Obama Praises McCain’s Comments on Iraq

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Obama Praises McCain’s Comments on Iraq

Jay Solomon reports on the presidential race from London.

Barack Obama praised comments by his rival, John McCain, suggesting the Republican might support a 16-month timeline for withdrawing American troops from Iraq.

Obama has promoted his Iraq strategy during a 10-day tour across the Middle East and Europe. He’s also called for the redeployment of some U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan to combat the Taliban’s and al Qaeda’s growing insurgency there.

“And in terms of his comment about maybe 16 months sounds good, we are pleased to see that there’s been some convergence around a proposal that we have been making for a year and a half,” Obama said Saturday after meeting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

“The fact that John McCain thinks that we now should put more troops in Afghanistan, I think is a good thing,” Obama added at a press conference at 10 Downing Street, the British premier’s official office and residence.

During an interview Friday on CNN, McCain called the 16-month timeframe “a pretty good timetable” for withdrawing troops from Iraq. The Republican candidate, however, has stressed this was dependent upon the conditions on the ground in Iraq.

Throughout Obama’s overseas trip, the senator has sought to portray the Republicans as following his lead on key foreign policy issues. In addition to Iraq, Obama has praised the Bush administration’s decision to send a high-ranking State Department official to directly engage Iran over its nuclear program this month.

“The fact that the Bush administration assigned Bill Burns, outstanding diplomat, to get involved in the talks surrounding Iran, something I’ve been advocating for over a year and a half, I think that is a good thing” Obama said.

In addition to Brown, Obama also met former British Prime Minister Tony Blair Saturday in London, as well as with Conservative Party Leader David Cameron. Obama will travel back to Chicago Saturday night.

Crowds lined streets in London to try and catch a view of Obama, similar to scenes in Paris and Berlin. His photograph was also plastered across the cover of most London tabloids.</div>

Source

 

[Real]

Actually, John McCain might support a one month withdraw timeline.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 26 2008, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, John McCain might support a one month withdraw timeline.</div>

Let's be realistic.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 26 2008, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 26 2008, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, John McCain might support a one month withdraw timeline.</div>

Let's be realistic.
</div>

Could be even less than that. Could be twelve months. Could be sixteen months. Could be 24 months. Could be anytime.

What you don't understand is McCain has said he will make the decision depending on what Petraeus and the military leaders tell him. If they tell him it would be fine to withdraw in X amount of months, then McCain will withdraw in X amount of months.

Sixteen months might be correct, but it might not be. Obama has stated that he would listen to Petraeus military leaders on the ground. If that's true then why did he introduce the The Iraq War De-escalation that would've withdrawn all troops starting 5/1/07 to 3/31/08?

So actually, he once said 10 months in the Senate, now he's saying 16. So Obama has not been stating his position for a year and a half.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 26 2008, 02:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 26 2008, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 26 2008, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, John McCain might support a one month withdraw timeline.</div>

Let's be realistic.
</div>

Could be even less than that. Could be twelve months. Could be sixteen months. Could be 24 months. Could be anytime.

What you don't understand is McCain has said he will make the decision depending on what Petraeus and the military leaders tell him. If they tell him it would be fine to withdraw in X amount of months, then McCain will withdraw in X amount of months.

Sixteen months might be correct, but it might not be. Obama has stated that he would listen to Petraeus military leaders on the ground. If that's true then why did he introduce the The Iraq War De-escalation that would've withdrawn all troops starting 5/1/07 to 3/31/08?

So actually, he once said 10 months in the Senate, now he's saying 16.
</div>

No that's not my point. "One month" has no chance.

As for the timeline:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Petraeus's counterinsurgency manual also makes clear the Iraqi Government's desire for a timeline should be seen as an important step forward: "The long-term goal is to leave a government able to stand by itself. In the end, the host nation has to win on its own. ... Eventually all foreign armies are seen as interlopers or occupiers; the sooner the main effort can transition to Host Nation institutions, without unacceptable degradation, the better." Of course, it is quite likely that, buoyed by its recent successes, the Maliki Government is overestimating its own capabilities and the U.S. should take care to withdraw carefully in a way that minimizes the likelihood of the situation deteriorating. But with that caveat in place, counterinsurgency doctrine dictates that this assertion of independence is an important step. It should be welcomed -- not derided as political posturing or suppressed by a White House seeking a permanent presence in Iraq.

