ThinkFast: February 29, 2008
ThinkFast: February 29, 2008
After months of a consensual international media blackout, Matt Drudge revealed that Prince Harry has been “in Afghanistan for more than two months” — “to the fury of the Ministry of Defence and condemnation from the head of the British Army.” Harry is now being sent back to Britain.
Senate Republicans “blocked consideration of a bill designed to prop up the struggling housing industry” yesterday. The bill would have provided billions of dollars to local communities and changed bankruptcy laws to help low-income homeowners — against which the “mortgage industry has waged a stiff lobbying campaign.”
President Bush said Thursday the economy is not headed for recession. “I don’t think we’re headed to a recession, but no question we’re in a slowdown,” he said.
“For the first time in the nation’s history, more than one in 100 American adults are behind bars,” according to a new report. This statistic includes one in 15 adult black men and one in 36 adult Hispanic men.
The EPA has dismissed toxicologist Deborah Rice from her post on a federal panel examining “the dangers of a flame retardant” in August” after the American Chemistry Council “complained to a top-ranking EPA official.” “In a May letter to an assistant administrator at the EPA,” a vice president of the American Chemistry Council called Rice “a fervent advocate.”
“The Bush administration’s continued backing of President Pervez Musharraf, despite the overwhelming rejection of his party by voters this month, is fueling a new level of frustration.” Bush supports Musharraf for “all of the work that he’s done to help us in counterterrorism,” the White House said.
“Taking note of the debate over the Iraq war in the presidential race,” Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Michael Mullen “told Pentagon officials in a town hall meeting Thursday that the military must be prepared to change policy and carry out the wishes of the next president.”
Attempting to “clear up questions about how an Alabama television station lost its signal” during 60 Minutes on Sunday, “the management of the station, WHNT-TV, issued a statement Thursday citing equipment failure. The station claimed “that after a review, it had concluded that the blackout was related to a similar interruption during a basketball game the day before.”
And finally: Earlier this week, Politico reported that Oscar-winning director Alex Gibney is working on a documentary about Jack Abramoff, tentatively titled Casino Jack and the United States of Money. Today, the Washington Post notes that director George Hickenlooper is also making an Abramoff flick. Hickenlooper’s dream picks to play the former lobbyist? Jeremy Piven, Sean Penn and Steve Carell. “He’s a good dramatic actor and the resemblance is striking,” said Hickenlooper of Carell.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Obama’s Mercenary Position
by Jeremy Scahill
A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic...Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not “rule out†using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq.
The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in.
Obama’s campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors. (Hillary Clinton’s staff did not respond to repeated requests for an interview or a statement on this issue.)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7341/
February 29th, 2008 at 9:03 amPresident Bush said Thursday the economy is not headed for recession. “I don’t think we’re headed to a recession, but no question we’re in a slowdown,†he said.
---------------------------------------
Why does Bush continue to compare himself to Lincoln when he keeps sounding more and more like Hoover?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:07 amWe're number one! Most prisoners in the world!
Sounds like Bush needs to stop outsourcing his 'freedom agenda'.
-GSD
February 29th, 2008 at 9:09 amIf we'd just let the Iraqis have that horrible embassy and bring the State Department home, too, we wouldn't need all these mercenaries. I wonder why the mercenaries aren't legally accountable to anyone. Is that some "law" dreamed up by--whom--Congress? The administration?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:09 amObama’s Mercenary Position
by Jeremy Scahill
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 9:03 am
*** I've been trying (forcing) myself to try to move closer to supporting Obama. To be a good camper. But this just blew a chasm in my efforts. I urge all of you to read the full article I linked. To me, Blackwater represents everything that's wrong with the Bush admin. For Obama, the CHANGE candidate, to continue their existence is not acceptable. I wanted him to legislate them out of existence, to ensure they were funded into nihility (I hope that's a word). Obama's position on Blackwater shocked me, and I didn't think all that much of him to begin with.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:10 ammore than one in 100 American adults are behind bars
economy is not headed for recession
These two could be linked after all theres NO social welfare really in America
February 29th, 2008 at 9:12 amYou should publish some of the comments from readers in the Britain at their websites. The BBC, the Times, the Telegraph, the commenters there are going apeshit over the Eggman. There was absolutely no point for him to publish the story apart from his own self-promotion, and if the Brits get their act together, Drudge could have a very unpleasant few months ahead.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:12 amTurkish troops withdraw from Iraq
http://english.aljazeera.net/English
http://www.presstv.ir/
http://news.yahoo.com/
ALSO Oil prices hit record high over $103
February 29th, 2008 at 9:13 am“For the first time in the nation’s history, more than one in 100 American adults are behind bars,†according to a new report. This statistic includes one in 15 adult black men and one in 36 adult Hispanic men.
-------------------------------------------
For decades, Americans have disagreed on the best way to fight crime. Some believe in investing in crime prevention programs and chipping away at the societal ills that breed crime in the first place. Others just vow to "git tough on crime" by building more prisons, locking up criminals, and throwing away the key.
Bravo. The prison builders have won. We have a LOT of people in prison now.
So our crime rates should be way, way down. Right?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:14 amWhew! I am so glad that we're redefining "recession" to keep from being in one.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:15 amDespite Antiwar Rhetoric, Clinton-Obama Plans Would Keep US Mercenaries, Troops in Iraq for Years to Come
Obama also has no plans to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009. Despite their antiwar rhetoric, both Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton have adopted the congressional Democratic position that would leave open the option of keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for many years.
And what that means is that even though the rhetoric of withdrawal is everywhere in the Democratic campaign, we’re talking about a pretty substantial level of US forces and personnel remaining in Iraq indefinitely.
In the case of Barack Obama, I wanted to focus in on what his position is on private military contractors, particularly armed ones like those that work for Blackwater. And the reason I focus on Obama instead of Hillary on this is because Barack Obama has actually been at the forefront of addressing the mercenary issue in the Congress. In February of 2007. Barack Obama sponsored legislation in the Senate that sought to expand US law so that—
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/jeremy_scahill_despite_anti_war_rhetoric
February 29th, 2008 at 9:16 amRe: Drudge...
What is it these Right-wingers say when they accuse the NYT or CBS news of "revealing" something that "endangers the troops"?
I bet a quick search of Drudge's rag would find such an attack on "the Liberal media" for doing just that.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:16 amPRINCE HARRY - what a coward
February 29th, 2008 at 9:17 amMugsy, you beat me to it.
Indeed, how quickly would the cries of treason (and worse) begin against a Democrat, should a liberal blog, or paper, or person have made public such a revelation.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:18 amIOKIYAR
Bush said yesterday that he is unaware of gasoline price is reaching $4:00 a gallon...!!!
February 29th, 2008 at 9:19 amThat tells the story...
Thursday: 1 US Soldier, 20 Iraqis Killed; 20 Iraqis Wounded
February 29th, 2008 at 9:20 amFriday: 110 Iraqis Killed, 215 Wounded
Saturday: 31 Iraqis Killed, 24 Wounded
Sunday: 2 US Soldiers, 21 Iraqis Killed; 10 Iraqis Wounded
Monday: 39 Iraqis Killed, 24 Wounded
Tuesday: 3 GIs, 90 Iraqis Killed; 7 Iraqis Wounded; Mass Grave Found
Wednesday: 1 US Soldier, 46 Iraqis Killed; 46 Iraqis Wounded
Thursday: 3 US Soldiers, 29 Iraqis Killed; 42 Iraqis Wounded
Friday: 5 US Soldiers, 31 Iraqis Killed; 17 Iraqis Wounded
Saturday: 1 Navy SEAL, 26 Iraqis Killed; Five Iraqis Wounded
Sunday: 86 Iraqis Killed, 84 Wounded
Monday: 1 US Soldier, 36 Iraqis Killed; 68 Iraqis Wounded
Tuesday: 46 Iraqis Killed, 18 Wounded
Wednesday: 19 Iraqis Killed, 12 Wounded
Thursday: 39 Iraqis Killed, 53 Wounded
Friday: 33 Iraqis Killed, 21 Wounded
Saturday: 22 Iraqis Killed, 10 Wounded
Sunday: 2 US Soldiers, 24 Iraqis Killed; 22 Iraqis Wounded
Monday: 27 Iraqis Killed, 36 Wounded
Tuesday: 3 US Soldiers, 40 Iraqis Killed; 67 Iraqis Wounded
Wednesday: 2 Americans, 27 Iraqis Killed, 53 Iraqis Wounded
Thursday: 2 US Soldiers, 38 Iraqis Killed; 16 Iraqis Wounded
Friday: 1 GI, 30 Iraqis, 5 Turks, 24 PKK Killed; 39 Iraqis Wounded
Saturday: 39 Iraqis, 55 PKK Rebels, 17 Turks Killed; 10 Iraqis Wounded
Sunday: 2 US Soldiers, 75 Iraqis Killed; 166 Iraqis Wounded
Monday: 44 Iraqis Killed, 37 Wounded
Tuesday: 1 US Soldier, 33 Iraqis Killed; 20 Iraqis Wounded
Wednesday: 18 Iraqis Killed, 16 Wounded
Thursday: 13 Iraqis, 5 Arabs Killed; 12 Iraqis Wounded
and thats the death figures for Febuary
February 29th, 2008 at 9:20 amJohn Stewart and Keith Olbermann each showed a few clips from Bush's appearance yesterday and made their appropriate remarks.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:21 amBush is in the throes of "senioritis" in his last months in the White House, according to Stewart.
