…then he would sign an Executive Order banning discrimination against gays in the military.

This singular act, which he has the power to do RIGHT NOW—if he so chose to do, certainly would shake up things. Some veterans groups might bristle at the executive order. Conservative groups would howl.

But this is a fact: The ordinary soldier, marine, airman, or sailor would not blink an eye. As long as a military brother or sister can carry their own weight…as long as that military brother and sister can FIGHT, the ordinary military person doesn’t give a damn who sleeps with whom.
Obama never served in the military. Harry S. Truman did serve. Harry Truman desegregated the military in 1948, nearly 20 years before the larger society followed suit. Harry Truman (though no social saint) served in the military and he knew that Black soldiers were integral to America’s success. Obama, having never served in the military, seems clueless how integral gay military personnel are to America’s success in fighting two wars simultaneously. Perhaps, one of Obama’s “crack” Cabinet aides didn’t supply the necessary memo or focus group poll.
Harry S. Truman didn’t govern by focus group. Harry S. Truman didn’t need photo ops and beer summits. Harry S. Truman didn’t need a staff of spin doctors and pollsters in order to govern effectively. Harry S. Truman originated the phrase “The buck stops here” and he certainly meant it.
Being a military veteran is not necessary for being a good President…but it helps:
“Truman was chosen to be an officer, and then battery commander in an artillery regiment in France. His unit was Battery D, 129th Field Artillery, 60th Brigade, 35th Infantry Division, known for its discipline problems.[23] During a sudden attack by the Germans in the Vosges Mountains, the battery started to disperse; Truman ordered them back into position using profanities that he had “learned while working on the Santa Fe railroad.”[23] Shocked by the outburst, his men reassembled and followed him to safety. Under Captain Truman’s command in France, the battery did not lose a single man.[23] On November 11, 1918 his artillery unit fired some of the last shots of World War I into German positions. The war was a transformative experience that brought out Truman’s leadership qualities; he later rose to the rank of Colonel in the Army Reserves,[24] and his war record made possible his later political career in Missouri.[23]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman
Yes, it is very obvious that Harry S. Truman had a pair.

I have seen you use this word “war” in the most curious ways for a long time now.

As someone elsewhere in this excellent forum has pointed out, the concept of war has been historically associated with responses to existential threats. I’ll spare you the list…

In order to justify your war rhetoric you have to make a reasonable case that what you think you are responding to, literally, is a threat to your very existence, not something that upsets you very much, or that you dislike enormously, or that is less likely to kill you than downhill skiing, whitewater rafting, or driving your car.

Perhaps the Israelis could be forgiven for considering their challenges a “war”. But for citizens of the US to seriously contend that recreational drug use (from prohibition on…) or islamist terrorists are serious enough threats to your life on this planet to justify a perpetual state of WAR, simply leaves me to wonder at the general intellectual capacity of your culture.

The way your pundits have distorted the concept of war renders it far less effective in galvanizing public attention. You really have cried “wolf” too many times and yelled “fire” in so many theatres that nobody is really paying you that much attention anymore…

Slainte,

Whenever a couple malcontent nihilists somewhere in the world decide to kill, we’ll have a terrorist conspiracy. When they’re Muslim, and decide to call themselves a branch of Al Qaeda, we’ll be right back in the GWOT.

So I suggest we get used to Presidents multi-tasking … just like Ronald Reagan could stare down the Russians while at the same time pushing through a radical change in American politics, I expect that Obama can do the same with the cave dwellers.

There is no such thing as winning the war against terrorism. Terrorism always existed and will always exist.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t do anything, on the contrary. But given the lasting nature of terrorism we cannot adopt a “war-time” framework where everything should be put aside until “victory”.

As a matter of fact, terrorists ARE winning. Not in terms of number of people killed, but by the fear they instilled in us. Fear that made us renounce some fundamental liberties and admit torture. In many respects we have become the great Satan.

Although not without flaws, the current administration’s approach to counter-terrorism is far superior to that of it’s testosterone driven predecessor.

The strategy of Karl Rove & co. was 100% about achieving a narrow 51-49 majority in Congress while pushing for as many tax cuts, anti-union etc. initiatives as possible regardless of how the (then-) Democratic minority felt about it. Occasional window dressing such as the education initiative with Ted Kennedy cannot obscure the fact that the Bush/DeLay/Lott leadership was ruthlessly partisan. If there was a time in recent history when declaring a truce in the culture wars at home would have made sense, it’s 2002-05 yet the Bush Administration cynically exploited its strength and popularity to push a partisan agenda at home.

Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to suddenly demand that **Barack Obama and the Democrats** start to play nice and bend over backwards in the name of “national unity”? Not that Obama and Senate Democrats haven’t tried, mind you: the Republicans could have played a meaningful role in the health care reform process if they at least had agreed to negotiate in good faith. Centrists such as Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh would have LOVED the cover of bipartisan support, in fact this is the main reason why it’s taken a year for health care reform to get this far. Yet only Olympia Snowe has been genuinely interested. The rest of the GOP Senate caucus is just being cynical, they have concluded that they will benefit politically for now by trying to sabotage the effort at all costs.

If terrorism is so vital to the very existence of the U.S. as Republicans claim, then CONSERVATIVES are the ones who should be bending over backwards by making compromises. After all, why try to poison the well by blocking health care reform if it only forces Obama & co. to divert attention from foreign policy?? Surely a deal where the Republican minority agrees to support health care reform in return for key concessions regarding military spending and policy would have been a better option? At least such a “grand bargain” ought to be feasible in 2010-11 when deciding what to do about global warming…regardless of whether you think Islamic fundamentalism or climate change is more dangerous, a good long term solution to both problems would be reduced reliance on fossil fuels from the Middle East which means energy independence based on solar/wind etc. power. Charles Krauthammer once wrote that he suspected man made global warming is mostly bogus yet higher taxes on fossil fuels and energy independence still made great sense to him on national security grounds.

MARCU$