Yup. I was responding to the comment from the other site, as were you. Not sure why you thought I was responding to you- If I want to respond to someone directly I usually start my comment off with their name (just like you do). I suppose I might have “replied” to your comment- but that was more to pick it up… But I understand sometimes it's not clear who is responding to whom on here and so I apologize for any confusion. My comment was directed at the quote you had from the link provided by GreenDreams- he links to some pretty interesting stuff.

My comment about the Republicans not being impressed with Obama on national security was meant as a jab to those who believe national security is all about war, and nothing about diplomacy, or oil independence, or engaging enemies, etc. the first thing many people think of when they hear “national security” is physical, military power and anything other than physical power is not worthwhile when it comes to protecting our country. That comment wasn't directed to you at all- you have a much clearer understanding of the world than those who think national security is only about military might.

“I guess the Republicans aren't impressed because Obama has invaded anyone in his first 100 days.”

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but I don't think anyone here has mentioned the Repubs for or against anything. Please see my last comment:

“As far as I'm concerned, if he can get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner rather than later, I'd give him a thumbs up as well.”

Democracy Corps? come on.

Just because Obama's not Bush whose idea of national security is to invade countries and continually beat his chest with more threats about invading countries doesn't mean that Obama's more thoughtful (and less warlike) approach isn't any less effective. It seems many Americans would prefer Obama's approach to that of Bush's dramatic, spotlight-seeking nuclear explosion approach (since Bush tried to get us all to think of mushroom clouds before he unnecessarily invaded Iraq).

Amen to that.

Sure if the poll's methodology was sound. Do you think it would be?

“As for national security, I’m not sure what rates the number – he’s really not done anything concerning national security except do a little talking about the subject. And, despite claims to the contrary, SEALs taking out three rag-bag pirates who botched a highjacking was not a victory on the national security front.”

As far as I'm concerned, if he can get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner rather than later, I'd give him a thumbs up as well.

jwest, who cares what you think?

“Democracy Corps was founded in 1999 by James Carville and Stanley Greenberg. The organization was born out of outrage over the impeachment of President Clinton when the leadership in Congress preferred radical partisanship to addressing the issues which really matter to American families. Following the 2000 election, Democracy Corps rededicated itself after the presidential candidate with the most votes and the most popular policy agenda did not become the President of the United States.”

http://www.democracycorps.com/about/

Seems to me they are a bit sour over losing the 2000 election. Would you give the same credence to a poll conducted by, say, the Heritage Foundation or Fox News?

LOL…..Sometimes, you even convince me that you believe this crap.