Olbermann simply pointed out all the contradictions and stupidities that came out of the Bush mouth.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 9:10 am
I'm going to cut Obama a little slack on this one. First, there's a huge difference between "not ruling out" something and embracing it in a bear hug. Second, Bush has gotten us into such an icky mess in the Middle East that Obama may have to use the only tools available to him to get us out of it -- as repugnant as that is.
I'm not reading this as an Obama endorsement of Blackwater. Yet. Instead, I see it as Obama keeping all his options open for now. The alternative would be to promise Americans what they want to hear and then wind up not being able to deliver.
If Hillary comes out with a credible statement that she absolutely, positively won't employ private security firms, and explains how she will avoid this, then I will take a second look at her. For now, it appears that Obama is at least answering the question while Hillary is dodging it.
For what it's worth, if either of them had the courage to say that they would reinstate the draft instead of hiring mercenaries to fight our wars for us, I would vote for that candidate.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:23 amAmerican Deaths in Iraq
Total
February 29th, 2008 at 9:23 amSince war began: 3973
Since 5/1/2003: 3834
Official Estimated
Total Wounded: 29203
US positions warships near Lebanon
Why , what for , GO HOME
February 29th, 2008 at 9:28 amAfter months of a consensual international media blackout, Matt Drudge revealed that Prince Harry has been “in Afghanistan
Nice going Drudge. The fact that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan is not news. By reporting that he was there, Drudge put Harry and his fellow soldiers in danger. What is wrong with the press? They don't report what they should report and they do report what they shouldn't. It's all about money.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:28 amIn a May letter to an assistant administrator at the EPA,†a vice president of the American Chemistry Council called Rice “a fervent advocate.â€
Sounds to me like a requirement for the job, not a reason for firing. But Bushco can't have anybody advocating for the People. More Treason from the GOPigs.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:30 amSenate Republicans “blocked consideration of a bill designed to prop up the struggling housing industry†yesterday.
It isn't just the struggling housing industry, it is the struggling families who are drowning. Bush has said that he doesn't want to bail out the struggling families, but he is perfectly willing to bail out the companies that put them in their current position of not being able to make their mortgage payments. Shows you where Bush's priorities are.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:30 amI’m going to cut Obama a little slack on this one. First, there’s a huge difference between “not ruling out†something and embracing it in a bear hug. Second, Bush has gotten us into such an icky mess in the Middle East that Obama may have to use the only tools available to him to get us out of it — as repugnant as that is.
Comment by missmolly — February 29, 2008 @ 9:23 am
But it doesn't make any logical sense. If he's going to begin withdrawing troops immediately why can't the remaining troops, now relieved of performing their regular operations, perform the security functions? Why must we continue to pay Blackwater $700 a day?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:31 amMore Twists and Turns in Wikileaks Case
February 29th, 2008 at 9:32 amNew York Times - 5 hours ago
By Jonathan D. Glater For the first time in the litigation over documents posted on the Wikileaks Web site, lawyers have appeared representing the owner of the Wikileaks.
Groups Argue To Save Whistleblower Site Wikileaks MediaPost Publications
UPDATE 1-Swiss bank Baer defends Web site shutdown Reuters
Why must we continue to pay Blackwater $700 a day?
For the green zone and the airport Obama says
February 29th, 2008 at 9:32 amKind of like the shrub growing out of Lincoln's nose on Mt. Rushmore....
February 29th, 2008 at 9:32 amThe Bush administration’s continued backing of President Pervez Musharraf
Too bad Bush. The people of Pakistan have rejected your puppet. There really isn't anything that Bush can do about this situation other than invading Pakistan. And I don't think even he is stupid enough to invade a country with a nuclear bomb at it's disposal.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:34 amhere we go again...
US warship threatens stability - Hezbollah MP
February 29th, 2008 at 9:34 amReuters - 3 hours ago
By Laila Bassam BEIRUT, Feb 29 (Reuters) - The pro-Iranian Hezbollah group accused the United States on Friday of endangering regional stability by deploying a warship off Lebanon and vowed to defy what it called an act of military intimidation.
Hezbollah says US ship is threat BBC News
US Send Ships to Eastern Med The Associated Press
Why aren't any of our Royalty fighting over there?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:36 amMichael Mullen “told Pentagon officials in a town hall meeting Thursday that the military must be prepared to change policy and carry out the wishes of the next president.â€
You bet they better be ready to change direction. Barak Obama will be their Commander in Chief and they will report to him. I suspect that most people in the military are relieved to know that by next year we will have a president who isn't a total whack job.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:36 amsome good news:
The Global AIDS Fight
February 29th, 2008 at 9:36 amNew York Times - 9 hours ago
Congress and the White House are preparing to ramp up spending on programs to combat AIDS and related diseases around the world while removing some of the ideological blinders that have long undermined the effort to slow the spread of the AIDS virus.
Activists Applaud House Panel Extension of Global AIDS Program Voice of America
Deal reached on funding AIDS program Boston Globe
The station claimed “that after a review, it had concluded that the blackout was related to a similar interruption during a basketball game the day before.â€
And it is just a coincidence that the blackout ended as soon as the Siegelman segment was over with. Yeah, right.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:37 amI don't understand why the Dems want to bail out unscrupulous lenders and foolish buyers. The housing market needs to correct after years of double digit pricing growth. The longer you prolong this correction, the longer we will stay in slow / no growth in the economy.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:38 amthis is weird:
Ricin Possibly Found at Las Vegas Motel
February 29th, 2008 at 9:38 amThe Associated Press - 45 minutes ago
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Preliminary tests indicate that a package found at a motel contained the toxin ricin, and seven people have been taken to hospitals, authorities said.
Toxin ricin found in Las Vegas hotel room: media Reuters
Ricin May Have Been Found Wall Street Journal
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
February 29th, 2008 at 9:38 amIf we’d just let the Iraqis have that horrible embassy and bring the State Department home, too, we wouldn’t need all these mercenaries. I wonder why the mercenaries aren’t legally accountable to anyone. Is that some “law†dreamed up by–whom–Congress? The administration?
Comment by lefttown
There is no "law" regarding the mercenaries. It is strictly a Bush directive. They are not legally accountable to anyone because Bush told the Iraqi's that they would not be accountable. Congress had absolutely nothing to do with it.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:40 am"...the military must be prepared to change policy and carry out the wishes of the next president.â€
what this tells me is that the military has been carrying out
the WISHES of THIS idiot president... and NOT military precident...
no surprise...
February 29th, 2008 at 9:41 amCongress and the White House are preparing to ramp up spending on programs to combat AIDS and related diseases around the world while removing some of the ideological blinders that have long undermined the effort to slow the spread of the AIDS virus.
Comment by katy — February 29, 2008 @ 9:36 am
Are they striking down that moronic anti-prostitution pledge? Cause that would be extremely helpful.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:41 amBut it doesn’t make any logical sense. If he’s going to begin withdrawing troops immediately why can’t the remaining troops, now relieved of performing their regular operations, perform the security functions? Why must we continue to pay Blackwater $700 a day?
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 9:31 am
You're right. The sensible thing to do (and the obvious thing to do from where I sit) would be to fire Blackwater immediately, scale back military operations, and let our own military handle security matters as the withdrawal occurs -- as you've described.
Of course, "where I sit" isn't the Oval Office. I believe there is still an excellent chance that Obama will do the right thing. He has already demonstrated more sensibility regarding Iraq than Bush and Cheney ever did. I think he just wants to keep all the cards in his hand for now, and I'm not getting alarmed about this. Yet. If he starts praising the work Blackwater does and defending them a la Bush, I shall get more alarmed.
I also think Hillary won't make any promises to ditch Blackwater -- the difference is that she's too chicken to say so.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:43 amHendler, kindly read the link before you post; you won't come across as being so stupid.
The bankruptcy "bailout" is merely a provision which would allow a bankruptcy judge to lower the interest rate on a loan so that the homebuyers can continue to make payments and keep their house. The banks would make a reduced profit, but would still make a profit. And people would keep their homes instead of being tossed out on the streets. It looks like a win-win.
The only losers in such a deal would be uber-rich land buyers, seeking to snap up foreclosed properties at bargain-basement prices. The banks will get their bail-out from losses associated with these foreclosures, at taxpayer expense (see the savings and loan scandle for example).
Why do you support the uber-rich at the expense of American families?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:44 amBut it doesn’t make any logical sense. If he’s going to begin withdrawing troops immediately why can’t the remaining troops, now relieved of performing their regular operations, perform the security functions? Why must we continue to pay Blackwater $700 a day?
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 9:31 am
I think it's just an unfortunate encroachment of reality on a high-minded ideal. The withdrawal is going to take at least a year. Diplomatic security is going to need to be there indefinitely, unless we break diplomatic ties with Iraq.