In the end, COIN doctrine tells us that Prime Minister Maliki's recent assertions are a crucial turning point as Iraqis being to declare their own independence. This moment should be seized on to begin transitioning to a more limited mission that acts to support the Iraqis instead of taking the lead, and which requires a much smaller U.S. force presence. This is the position that Barack Obama has had all along. John McCain would be wise to accept this new reality and move to Obama's position, instead of continuing to reject the major breakthrough that has occurred.</div>

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This moment should be seized on to begin transitioning to a more limited mission that acts to support the Iraqis instead of taking the lead, and which requires a much smaller U.S. force presence. This is the position that Barack Obama has had all along.</div>

That's simply crap. Obama wanted to end the war and bring all combat forces home before the surge. Now that the surge that Obama opposed is working and Maliki is calling for a troop withdraw suddenly Obama's been right all along?

Like I said it is Obama that is moving towards the center and McCain's position by saying a "refined" position of possibly 16 months instead of 10-11 months.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 26 2008, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Like I said it is Obama that is moving towards the center and McCain's position by saying a "refined" position of possibly 16 months instead of 10-11 months.</div>

Or maybe he is just reading posts here and giving thought to what Real is saying and that's listen to the General. You should be thrilled that your advice is being taken by a future president.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 26 2008, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This moment should be seized on to begin transitioning to a more limited mission that acts to support the Iraqis instead of taking the lead, and which requires a much smaller U.S. force presence. This is the position that Barack Obama has had all along.</div>

That's simply crap. Obama wanted to end the war and bring all combat forces home before the surge. Now that the surge that Obama opposed is working and Maliki is calling for a troop withdraw suddenly Obama's been right all along?

Like I said it is Obama that is moving towards the center and McCain's position by saying a "refined" position of possibly 16 months instead of 10-11 months.
</div>

Well if he's moving to the center.....

Great for the most part. I'm not a radical liberal, I just lean to the left.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 26 2008, 03:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well if he's moving to the center.....

Great for the most part. I'm not a radical liberal, I just lean to the left.</div>

Only a robot can be 100% anything, all the time.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

So I went and read his web site just now. Looks like he was opposed to the invasion of Iraq before we went in. Now, he wants us to get out of there in "a responsible and phased withdrawl". Someone please link his quotes where he flip flopped on positions or something. I will also look around for them. I will post them if I find them before you do.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Judgment You Can Trust
In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up with President Bush for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against going to war, and to warn of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” He is fully committed to ending the war in Iraq as president.

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal
Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.</div>

 

[huevonkiller]

McCain says he doesn't believe in a timetable, yet he frequently mentions 2013 in his speeches. So it is a game of semantics as well.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 26 2008, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>McCain says he doesn't believe in a timetable, yet he frequently mentions 2013 in his speeches. So it is a game of semantics as well.</div>

That's odd. I seem to remember timetables getting changed all the time since we've been there in 2003. That counts for those on both sides of Congress. Is this even a relevant thread?

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 26 2008, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>McCain says he doesn't believe in a timetable, yet he frequently mentions 2013 in his speeches. So it is a game of semantics as well.</div>

2013 is his general goal.

When you're talking about a difference of 12 months and 19 months, it is a sizable difference. Petraeus testified in September in '07 and again in April '08, a difference of 7 months.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 26 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 26 2008, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>McCain says he doesn't believe in a timetable, yet he frequently mentions 2013 in his speeches. So it is a game of semantics as well.</div>

2013 is his general goal.

When you're talking about a difference of 12 months and 19 months, it is a sizable difference. Petraeus testified in September in '07 and again in April '08, a difference of 7 months.
</div>

I see. Gotcha.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

What, wait a minute. 2013 is 48 months away. What kind of leeway is he offering? Plus or minus 1 whole year? Any bets that it doesn't happen according to that schedule? 5 bucks.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think Real's post is about right. In 16 months, everything might be cool and we can bring the guys home. I have no issue with this, tho I don't want to just come home no matter what the situation is on the ground there. I wouldn't be surprised that if we stay 36 months, Iraq is a modern state fully self-sufficient, and that would be worth staying for. If in 16 months we leave and it turns to shit, then whoever pulls out the troops is a class A fool.

There's also a difference between pulling out 1/16th of our troops a month until 100% are out in 16 months, and waiting 16 months and pulling them all out at once. The former might kill Iraq's future, while the latter may be entirely possible.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

Denny, I agree with you. I just think that over-hyping a 7-month change of opinion on a 6 year war is kind of silly - for all the reasons you described.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 26 2008, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, I agree with you. I just think that over-hyping a 7-month change of opinion on a 6 year war is kind of silly - for all the reasons you described.</div>

Well if there weren't much of a difference they wouldn't have Peteraus and Crocker come in after seven months to testify before Congress would they?

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 26 2008, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 26 2008, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, I agree with you. I just think that over-hyping a 7-month change of opinion on a 6 year war is kind of silly - for all the reasons you described.</div>

Well if there weren't much of a difference they wouldn't have Peteraus and Crocker come in after seven months to testify before Congress would they?
</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>That's simply crap. Obama wanted to end the war and bring all combat forces home before the surge. Now that the surge that Obama opposed is working and Maliki is calling for a troop withdraw suddenly Obama's been right all along?</div>

What the heck are you talking about? Been right all along? Leading the witness?

