Discuss Rosa Brooks' Oct. 30 Op-Ed column
Comments will close after two days.
From the Los Angeles Times
| Advertisement |
|
|
The Latest | news as it happens
- UCLA basketball: Former Bruin weighs in - The Fabulous Forum 11/16/2009, 10:08 a.m.
- 'Californication': Hank, meet consequence - Show Tracker 11/16/2009, 10:03 a.m.
- Girls and young women have higher rates of both chlamydia, gonorrhea - Booster Shots 11/16/2009, 10:00 a.m.
- EXCLUSIVE: Come along on Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie's private tour of MOCA - The Dish Rag 11/16/2009, 10:00 a.m.
- Once Around the Radio Dial – 1969 - The Daily Mirror 11/16/2009, 10:00 a.m.
Save more than
Just a typical liberal conspiracy theory, thinking that Republicans want nothing more than to go to war, will lie and cheat to do so.
Tommy @ 10:08 AM PDT, Oct 31, 2008
Sounds like what JFK left for LBJ in 1963.
Jeremy Janson @ 10:08 AM PDT, Oct 31, 2008
Another president didn't think striking at an enemy was something that would pass his muster even though military advisors warned him. That would be Bill Clinton, but even long before Bill other presidents have resisted use of military force when it was appropriate.
Greg @ 10:07 AM PDT, Oct 31, 2008
Yes, you know, this is just horrible, because no president has ever handed off problems to the next. I mean, we all know that al Qaeda was well in hand under Clinton until Bush took over and "allowed" them to crash airliners into skyscrapers. Sounds to me like Rosa is already starting the mantra: If something goes wrong under Obama, it will all still be Bush's fault.
JB @ 10:05 AM PDT, Oct 31, 2008
I find it appalling that you claim that Obama "in principle" supports striking al Qaeda inside Pakistan but now "experts close to him suggest that many of the strikes authorized by the Bush White House probably wouldn't have passed muster for Obama." ARE YOU KIDDING! Attacking inside Pakistan is the sum total of Obama's war plan against Al Qaeda. He repeats the term "actionable intelligence" every time Pakistan comes up in discussion. What is more "actionable" than live video from the aircraft that is going to attack these scumbags?
SpencerG @ 10:05 AM PDT, Oct 31, 2008
Unlike President Clinton, President Bush is fighting terrorism. So, why would he want to leave our next president with a mess? Biased Articles like this, is why I canceled my subscription to the L.A. Times.
Are you kidding? @ 10:04 AM PDT, Oct 31, 2008
Why don't you quit worrying about our reputation with the UN, which could care less about our national interests, and start supporting the country you live in. As for Afghanistan, it was a mess before, and its a mess now. They don't have the organization to create a threatening attack on the US without support from a more organized neighbor, such as Iraq, which is why we took care of them first.
JM @ 10:01 AM PDT, Oct 31, 2008
Then there is a nuclear Venezuela, and Russia pushing the resolve of the US's Monroe Doctrine in the Carribean. The economy with the media's blinders put on on the voters, had not given us the full ramifications of an Obama Presidency. Then there is this papers suppression of information...
anotherview @ 9:55 AM PDT, Oct 31, 2008
Now all of a sudden, Bush is so smart he's setting booby traps. Hogwash. You pick Obama...you blame him. Done with LA Times.
Kirk @ 9:45 AM PDT, Oct 31, 2008
To W. Brewster- The WSJ is a journal from the far right where McCain and Bush stem from. Secondly, it is an opinion not fact. We all know what opinions are like and worth. I believe George W. would gladly sabotage the incumbent president if it were Sen.Obama. If it is McCain, then maybe George W. will borrow a wink form Gov. Palin while alerting them of the pitfalls, while they sign along with John McCain to "Bomb Iran". Did you see that tapeon youtbue? Now is that foreign policy?
Gerard @ 9:39 AM PDT, Oct 31, 2008
Next