What Barack Little Beauty Obama has said is that he wants to ensure that security contractors are covered by U.S. law and don't operate in the legal vacuum they do now. Since the contractors aren't going to disappear overnight, we need to have better oversight over them.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:44 amFor Obama, the CHANGE candidate, to continue their existence is not acceptable. I wanted him to legislate them out of existence, to ensure they were funded into nihility (I hope that’s a word). Obama’s position on Blackwater shocked me, and I didn’t think all that much of him to begin with.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda
I would also like to see them legislated out of existence too, but I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. People are asking him to make snap judgments on things that he doesn't have a full picture of. He is not the President now and he is not privy to all the information he will need to make some of these judgments. So, naturally he is reticent to say "no I won't do that" or "yes I will do that" without a full picture.
So what are you going to do? Are you going to vote for McCain? Are you going to sit home and pout because Obama isn't your perfect candidate?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:45 amie. Dumb fox
Media's embargo on "Harry's war" sparks debate Reuters
Prince Harry and the media: Your views CNN International
and what i had to say about this yesterday, as the story broke:
get him the hell outta there… no one needs any more excuses to
escalate this disaster…
get him out of there.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:46 amLONGYEARBYEN, Norway — With plant species disappearing at an alarming rate, scientists and governments are creating a global network of plant banks to store seeds and sprouts, precious genetic resources that may be needed for man to adapt the world’s food supply to climate change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world/europe/29seeds.html
February 29th, 2008 at 9:47 amWhy does Bush continue to compare himself to Lincoln when he keeps sounding more and more like Hoover?
Comment by missmolly — February 29, 2008 @ 9:07 am
hoover? i'd say HITLER.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:47 amThe longer you prolong this correction, the longer we will stay in slow / no growth in the economy.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 29, 2008 @ 9:38 am
that's because the republicans stole the government. as long as that happens, the economy will suffer, the greedy will upset the balance, and real Aemricans will be hurt. Republicans always bring about a slow/no growth economy.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:49 amHendler, kindly read the link before you post; you won’t come across as being so stupid.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — February 29, 2008 @ 9:44 am
I guess it can't hurt to hope that someday Hendler won't come across as being stupid.
I wouldn't put a lot of money on it, though.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:51 amIn Iraq right now, the number of private contractors is basically equal to the number of US troops. While Obama advisers say they plan to “have a serious look†at the role of contractors in Iraq, one adviser seemed to indicate that unarmed contractors would continue to operate at significant levels. “These contractors are not only providing private security functions like Blackwater. They’re rebuilding schools, they are serving food, they’re doing logistics, they’re driving trucks, and the important question is, If you take those 100,000-plus contractors out of Iraq, what do you replace them with? Inevitably the answer is, You replace them with US military.â€
Here's the part of the story about Obama that 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda left out.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:51 ammissmolly, it's not that the "tough on crime people" have won any philosophical debate; they just got control of the apparatus of power and rewarded their prison-building-and-operating buddies.
There's a lot of money in prisons, both consruction and operation. It's one of our few growth industries at the moment.
The fact that crime is directly related to poverty escapes them, as does the fact that treatment and post-release support are cheaper than reincarceration.
Nope, they're all about punishment. To them, punishment feels good, feels righteous. Who cares if it makes crime worse in the long run?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:56 amOlbermann simply pointed out all the contradictions and stupidities that came out of the Bush mouth.
Comment by Marie
I have to say that it was very painful watching our Doofus President. My favorite part was when Olbermann compared Bush's snicker to Beavis & Butthead's laughs. Remarkably similar.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:56 amDiplomatic security is going to need to be there indefinitely, unless we break diplomatic ties with Iraq.
Comment by toasterhead — February 29, 2008 @ 9:44 am
Barack has told us the troops will start coming home when he is President. So the troops will no longer need to carry out whatever missions they're performing today. The "war" will be over. The remaining troops will then be able to perform the security functions that the Blackwater troops are doing.
I find it amazing that Obama refuses to state a clear position on so many issues and so many intelligent people just keep accepting this. I think this issue is so cut and dry, so obvious, and he'd have overwhelming support for it. He should just state a clear position.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:56 amComment by missmolly — February 29, 2008 @ 9:23 am
Thank you missmolly. As usual you said it much more eloquently than I did.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:57 amHere’s the part of the story about Obama that 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda left out.
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 29, 2008 @ 9:51 am
In my post #5 I urged everyone to read the entire article. So this comment is not fair.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:58 amNope, they’re all about punishment. To them, punishment feels good, feels righteous. Who cares if it makes crime worse in the long run?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 29, 2008 @ 9:56 am
Ah yes -- the old "the beatings shall continue until morale improves!" philosophy. I've worked for employers like that.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:58 amBut it doesn’t make any logical sense. If he’s going to begin withdrawing troops immediately why can’t the remaining troops, now relieved of performing their regular operations, perform the security functions? Why must we continue to pay Blackwater $700 a day?
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda
You are making an awful lot of assumptions here. There is no indication that 1) he will keep Blackwater and 2) that he will keep paying private firms that much money. As missmolly said so eloquently, Obama is simply keeping his options open because he knows that Iraq is a serious mess that will take quite some time to fix.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:00 amThe EPA has dismissed toxicologist Deborah Rice ...
that blurb is confusing... and the link is to a registered site...
here is a better link:
Outspoken scientist dismissed from panel on chemical safety
Deborah Rice, an award-winning toxicologist, was removed from a group of experts researching a widely-used flame retardant after industry lobbyists complained that she was biased.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:02 amhttp://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-epa29feb29,1,6875384.story
If you take those 100,000-plus contractors out of Iraq, what do you replace them with? Inevitably the answer is, You replace them with US military.â€
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 29, 2008 @ 9:51 am
You replace them with Iraqis who have no job and nothing to do all day. This will help put an end to the civil war. Wasn't this at least in part the success of the Marshall Plan?
We need to end the experiment of Milton Friedman, University of Chicago Economics in Iraq. Let the Iraqi people have their country back, especially their jobs.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:03 amBarack has told us the troops will start coming home when he is President. So the troops will no longer need to carry out whatever missions they’re performing today. The “war†will be over. The remaining troops will then be able to perform the security functions that the Blackwater troops are doing.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 9:56 am
I think this is a very oversimplified view of the situation. The troops will start coming home as they are able to leave, redeploying first from more stable provinces and later from more unstable provinces. This doesn't mean that all training and PRTs and other work that the military is currently doing in the less stable regions should immediately stop. I think their work will be much more effective if the Iraqis know we're actually on our way out.
It just needs to be refocused towards conflict resolution and final status negotiation, rather than the current situation where the military is percieved by Iraqis as being there indefinitely.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:05 amDrudge has no morals. Drudge has stabbed Great Britian in the back.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:06 amYou replace them with Iraqis who have no job and nothing to do all day. This will help put an end to the civil war. Wasn’t this at least in part the success of the Marshall Plan?
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Agreed completely. But I believe that is still going to take some time. Not the ten or 100 years that McCain is saying, but 12-18 months at least.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:08 am"Senate Republicans “blocked consideration of a bill designed to prop up the struggling housing industry†yesterday. The bill would have provided billions of dollars to local communities and help low-income homeowners — against which the “mortgage industry has waged a stiff lobbying campaign.â€
OF COURSE they did!
Why would they want to help anyone? That's soooo Democratic.
They are the party of Corporate welfare.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:08 amI find it amazing that Obama refuses to state a clear position on so many issues and so many intelligent people just keep accepting this. I think this issue is so cut and dry, so obvious, and he’d have overwhelming support for it. He should just state a clear position.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda
The issues are "cut and dry" to Sunday Morning Quarterbacks. To a thoughtful individual like Obama, things are not "cut and dry". Iraq is a total mess and it will take Obama a long time to sort it out. All he is doing is keeping all his options open.
Again, I must ask you. What are you going to do now that you have decided that Obama is not your perfect candidate? Are you going to vote for McCain or are you going to sit home and pout?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:08 amA scientist is accused of bias, why? Because she is an expert on a bad chemical additive, having done actual research that shows how bad it is?
This is insane. Why bother even having experts at the DEA?? It's just for show. It makes me sick to my stomach...
February 29th, 2008 at 10:08 amI also think Hillary won’t make any promises to ditch Blackwater — the difference is that she’s too chicken to say so.
Comment by missmolly — February 29, 2008 @ 9:43 am
The gobs of cash she receives from the defense industry don't help either.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:09 amAs missmolly said so eloquently, Obama is simply keeping his options open because he knows that Iraq is a serious mess that will take quite some time to fix.
Comment by bilbobaggins
That's simply cowardness...expected in any politician.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:09 am[...]
Last February, around the time the EPA panel was convened, Rice testified before the Maine Legislature in support of a state ban on the compound because scientific evidence shows it is toxic and accumulating in the environment and people.
Chemical industry lobbyists say Rice's comments to the Legislature, as well as similar comments to the media, show that she is a biased advocate who has compromised the integrity of the EPA's review of the flame retardant.
The EPA is in the process of deciding how much daily exposure to deca is safe -- a controversial decision, expected next month, that could determine whether it can still be used in consumer products. The role of the expert panel was to review and comment on the scientific evidence.