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 26 2008, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, I agree with you. I just think that over-hyping a 7-month change of opinion on a 6 year war is kind of silly - for all the reasons you described.</div>

I think calling it a 6 year war is wrong. It was a 3 week war and 6 years of occupation while Iraq has been rebuilding it's economy, infrastructure, and form of government. It's like calling WW II a 15 year war, because we occupied Japan for 10 years after. I don't ever read historical accounts of the British being at war in the middle east for decades (up until the 1930s).

Given that it took 10 years to rebuild Japan, 6 years and calling it quits seems like a lack of commitment to seeing it through.

I was for the war for humanitarian reasons as well as the militant threat that Saddam had always been. He was a bad man, WE propped him up for a decade (at least) and then the sanctions only led to misery for the people there and more personal enrichment of Saddam and his sons. He had to go.

When the 3 weeks were over, I would have been satisfied if we brought all our troops home and let the Iraqis sort it out for themselves. I voted for Badnarik in 2004, who ran on bringing the troops home then; I'd be shocked if you didn't vote for a guy (Kerry or Bush) who would have had just as many troops there, if not more, all along.

On the other hand, once the decision was made to occupy and rebuild Iraq, I didn't sit around and whine about not getting my way. I do understand the reasoning behind rebuilding there as we did in Germany and Japan, and once the decision was made, we have no choice but to back it 100% and see it through. In fact, if there were no politically motivated objections to doing so, we might have finished long ago and the troops would be home by now.

What I don't get is how people can be against "war" but support the troops and now want to escalate our military involvement in Afghanistan.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 26 2008, 05:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 26 2008, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 26 2008, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, I agree with you. I just think that over-hyping a 7-month change of opinion on a 6 year war is kind of silly - for all the reasons you described.</div>

Well if there weren't much of a difference they wouldn't have Peteraus and Crocker come in after seven months to testify before Congress would they?
</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>That's simply crap. Obama wanted to end the war and bring all combat forces home before the surge. Now that the surge that Obama opposed is working and Maliki is calling for a troop withdraw suddenly Obama's been right all along?</div>

What the heck are you talking about? Been right all along? Leading the witness?
</div>

I was simply quoting one of huevonkiller's articles and responding to it.

 

[sunsfan1357]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 27 2008, 08:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 26 2008, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, I agree with you. I just think that over-hyping a 7-month change of opinion on a 6 year war is kind of silly - for all the reasons you described.</div>
What I don't get is how people can be against "war" but support the troops and now want to escalate our military involvement in Afghanistan.
</div>

What's confusing about that? People are against the Iraq War, however want the troops to do as well as they can while they are in the war/occupation. Iraq and Afghanistan are two different situations and people against Iraq want to concentrate on Afghanistan where they believe we should have had more troops all along.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>

What I don't get is how people can be against "war" but support the troops and now want to escalate our military involvement in Afghanistan.</div>

What's confusing about that? People are against the Iraq War, however want the troops to do as well as they can while they are in the war/occupation. Iraq and Afghanistan are two different situations and people against Iraq want to concentrate on Afghanistan where they believe we should have had more troops all along.
</div>

I guess people are expressing their concern about where we distribute our troops, and what we have them doing. Where we send our children off to war and for what reasons are a very personal concern for many Americans. We know that we cannot have complete trust in the decision making processes, so we scrutinize the decisions more.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sunsfan1357 @ Jul 27 2008, 08:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 27 2008, 08:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 26 2008, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, I agree with you. I just think that over-hyping a 7-month change of opinion on a 6 year war is kind of silly - for all the reasons you described.</div>
What I don't get is how people can be against "war" but support the troops and now want to escalate our military involvement in Afghanistan.
</div>

What's confusing about that? People are against the Iraq War, however want the troops to do as well as they can while they are in the war/occupation. Iraq and Afghanistan are two different situations and people against Iraq want to concentrate on Afghanistan where they believe we should have had more troops all along.
</div>

People weren't against the Iraq war when it started. Bush had an approval rating through the roof when he made his "mission accomplished" speech signaling the end of the actual war and the start of rebuilding.

Maybe people will support a quagmire in Afghanistan (ask the Ruskies about that one) because the press won't piss all over it to change public opinion, but it's still a massive mistake.

If we're going to war, it should be for a purpose. Revenge is the worst of all purposes, and rebuilding a nation that was in the stone ages to that same level has already been accomplished. At least in Iraq, we spent $600B (and counting) rebuilding a modern nation with schools and universities and hospitals and natural resources that can support a healthy economy. In Afghanistan, we're putting the heroin exporters back in business, because they have nothing else to build an economy around.

