accurately and say that you disagree.

We have just witnessed what that dumb old GW does best, getting the rats to play "Dope on a Rope". Hysterical Hussein ObamaHamas is making his bitter remarks sound puny compared to his whining about GW discussing appeasement.

Obama: "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems, ....I will not weaponize space... I will slow development of future combat systems... I will institute a 'Defense Priorities Board' to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used ..."

Then, there will be peace in our time without the evil republicans causing war!

My change is good for Muslims, Islamofascists, Black Racists, and Chrislims. $crew the Christians and real Jews!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.