EPA officials removed Rice because of what they called "the perception of a potential conflict of interest." ...
... not enough interest in the Chemical Industry, evidently...
February 29th, 2008 at 10:09 amFor Obama, the CHANGE candidate, to continue their existence is not acceptable. I wanted him to legislate them out of existence, to ensure they were funded into nihility (I hope that’s a word). Obama’s position on Blackwater shocked me, and I didn’t think all that much of him to begin with.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda
I'd just like to remind you and all who are discussing this issue that President's don't "legislate." They are supposed to ensure that legislation passed by Congress are carried out. Unfortunately, with 7 years of Bush's rule largely by fiat, we've begun to think that a president is in charge of everything. So either we want the Constitution and our democracy restored, or we want Obama or whoever gets elected to continue to abrogate the function of Congress, as Bush as done.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:11 am#1 2million........You sound like a guy from Hillary's camp.
If you want people not consider Obama for presidency...then the options left for people are: H. Clinotn or,
J.McCain,Nader,Paul or Hucakbee.
Do you think that's a better option?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:11 amYou replace them with Iraqis who have no job and nothing to do all day. This will help put an end to the civil war. Wasn’t this at least in part the success of the Marshall Plan?
We need to end the experiment of Milton Friedman, University of Chicago Economics in Iraq. Let the Iraqi people have their country back, especially their jobs.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda
Who is to say that is not exactly what Obama will do. You are making an awful lot of assumptions (and you know what that makes you) about what Obama will do based on a statement that basically says that he wants to keep all his options open.
Again, who are you going to vote for?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:12 amI think this is a very oversimplified view of the situation. The troops will start coming home as they are able to leave, redeploying first from more stable provinces and later from more unstable provinces.
Comment by toasterhead
Funny. It just took 2 weeks to take over the country...
February 29th, 2008 at 10:12 amIt is up to the Congress to finanace the whole war...and that includes contractors.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:13 amFunny. It just took 2 weeks to take over the country…
Comment by Juan C. — February 29, 2008 @ 10:12 am
Ha!
We never took over the country. We just stuck an army in the middle of it.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:14 amThat’s simply cowardness…expected in any politician.
Comment by Juan C.
Excuse me, you think it is cowardness for Obama not to make snap judgments about things he does not have a full knowledge about? I think it's smart. Obama has no idea what is going on in Iraq. None of us do thanks to the most secretive government in the history of our nation.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:14 amThat’s simply cowardness…expected in any politician.
Comment by Juan C. — February 29, 2008 @ 10:09 am
It's politics. He's positioning himself for the run against McCain.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:15 amPRINCE HARRY - what a coward
Comment by Bush Cover Ups — February 29, 2008 @ 9:17 am
He volunteered for regular duty on the front line. Please do explain how that is cowardly.
Your statement brings you down to the level of that f-k-wit Drudge, who intentionally endangered Harry by releasing the info of where he was.
Harry has more guts than any mouthy chickenhawk and probably more guts than you.
As for me, being a veteran who has been in combat, Harry has my utmost respect for his decision to be with the men his country is putting on the front lines.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:15 amSo what are you going to do? Are you going to vote for McCain? Are you going to sit home and pout because Obama isn’t your perfect candidate?
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 29, 2008 @ 9:45 am
I'm trying to apply pressure on Obama supporters to lean on their candidate to clarify his position. For the benefit of us all.
Notice that I'm not performing this favor for Clinton supporters.
What am I going to do personally? I don't see my choices limited to one party or candidate.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:16 amSo our resident moronic troll thinks that Drudge should be given a pass for announcing Prince Harry was in Afghanistan because a couple of gossip rags had speculated before Drudge published. Sorry, there is no excuse for what Drudge did and I hope that the British government makes him very uncomfortable for what he has done.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:16 amObama has no idea what is going on in Iraq.
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 29, 2008 @ 10:14 am
This will NOT help your candidate.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:17 amWhat am I going to do personally? I don’t see my choices limited to one party or candidate.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda
Oh really. What are your other choices when it comes to your vote?
I, an Obama supporter, AM NOT going to pressure him to make an absolute judgment on a situation where he doesn't have all the facts. I would prefer to vote for someone who is sensible enough not to make blanket statements today, to appease his audience, that he will come to regret later.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:18 amWhy does Bush continue to compare himself to Lincoln when he keeps sounding more and more like Hoover?
Comment by missmolly — February 29, 2008 @ 9:07 am
Wouldn't that be more and more like "A Hoover" - sucks and sucks while making a lot of noise??
February 29th, 2008 at 10:20 amObama has no idea what is going on in Iraq.
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 29, 2008 @ 10:14 am
This will NOT help your candidate.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda
So, do you have some magic way that Obama or any other candidate can know absolutely what is going on in Iraq? Do you think that the Bush administration is going to give him or any other democratic candidate full access to the military and all the support systems behind the occupation to find out what the situation in Iraq really is?
You are really deluded and are starting to sound rather stupid.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:20 am"For Obama, the CHANGE candidate, to continue their existence is not acceptable. I wanted him to legislate them out of existence'
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 9:10 am
I agree, it is unacceptable. But at least he wants to bring them under the umbrella of accountability and Hillery wouldn't even comment. What does that say about her?
Look, it always comes down to a choice of who comes the closest to lining up with each and every one of our seperate "issues"/"causes"/"wishes" Whatever you want to call it. And sometimes it comes down to choosing between the lessor of two eviles. But this year it comes down to electability over McCrazy Insane.
And since Hillery is Mcain Lite and Nader has no chance in hell, what's the alternative?
Those protest voters from the last election cycle made the vote just close enough for the repugs to steal the election and caused the last 7 years of our collective misery.
The one thing Obama truly represents, if elected, is a clear repudiation of Bush and politics as usual. Which in my humble opinion could signify the start of a healing process and maybe, just maybe, a beginning to the process that could put the criminals of this illegal administration behind bars.
That's something I think we all can get behind and support. I know I will.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:24 amObama has no idea what is going on in Iraq.
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 29, 2008 @ 10:14 am
This will NOT help your candidate.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 10:17 am
Oh please. Bilbo was just stating the obvious -- that while Obama probably sees a fuller picture of the Iraq situation as a U.S. Senator than you or me, he doesn't have the complete picture because of the unprecedented secrecy of the Bush-Cheney administration (and he's smart enough to know this). Neither does Hillary. Neither does McCain. Neither does Huckabee, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, or any other candidate.
I admit that "Obama has no idea what is going on in Iraq." might not have been the most accurate way of stating this, but I certainly knew what Bilbo meant.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:24 amObama has no idea what is going on in Iraq.
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 29, 2008 @ 10:14 am
Ummm... a standing US Senator knows NOTHING about Iraq? Little hard to believe that one. As a Sen, he's privy to all kinds of info us ordinary snarkers aren't, and as he's running for President, I'd hope to Hell that he's gone out of his way to learn even more...
No idea??? Having a hard time believing that...
February 29th, 2008 at 10:25 amTurkish soldiers 'leaving Iraq'
February 29th, 2008 at 10:26 amBBC News - 5 hours ago
Turkish troops involved in an operation against Kurdish rebels have begun leaving northern Iraq, reports say. But US sources told Reuters news agency it was too early to call the pull-back a full withdrawal.
Video: Trapped in the Turkey-Kurdish divide - 28 Feb 08 AlJazeeraEnglish
Turkish Military Officials Say Some Troops Leaving Northern Iraq Voice of America
“For the first time in the nation’s history, more than one in 100 American adults are behind bars,â€
Can we incarcerate :
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfled. Feith, Rove, Hadley, Rice, Powell, etc. now?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:27 amFunny. It just took 2 weeks to take over the country…
Comment by Juan C. — February 29, 2008 @ 10:12 am
It always takes less time for an unpleasant stain to get into your carpet than it does to remove it.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:29 amWhat am I going to do personally? I don’t see my choices limited to one party or candidate.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda
Well then vote for Nader, or McCain and be a fool if that is your choice.
LOL
Obama is a Constitutional professor and probably knows more about the laws of this country than all of the candidates put together.
Your trying to pin just Obama down to state exactly what he is going to do in Iraq is ludicrous, because no one knows exactly what is going on and how fooked up the situation is outside the over secretive Bush Administration.
Your argument is sounding foolish IMHO
February 29th, 2008 at 10:30 am#1 2million……..You sound like a guy from Hillary’s camp.
Do you think that’s a better option?
Comment by tarazan — February 29, 2008 @ 10:11 am
I assumed (wrongly) everyone here knows my position. I do not support Hillary under any circumstance. Hillary is a Republican. I disagree with her on almost every major policy. I was Kucinich supporter. Then I considered supporting Edwards. Now I'm looking for a candidate. I'm trying to accept Barack but am having great difficulty. I strongly believe if we turn a blind eye to our own candidates faults, whoever that candidate may be, we're no better than the Republicans. I'd rather look the truth straight in the eye, before the election, than have to take personal responsibility for the deaths of 1 million Iraqis, as the Republicans/Bush voters must do. I will NOT put myself in that position by accident. This is why I put candidates under the microscope. I'm scared to see others in the liberal/indy/progressive camp not being as demanding as I am. We must be better than the Republicans.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:30 amComment by missmolly — February 29, 2008 @ 9:23 am
Well Said MissMolly!