I grew up in the 60s, Vietnam era. I know the anti-war crowd to not support the troops, but rather to throw baggies of urine and feces at them when they returned from duty. I find it difficult to believe that they've truly changed to a position of "support the troops" other than giving it lip service and realizing it is good for winning elections. The rest of the people who use the phrase seem to be parrots.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 12:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>People weren't against the Iraq war when it started. Bush had an approval rating through the roof when he made his "mission accomplished" speech signaling the end of the actual war and the start of rebuilding.

Maybe people will support a quagmire in Afghanistan (ask the Ruskies about that one) because the press won't piss all over it to change public opinion, but it's still a massive mistake.

If we're going to war, it should be for a purpose. Revenge is the worst of all purposes, and rebuilding a nation that was in the stone ages to that same level has already been accomplished. At least in Iraq, we spent $600B (and counting) rebuilding a modern nation with schools and universities and hospitals and natural resources that can support a healthy economy. In Afghanistan, we're putting the heroin exporters back in business, because they have nothing else to build an economy around.</div>

Not everyone was supportive of the Iraq invasion. Most were, but not all.

How about we go to war just so that we can take resources for ourselves? It's not revenge, its domination and control. If our oil costs are going through the roof, why not just take someone else's supply so that it brings our costs down a bit? Seems logical to me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I grew up in the 60s, Vietnam era. I know the anti-war crowd to not support the troops, but rather to throw baggies of urine and feces at them when they returned from duty. I find it difficult to believe that they've truly changed to a position of "support the troops" other than giving it lip service and realizing it is good for winning elections. The rest of the people who use the phrase seem to be parrots.</div>

You are generalizing people, and not giving each opinion the benefit of the doubt- stereotyping people to a large degree. I have no doubt what you have experienced in your own lifetime, but I can tell you that not everyone follows a specific set of beliefs that you think they do - perhaps just many that you have encountered. Why not get to know people a little better before rushing to judgements like that? Peace, Denny.

 

[sunsfan1357]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 12:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>People weren't against the Iraq war when it started. Bush had an approval rating through the roof when he made his "mission accomplished" speech signaling the end of the actual war and the start of rebuilding.

Maybe people will support a quagmire in Afghanistan (ask the Ruskies about that one) because the press won't piss all over it to change public opinion, but it's still a massive mistake.

If we're going to war, it should be for a purpose. Revenge is the worst of all purposes, and rebuilding a nation that was in the stone ages to that same level has already been accomplished. At least in Iraq, we spent $600B (and counting) rebuilding a modern nation with schools and universities and hospitals and natural resources that can support a healthy economy. In Afghanistan, we're putting the heroin exporters back in business, because they have nothing else to build an economy around.

I grew up in the 60s, Vietnam era. I know the anti-war crowd to not support the troops, but rather to throw baggies of urine and feces at them when they returned from duty. I find it difficult to believe that they've truly changed to a position of "support the troops" other than giving it lip service and realizing it is good for winning elections. The rest of the people who use the phrase seem to be parrots.</div>

People for the most part weren't against the Iraq war because they actually believed our government when they started talking about mushroom clouds and reminding people how crazy Sadaam was. When everyone figured out it was all exaggerations or lies then people started to want to get out of there and Bush's rating went down. I don't believe we're in Afghanistan or rebuild or invade (hopefully its just to get the terrorists and get out, but ya never know I suppose). Plus the mujahadeen had the backing of America with the Soviets tried to invade, which country is going to back Al-Qaeda? Iran? Will they give enough resources to make America get out?

 

[The Return of the Raider]

Didn't we invade Afganastan before heading over to Iraq? No one questioned that invasion either.

 

[sunsfan1357]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Didn't we invade Afganastan before heading over to Iraq? No one questioned that invasion either.</div>

Yep. At that time no one questioned anything really.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You are generalizing people, and not giving each opinion the benefit of the doubt- stereotyping people to a large degree. I have no doubt what you have experienced in your own lifetime, but I can tell you that not everyone follows a specific set of beliefs that you think they do - perhaps just many that you have encountered. Why not get to know people a little better before rushing to judgements like that? Peace, Denny.</div>

Why don't you ask Al Gore what he went through when he walked through campus at Harvard with his military uniform on?

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 28 2008, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You are generalizing people, and not giving each opinion the benefit of the doubt- stereotyping people to a large degree. I have no doubt what you have experienced in your own lifetime, but I can tell you that not everyone follows a specific set of beliefs that you think they do - perhaps just many that you have encountered. Why not get to know people a little better before rushing to judgements like that? Peace, Denny.</div>

Why don't you ask Al Gore what he went through when he walked through campus at Harvard with his military uniform on?
</div>

I just sent an email to him.