February 29th, 2008 at 10:31 amthink about it: what we know of ALL the SECRECY that this
CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE has engulfed itself it, how can ANYONE
really know what's going on with ANYthing they do...
whatever anyone thinks they know about iraq, could prove
to be totally worthless once they get behind that desk...
which is why i'm not betting that the criminals will ever leave.
except as in front of our pitchforks... like that'll happen...
February 29th, 2008 at 10:31 amWell then vote for Nader, or McCain and be a fool if that is your choice.
LOL
Your argument is sounding foolish IMHO
Comment by Wayne — February 29, 2008 @ 10:30 am
** When I have more time I'll take up this discussion of why I may vote 3rd party and why. Then after you hear my arguement you can call me foolish or not.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:33 amI sure hope that Obama does away with this whole mercenary business. I'm sure a lot more will come out on this between now and November. Obama will be confronted on all sides - the righties will complain that he's too soft on those they view as unfriendly and the lefties will complain that he's not planning on changing things fast enough etc.
But...I sure loved the way he responded to McCain's silliness the other day by saying that AQ wasn't even in Iraq before we were there and the way he responded to Bush yesterday on the whole willingness to meet with "unfriendly nations" issue.
This is the quote from my newspaper:
'Obama shot back that the next President must show the world "a new era is being ushered in, and that we are not afraid to talk to anybody, including those who we have great problems with."'
I love the way that he framed it - "we are not afraid".
Also, what the blankety-blank are we doing with those warships off the coast of Lebanon?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:34 am'Why aren’t any of our Royalty fighting over there?"
Comment by jb — February 29, 2008 @ 9:36 am
Because our Royalty is mostly Repugnant Chicken Hawks
February 29th, 2008 at 10:35 amObama is a Constitutional professor and probably knows more about the laws of this country than all of the candidates put together.
Comment by Wayne — February 29, 2008 @ 10:30 am
I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president’s authority,…I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction,…We would once again, rather than attending to the people’s business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus.â€
- Barack Obama explaining that lying our country to war, outing an undercover CIA agent, illegally wiretapping its citizens and torturing prisoners denied habeas corpus are not grave offenses.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:36 amWhen I think of all the crap that has gone down in the past 8 years with this CRIME CABAL posing as an American Presidency : I get really sick to my stomach.
I feel like this country is in 4th stage CANCER. We are rotting to the core from the LIES, ROTTEN POLICIES AND THE STRANGULATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:38 amI’d rather look the truth straight in the eye, before the election, than have to take personal responsibility for the deaths of 1 million Iraqis, as the Republicans/Bush voters must do. I will NOT put myself in that position by accident. This is why I put candidates under the microscope. I’m scared to see others in the liberal/indy/progressive camp not being as demanding as I am. We must be better than the Republicans.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 10:30 am
Understandable, and I agree with you. However, I also recognize that the Iraq quagmire is an extremely dynamic situation. The Iraq of Inauguration Day 2009 is going to be a completely different place from the Iraq of Leap Day 2008. We have no idea what Muqtada as-Sadr will do or the Awakeninc Councils will do or the Parliament or Noori al-Maliki or the Badr Brigades or Turkey or Iran or Syria or any of the other dozens of players.
I would rather have a candidate state some general principles about the conduct of operations there than issue specific hard-and-fast orders ten months in advance.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am... vote 3rd party and why. Then after you hear my arguement you can call me foolish or not.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda
there is no good argument for doing that...
not these days and in these times...
take it elsewhere.
OVERWHELMING DEMOCRATIC VOTER TURNOUT.
IF IT'S NOT CLOSE THEY CAN'T STEAL IT.
it's that simple.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:39 amObama has no idea what is going on in Iraq.
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 29, 2008 @ 10:14 am
This will NOT help your candidate.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 10:17 am
Oh please. Bilbo was just stating the obvious
Comment by missmolly — February 29, 2008 @ 10:24 am
Bilbo called me an "ass" in a prior statment. I was just returning the favor. Nothing but a harmless squabble among TP posters. We'll shake hands and agree to be civil by Monday (and I won't hire any "Contractors" to do my fighting for me)!
February 29th, 2008 at 10:39 amSo some small, Australian, fluffy women’s lifestyle magazine called “New Idea†apparently published on January 7th a rumor that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/29/2176274.htm
The magazine “New Idea†doesn’t appear to have its own website but it does have a presence on ‘Yahoo Lifestyle’.
There is nothing on the New Idea front page about this story but a search there of “Prince Harry†delivers two article headings; Prince Harry goes to War in Afghanistan and Prince Harry, Warlord, which are dated to the second and third week on January and both of which are linked link to their standard bio of Prince Harry, NOT to the original stories.
The original Jan 7th story then, appears to have been scrubbed completely.
http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/new-idea/search/index.html?term=Prince+Harry&x=41&y=12
New Idea apparently had no idea there was an embargo on news about Harry’s whereabouts and now the magazine has a new moniker, No Idea.
Now they’ve embargoed themselves.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:40 am'they’re all about punishment. To them, punishment feels good, feels righteous. Who cares if it makes crime worse in the long run?"
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 29, 2008 @ 9:56 am
That's it in a nutshell! WWJD? Well, according to these nutjobs, He'd lock them up and execute as needed. He certainly wouldn't try to help them. Sick.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:45 amMatt Drudge. Why do you hate America and its ally Great Britain so much? Why do you persist in committing acts of treason? One would think that a no talent like you would be grateful for the opportunity of making a living spreading lies for the GOP. But no, you feel the need to try to kill the Prince while destroying America. Why, Matt, why?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:48 am"Oh please. Bilbo was just stating the obvious — that while Obama probably sees a fuller picture of the Iraq situation as a U.S. Senator than you or me, he doesn’t have the complete picture because of the unprecedented secrecy of the Bush-Cheney administration (and he’s smart enough to know this). Neither does Hillary. Neither does McCain. Neither does Huckabee, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, or any other candidate."
Really? I had always heard that front-running candidates for president are given full briefings on national security matters - briefings in much greater detail than any Senator, or congressman gets. The reason, is the current president's policies have a better chance of successful completion if the incoming candidate knows the whole story. And they are sworn to secrecy, so it can't be used politically.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:49 amWhy aren’t any of our Royalty fighting over there?
Comment by jb — February 29, 2008 @ 9:36 am
Recommend (3)
Do some research, then try again:
McCain rarely speaks of son serving in Iraq
LINK
At least he's not using his own flesh and blood to help further politicize the war, eh?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:53 ambarfly - you don't actually think bushco levelled with any candidate,
February 29th, 2008 at 10:53 amdo you? mcCREEPY might be the exception, i'll grant that...
" you don’t actually think bushco levelled with any candidate,
do you? "
If he wants his "legacy."
February 29th, 2008 at 10:55 amIn my post #5 I urged everyone to read the entire article. So this comment is not fair.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda
Yes it is fair. Most people won't follow the link and read the whole article. So, your cherry-picking of the facts you presented left a false impression. You are starting to sound remarkably like a troll.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:55 am"I had always heard that front-running candidates for president are given full briefings on national security matters - briefings in much greater detail than any Senator, or congressman gets."
Comment by barfly — February 29, 2008 @ 10:49 am
I suspect that has been true in the past. But remember -- we're talking about Bushco here. Do you really think they are going to brief candidates -- particularly Democratic ones -- about all their criminal activities? Even if Obama, Clinton, and McCain got security briefings, the distrust for this administration is so great that nobody would ever believe they had the full picture even if they did.
As far as Bush wanting to see the "successful completion" of his plan -- I think even Bush knows there is no such thing when it comes to Iraq. His strategy now is to run out the clock, and then when the whole operation craps out, the new guy can be blamed for it. With that strategy, there's no need to brief candidates on anything.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:56 ambarfly - you don’t actually think bushco levelled with any candidate,
do you? mcCREEPY might be the exception, i’ll grant that…
Comment by katy — February 29, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Ha. The Bushies don't even level with themselves, why would they level with Obama. Any "briefing" from them would be either deceptive or delusional.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:56 am“I don’t think we’re headed to a recession, but no question we’re in a slowdown,†he [Dinkledork] said.
That seals it! The US economy is definitely in a recession.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:57 amI don't want to hear about Clinton's 35 years experience and the great foreign policy experience of Senator McCain that is circulating thru news media outlets lately.
It is not enough for McCain to say ,as he did yesterday, about Iraq redarding the 'decision to go to war' he took that the decision is 'something of the past'.
McCain's vote and Hillary's is what caused us to be in this war.
If a bank manager or CEO created similar blunder to his bank,he or she will be fired.
Hillary's excuses for her vote to go to war neither are acceptable nor convincing.
Hillary's 35 experience does not add up, unless she included her husband's experience as hers on her resume.Something a wife of a bank manager cannot and will not do.
Her contacts with other leaders while she was living in the White House were ceremonial and has nothing to do with decision making.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:57 amThe slogan that she uses that she will be president 'from day one'..does not make sense.
Her claims that she will better for the country as 'Commander In Chief' lacks the facts based on and has no true merits.
Hillary's experience is about 8 years as a legistlator in the Senate,which Obama has 3 times that experience as a legistlator.
Hillary claims that she will keep troops in Iraq to protect our oversized embassy,then keep troops to fight Al-Qaeda..then to engage the Iranians.After all of this she claims that she will withdraw troops from Iraq in 60 days.
Obama is not perfect,but it time for change and to have a new blood.
The old politicians who brag daily about their experience are not the answer.
It is that same experience that put us in this war to begin with .
Americans do not need and have no use for this so called 'experience'.
Toasterhead...
"I would rather have a candidate state some general principles about the conduct of operations there than issue specific hard-and-fast orders ten months in advance."
I agree. Hillary Clinton has often been lambasted for not ,making a definitive statement about a withdrawal from Iraq. Obama has apparently been given a pass by many, I guess because of his "I was against it from the start". His subsequent voting for the maintenance of our presence in Iraq have been ignored by some of ardent supporters whilst bashing Hillary for the same (both IMHO did so as a political calculation).
It's not just the 2009 situation in Iraq that will determine the next president's actions but the state of the House and Senate that will matter too. Neither Clinton or Obama would be wise to make any definitive statements, despite many people's desire for them to do so. They both want us out of there militarily but diplomatically we owe the Iraqi people some practical support and how that is to be accomplished I have no idea.
Neither the Iraqis nor Americans need a bunch of bold specific promises right now that could so easily turn to shit. At the momnet discretion is the better part of valor, Come January I expect 'valor' to come to the fore.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:58 am"His strategy now is to run out the clock, and then when the whole operation craps out, the new guy can be blamed for it. With that strategy, there’s no need to brief candidates on anything."
So, you have no proof that Bush has changed the policy.
And running out the clock will do his legacy no good. He can only brag, if a succeeding president actually succeeds.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:59 amWhat part about "swearing them to secrecy" doesn't anyone understand?
February 29th, 2008 at 11:00 amRepublican Ideology Has Broken The Economy
By: Nicole Belle @ 12:47 PM - PST
Well, duh. Bonddad:
There will always be a debate about the need and extent of regulation. This debate is healthy; it should prevent one side from pushing too far against the other.
However, as the financial system continues to experience a high amount of turmoil, it is clear that deregulation has exceeded the “too much of a burden on business†argument. Instead, too little regulation has broken the economy.
From the NY Times:
[...]
February 29th, 2008 at 11:01 amhttp://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/28/republican-ideology-has-broken-the-economy/
Well said 5th Estate
February 29th, 2008 at 11:01 amYou are starting to sound remarkably like a troll.
Comment by bilbobaggins
Remember folks, it you're not deep-throating the Democratic party while blindfolded, you might be a troll.
NEWSFLASH: We are all entitled to our viewpoints, and if someone doesn't agree with you, maybe you should be the one re-evaluating your "all or nothing" stance.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:01 amWhy does Drudge Report hate the troops?
February 29th, 2008 at 11:03 amWhat part about “swearing them to secrecy†doesn’t anyone understand?
Comment by barfly — February 29, 2008 @ 11:00 am
what i understand, is that even clinton and obama, IF they have been
February 29th, 2008 at 11:04 ambreifed, will not KNOW they have been lied to until AFTER bushco is
gone... if they leave...
*
February 29th, 2008 at 11:06 amflag kay's bullshite @ 11:01 am
The station claimed “that after a review, it had concluded that the blackout was related to a similar interruption during a basketball game the day before.â€
They just couldn't stand to see their beloved Generals creamed by the Globetrotters one more time. It sends the "wrong message" to the little ones....
February 29th, 2008 at 11:06 amand 11:04
February 29th, 2008 at 11:06 amWhy does Drudge Report hate the troops?
Comment by Buckie Boy — February 29, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Why indeed?
Looks like Harry was stuck with a British motorcycle, one that required a special mode of propulsion. Heh. Just kidding, Brits!
February 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am‘Why aren’t any of our Royalty fighting over there?â€
Comment by jb — February 29, 2008 @ 9:36 am
Well, we don't have any "royalty" as the United Kingdom does, but it has been asked why Barbara and Jenna Bush haven't enlisted.
As much as I would like to see Bush make his decisions based on whether or not he thinks a cause is worth the life of either one of his daughters, I think it's a mistake to send somebody who would make such a plum target for insurgents. Clue = if somebody is entitled to Secret Service protection, that person probably shouldn't be in combat.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am(just so you know, I only supported Kucinich in this presidential race)
February 29th, 2008 at 11:08 amCynthia McKinney is another great person running. But, only the "Corporate Bought and Sold Candidates" get the chance is this "Democracy"...
"This is why I put candidates under the microscope. I’m scared to see others in the liberal/indy/progressive camp not being as demanding as I am. We must be better than the Republicans."
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 10:30 am
I agree with you for the most part but I also see that as a major flaw in the thinking of the Democratic party in general. It seems like Dems are always looking for the perfect candidate and the perfect solution. But because the party is way more diverse than the repugs, issue wise, it's always harder for the dems to find consensus. Whereas the repugs just put party over all else and they line up like little nazis and goose step us all right over the cliff.
I think that makes Dems better than them on the surface alone. Then when you go below the surface it's a completely different world. No to torture, no to shredding the constitution, no to corporate welfare, yes to a better world, yes to a hand up, and on and on and on and on.
But the details, often times, seem to run the dems right off the rails.
And it's your line of thought here on this topic that epitomizes this.
There is no perfect candidate or solution, Just better ones than the repugs have. Are you willing to let them keep things at the status quo or are you willing to support the candidate that has the best chance of winning over McCain and symbollically saying to the world that we are sick and tired of the status quo?
February 29th, 2008 at 11:12 amYes, on inauguration day, Dubya will be on his airplane to Paraguay, not looking back. By the time the next President sits down for his first day of work, Dubya will be out of his reach. Impending Terrorist Attack? Unlike Clinton's administration, Dubya's admin will be, "Heh, let them figure it out." War in Iraq? "Heh, let them figure it out." His only concern? "I'll be hangin' out in a nice warm place with lots of hot chicas and rakin' in my Oil dollars and y'all in 'murika can get bent, hehe."
February 29th, 2008 at 11:13 amNo idea??? Having a hard time believing that…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Bad wording on my part. I should have said that Obama doesn't have the full picture of what is going on in Iraq.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:13 amSo, you have no proof that Bush has changed the policy.
Comment by barfly — February 29, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Not only that -- I have no proof that any official "policy" exists. I think that what you are calling a policy is actually more of a tradition that has been exercised by some presidents. Furthermore, this "tradition" generally doesn't take place until AFTER the election, since in every election since 1952 one of the candidates has either been the current president or the current vice president. Why would you brief the opposition candidates before you have to?
However, this election IS different in that neither Bush nor Cheney is running. Bush could figure that the new president will be one of the three top candidates and brief them accordingly. But why? It makes far more sense to wait until after Election Day and then brief the winner. And I still would be willing to bet that any "briefing" even then will omit a fair amount (unless they get some guarantee of immunity or a pardon from the incoming administration).
February 29th, 2008 at 11:16 amReally? I had always heard that front-running candidates for president are given full briefings on national security matters - briefings in much greater detail than any Senator, or congressman gets. The reason, is the current president’s policies have a better chance of successful completion if the incoming candidate knows the whole story. And they are sworn to secrecy, so it can’t be used politically.
Comment by barfly
I'm hoping that this was snark. Because you can't really believe that Bush would be giving full briefings to the Democratic candidates, could you?
February 29th, 2008 at 11:16 amflag kay’s bullshite @ 11:01 am
Comment by katy
Wow katy, for a minute there I thought that was you posting. Looks like we have another idiot troll to contend with. Flagged and reflagged.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:23 amIF they have been
breifed, will not KNOW they have been lied to until AFTER bushco is
gone… if they leave…
Comment by katy
Cease fire, Katy. I'm just pointing out flaws to the reasoning. Any potential frontrunner (I think they wait on the full briefings until after the primaries, up until the conventions) without the intel couldn't hit the ground running on all the programs Bush is operating. This would make it easier for his programs to misfire, or backfire. He's all about legacy now, and if his successor fails because they weren't adequately briefed, his legacy goes "POOF!"
Remember, Bush was briefed by the Clinton team in '00, so by now, he probably understands the importance to his legacy of a smooth transition to the next president.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am(just so you know, I only supported Kucinich in this presidential race)
Cynthia McKinney is another great person running. But, only the “Corporate Bought and Sold Candidates†get the chance is this “Democracyâ€â€¦
Comment by Kay
Beware of trolls pretending to be progressives.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:26 am" But why? It makes far more sense to wait until after Election Day and then brief the winner."
All candidates are sworn to secrecy, no matter who wins. They can never reveal the details of their briefings, so it removes the political aspect.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:27 amanother thought, about voting DEMOCRATIC in general,
and OBAMA in particular, as i heard from listening to SAM SEDER
(filling in for randi, his last day, an awsome show - tune in 3-6E):
at this time, it is obvious that OBAMA can inspire and bring out the voters
and this is especially beneficial to all the other candidates running for congress and other offices... DEMOCRATIC offices...
got it?
February 29th, 2008 at 11:27 amBush's presidency has pushed Obama to his present position. Thanks Bush.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:28 amWhy can't people deal with the reality that Hillary and Obama are Corporate suck-ups? By the way, I am not a troll.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:29 amI do consider myself anti-war/progressive. Why should I prove anything to anyone here?
All candidates are sworn to secrecy, no matter who wins. They can never reveal the details of their briefings, so it removes the political aspect.
Comment by barfly — February 29, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Your fairy-tale scenario of briefing candidates this early in the game is still pretty unbelievable. Perhaps you could post a link to some authoritative site that outlines this "policy"?
February 29th, 2008 at 11:30 amHe’s all about legacy now, and if his successor fails because they weren’t adequately briefed, his legacy goes “POOF!â€
Remember, Bush was briefed by the Clinton team in ‘00, so by now, he probably understands the importance to his legacy of a smooth transition to the next president.
Comment by barfly
I disagree. If his successor fails because they weren't adequately briefed, Bush and the Republiscums will be all the new president accusing him/her of incompetence. I am not all that sure that Bush really cares about his "legacy" at this point because he has to know that it is not going to be a good legacy. The only part of his "legacy" he is hoping to control is to pass on Iraq to the next President so that anything bad that happens while sorting out the mess will be blamed on the new President, not him even though he made the mess in the first place.
You are hopelessly idealistic if you really think that Bush is going to fully brief the Democratic candidate.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:30 amWhy can’t people deal with the reality that Hillary and Obama are Corporate suck-ups? By the way, I am not a troll.
I do consider myself anti-war/progressive. Why should I prove anything to anyone here?
Comment by Kay
This new "I'm a progressive" troll doesn't realize that we have seen many of it's ilk come here and claim to be a progressive all the while bashing democrats. It's one of the RNC's new tactics.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am“For the first time in the nation’s history, more than one in 100 American adults are behind bars,†according to a new report. This statistic includes one in 15 adult black men and one in 36 adult Hispanic men.
I think in many cases a good caning when they're juvenile misfits, instead of sending them to juvenile corrective centers or whatever, should reduce the risk of them becoming criminals.
And I mean it, seriously. The current culture of "we can't do anything to you while you are a minor", followed by "Wham! You're 18, is off to dont-drop-the-soap jail for you" is clearly not working.
There need to be a big cultural change in order to reduce the number of criminals in prisons, because, frankly, harder jail terms are clearly not working.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:33 amkaty...
Awesome research! I wonder why the National Review, The Washington Times, FoxNews, the Chicago Tribune etc haven't connected all the dots and published this stuff--you know like the NYT and Wahsington Post did with Watergate? I mean, clearly the Clinton's have killed more people than the average Mafia boss. It must be because the above mentioned new outlets are so damn liberal.
Also I wonder why the GOP only tried to bust the Clintons for three murders, a shady land deal, cocaine smuggling, abuse of travel expenses and a couple of rapes and only ended up with a charge of lying about some blowjobs when they are so obviously the greatest husband and wife serial-killing team in history?
I also wonder why Geroge Bush, with a GOP majority in the House and Senate and with the party faithful stacked in the Supreme Court and in charge of the DOJ has done NOTHING to bring this mass murdering pair to justice?
It MUST be because the enitre GOP and all the million or so governemnt agency employees at every level are absolutely terrifed of the awesome power that a single Senator and an ex-President weild.
WILL NO ONE STOP THESE FIENDS?!!!
Oh, wait! Apparently the Clintons haven't killed anybody since 2000 ( except perhaps for Katherine Willey's cat). HUZZAH! Ever since Bush got into power the Clintons are no longer terrorizing the nation, just like we haven't been attacked by AQ since Bush became President! (on 9/14/200--- the first nine months were just practice, so they don't count).
When John McCain and the GOP sweep into power and take control of everything once again I fully expect them to deploy the rest of our military to Chappaqua to capture or kill Billlary, just like they did Osama Bin Laden!
February 29th, 2008 at 11:33 amha! i did a double-take at that one too, bilbo...
that one's been around before, littering the place... can get ugly too...
and, barfly, understood, but you have to know that EVERYthing
bushco says and does in and to the public is a LIE...
it's a given...
i'm off to run some errands...
February 29th, 2008 at 11:33 amlater, all... play fair.
I take each candidate as an individual. I supported Kucinich until he droppped out. How dare you say I am from the RNC? Get your facts straight, buddy.
I just cannot support anyone right now other than Cynthia McKinney.
Get over yourself.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am"You are hopelessly idealistic if you really think that Bush is going to fully brief the Democratic candidate."
Comment by bilbobaggins
As I said to Katy, merely pointing out flaws to the logic.
I guess we'll see. But you can rely upon me to remind you of this little exchange, should I find evidence to rebut my assertion.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:35 amBy the way, I am not a troll.
Comment by Kay — February 29, 2008 @ 11:29 am
When you post links to wingnut sites (off-topic, I might add) that perpetuate the belief that the Clintons murder people (or have it done for them), what do you honestly expect us to think of you?
By the way, the "Clinton Body Count" has been debunked -- just hysteria manufactured by Clinton enemies. Check it out, and then drop it.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
February 29th, 2008 at 11:36 amYou are all so much better than me. I am a worthless soul. I bow to your magnificence.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:38 amHEY! 5th Estate @ 11:33 am -
i hope that's not me, K A T Y, you're talking to... heh...
see yas!
February 29th, 2008 at 11:39 amWhy would anyone need or even want a briefing from Bush? The man is incredibly shallow and ignorant, he shows that he not a clue about Iraq or anything else and doesn't care to learn. Lazy, bored petulant little snot.
Any briefing would consist of a snicker and "pull my finger".
We have to vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination. Case closed. A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush, and it will be a vote for McCain. For the first time in my life I am going to vote the big D across the board from Mine Inspector to President without even looking at the names. We need to show the Repugnicunts that our country will not put up with torture, secrecy and discretionary wars. And then there's the Supreme Court.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:40 ampity the poor troollette... NOT.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:40 amI think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president’s authority,…I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction,…We would once again, rather than attending to the people’s business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus.â€
- Barack Obama explaining that lying our country to war, outing an undercover CIA agent, illegally wiretapping its citizens and torturing prisoners denied habeas corpus are not grave offenses.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Please post a link for this statement. Thanks.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:43 amFurthermore, this “tradition†generally doesn’t take place until AFTER the election, since in every election since 1952 one of the candidates has either been the current president or the current vice president. Why would you brief the opposition candidates before you have to?
Comment by missmolly — February 29, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Technically, this should read "since 1928". Although he dropped out early, Truman did run in the first primaries in 1952.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:48 amTechnically, this should read “since 1928″. Although he dropped out early, Truman did run in the first primaries in 1952.
Comment by gummitch — February 29, 2008 @ 11:48 am
Good point. I missed that technicality.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:51 amCORRECTION!
my # 145 comment was a response to KAY's # 118 Clinton Body Count comment, NOT to KATY!
Sorry Katy.
Speaking of whom...katy #138
" at this time, it is obvious that OBAMA can inspire and bring out the voters and this is especially beneficial to all the other candidates running for congress and other offices… DEMOCRATIC offices…"
Personally I'd rather have Clinton for ( I guess) as many reasons as many prefer Obama, but you make a a pretty darn good point. If Obama becomes the nominee ( its looking pretty good for him) I'll be really quite happy and significant public support is a damn good thing for a president to have because it CAN effect the support from the House, via consituents and the next Prez is going to need a considerable with everyone to get this country out of the ditch. So, a pithy and pertinent point Katy.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am"Your fairy-tale scenario of briefing candidates this early in the game is still pretty unbelievable. Perhaps you could post a link to some authoritative site that outlines this “policy�"
Once, in a land, long ago and far away, there lived a president named Truman...
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/cia/CIA%20Briefings%20of%20Presidential%20Candidates.htm
I was wrong - the candidates are given briefings after the convention.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:54 amBut it's still a damn sight sooner than taking office...
February 29th, 2008 at 11:56 amKaty... Yup! Scrolling back for comment reference I got really confused. I'm all better now.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am"Please post a link for this statement. Thanks."
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — February 29, 2008 @ 11:43 am
I don't have a link But I do remember Obama saying the 1st part of that, the 2nd part I'm pretty sure is just Andromeda filling in and making the leap that if he said the 1st part he must believe the 2nd.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:57 amComment by Kay — February 29, 2008 @ 11:38 am
Cynthia McKinney is another great person running... ???
Definitely a troll... no doubt about it.
***
It’s one of the RNC’s new tactics.
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 29, 2008 @ 11:32 am
It seemed to have started last fall, after we beat the sweet bejesus outta the prior bunch of trolls who had been infesting the place. I've been watching this quietly for several months now, wondering if it was what it appeared to be...
February 29th, 2008 at 12:00 pmIn other news, Hoppy Leap Day, everyone!
February 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pmDrudge, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter...does anyone think they really put the nation above their own fame and fortune?
Their influence is huge, their integrity microscopic.
Does anyone remember when Geraldo revealed US troop positions and strategy on Fox News??? These people make Jerry Springer look like a serious journalist.
http://newsprism.wordpress.com
February 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pm# 146 Kay...
"I take each candidate as an individual."
And then what?
February 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pmI was wrong - the candidates are given briefings after the convention.
Comment by barfly — February 29, 2008 @ 11:54 am
And it appears that FULL briefing doesn't even take place until after the election, even though once the candidates are nominated they get more information than they had before.
This makes more sense.
But getting back to the original point -- there is no reason to believe that Barack Obama is getting any more information right now than any other U.S. Senator (and neither are HRC or McCain). Which is probably why Obama wants to keep all his options open until he knows exactly what's going on. Even though I'm no fan of Blackwater, I think this is prudent.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pmDay three of my extra-grumpy "I hate Republicans" mind-set.
Today, I'm thinking that we ought to take it a step further: spay and neuter ALL of them.
And -- good morning!
~A
p.s. MissMolly - I worship at your feet -- er, keyboard. ;o)
February 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pmI'm busy trying to work at this moment but I was able to find my original source for this quote. Please understand that I have so many stories and quotes in my files (enough to fill 25 books, seriously). When I saved this quote from Obama I didn't save the link. The story is from the AP. Here's what I have saved, I do not know if it is complete. I estimate it was from June of 2007.
Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.
Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.
"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."
The term for Bush and Cheney ends on Jan. 20, 2009. Bush cannot constitutionally run for a third term, and Cheney has said he will not run to succeed Bush.
Obama, a Harvard law school graduate and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said impeachment should not be used as a standard political tool.
"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.
"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."
February 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pmp.s. MissMolly - I worship at your feet — er, keyboard. ;o)
Comment by Leftside Annie — February 29, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Hmmm -- as long as you're there, can you figure out a way to get all the potato chip crumbs out from between the keys? :-)
February 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pmMy post #168 is a reply to post #154 by...
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — February 29, 2008 @ 11:43 am
To #161:
...the 2nd part I’m pretty sure is just Andromeda filling in and making the leap that if he said the 1st part he must believe the 2nd.
Comment by TheRadicalRightisRadicallyWrong — February 29, 2008 @ 11:57 am
My quote stands as correct. Yes, it's my opinion that Barack couldn't be more wrong in his assessment of this issue. Personally, I think its a great insult to all of us who've worked so hard for impeachment and to restore the constitution. If you can draw another conclusion from his statement go right ahead.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pmDefinitely a troll… no doubt about it
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 29, 2008 @ 11:32 am
Actually Kay has been posting here longer than you have Bilbo and is not a troll, no doubt about it.
Just because someone has a different opinion from you that does not make them a troll.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm"Which is probably why Obama wants to keep all his options open until he knows exactly what’s going on. Even though I’m no fan of Blackwater, I think this is prudent."
Comment by missmolly
He's sworn to secrecy, and cannot use it in speeches, or written policy positions. Do you think he'll do or say anything different, upon seeing a more complete picture, like learning certain contractors are doing certain illegal things? No, he'll have to play along, looking for ways to shield himself politically from any fallout - until he's safely in power. So, it's not so much being willfully ignorant of what's going on, like Blackwater, so much as being collusive, to get into power.
Perhaps I'm not the only, how did Bilbo put it... "hopelessly idealistic" one, on this thread.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm168 - sorry MM - I'm fresh out of ideas for that... :o/
February 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pmHmmm — as long as you’re there, can you figure out a way to get all the potato chip crumbs out from between the keys? :-)
Comment by missmolly — February 29, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
Compressed air or one of those lil USB vacuums work ok.
Just don't try to give it a bath, heh
February 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pmI just cannot support anyone right now other than Cynthia McKinney.
Get over yourself.
Comment by Kay — February 29, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Definitely a troll.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:34 pmhttp://www.gwu.edu/ ~nsarchiv/ NSAEBB/ NSAEBB116/ cia/ CIA%20Briefings%20of%20Presidential%20Candidates.htm
I was wrong - the candidates are given briefings after the convention.
barfly
Would you care to point out where in your link it says that candidates are given briefings after the convention. This is what I found in your link:
Through nine transitions since 1952, the CIA has provided intelligence support to presidents-elect.
I don't believe that there is any rule or law that says that the sitting President give detailed security briefings to presidential candidates. And even if there was such a thing, I doubt that Bush would follow it. When has he ever done the right thing?
February 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pmHe’s sworn to secrecy, and cannot use it in speeches, or written policy positions. Do you think he’ll do or say anything different, upon seeing a more complete picture, like learning certain contractors are doing certain illegal things? No, he’ll have to play along, looking for ways to shield himself politically from any fallout - until he’s safely in power. So, it’s not so much being willfully ignorant of what’s going on, like Blackwater, so much as being collusive, to get into power.
Perhaps I’m not the only, how did Bilbo put it… “hopelessly idealistic†one, on this thread.
Comment by barfly
Actually, I think that Obama is quite certain that some contractors are doing illegal things. That is why he clearly stated that if he used contractors he would make sure that there was oversight and accountability built into any system of using contractors.
I'm a little confused as to why you are so adamant on this subject. Are you trying to disillusion people about Obama? Are you a secret Hillary supporter? Or are you simply being argumentative?
February 29th, 2008 at 12:40 pmDefinitely a troll.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 29, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Someone supports the green party and that makes them a troll?
my opinion of the intelligence a few people posting here has gone down quite a few notches today.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pmActually Kay has been posting here longer than you have Bilbo and is not a troll, no doubt about it.
Just because someone has a different opinion from you that does not make them a troll
Thanks, Wayne.
I never thought of myself as a troll. Inappropriate maybe. I apologize about the Hillary posting. I support any candidate that speaks up for the Constiution and the Bill of Rights.
I don't vote by party, I am an Independent.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:51 pmI’m a little confused as to why you are so adamant on this subject. Are you trying to disillusion people about Obama?
Comment by bilbobaggins
I'm a little confused as to why are you, most of you, are so adamant to put so much faith and hope on people who don't care for you at all. AT ALL.
Public servants...right. Make them, OBama included, run the country if he wins on the minimum wage, like a public servant should do...let's see if he is still on the race.
Watching people on the whole thread taking sides is almost pathetic. I'm at a loss as why people are so gullible when it comes to their politicians.
And yes, I'm in a bad mood!! I need coffee.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pmAnd yes, I’m in a bad mood!! I need coffee.
Comment by Juan C. — February 29, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
mmmmm coffee.......
Anyone who doesn't like coffee is a troll.... why? Because I like coffee
February 29th, 2008 at 1:06 pmheh =)
Thanks, Wayne.
Comment by Kay — February 29, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Any time kay.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:09 pmI love coffee (Columbian with skim nilk, definitely no sugar). I guess I'm not a troll, then!
:)
February 29th, 2008 at 1:10 pmMy, oh my, I don't like the "get in lockstep" rhetoric on this thread. Sure, I'll vote for Obama, but I think that many people are going to be dissappointed with him once he gets into office. I sure hope I am wrong, but his voting record and statements of substance (of which I believe are either ignored by MSM or are just few and far between) don't seem to bear out much change from the current Democratic Party which is a JOKE and AN ABSOLUTE FAILURE from what they were elected to do - end the war and hold the perpetrators accountable.
BTW - I support anyone wanting to come here and debate the issues. Sure, I chuckle when GG gets slammed (okay, its a full blown laugh) on a point. However, let us not resort to name calling on EITHER side - it only embarasses me when I read someone's posting full of name calling and doesn't help our cause at all.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:16 pmAs usaul Americans will find out after voting for President they chose the wrong one again. It's just become the American way. Three people to choose from a Woman qualified, a Black man no experience/hidden promises and McCain who sold out Americans in 2000 to Satan for a promise he would be given the election in 2009.
Diana must be proud of Harry as unlike George W. Bush, Harry didn't ask his Father to get him out of serving in the Military. Americans are proud to have a weak coward, who ran scared as he was drunk all time when it came time to serve the USA he went home while his fellow soldiers went to War. Harry has shown great leadership and has become a man. Well at lease the UK knows America is ok with a coward who is still reading My Pet Goat.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pmAnyone who doesn’t like coffee is a troll…. why? Because I like coffee
heh =)
Comment by Wayne
Heheheheh. :)
February 29th, 2008 at 1:21 pmAren't these things what we all want :
A former six-term Member of Congress from Georgia, Cynthia McKinney proved herself a courageous voice for the voiceless, unafraid to speak truth to power. Cynthia's Power to the People Committee is working to put Cynthia on fifty-one ballot lines!
Cynthia:
* Consistently opposed funding for bloated military and secret intelligence budgets;
* Introduced Articles of Impeachment for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice;
* Introduced, championed, and passed in the U.S. House the Arms Trade Code of Conduct, prohibiting the sale of arms to known human rights abusers;
* Authored legislation to end the use of depleted uranium weapons;
* Passed legislation to extend health benefits for Vietnam War veterans still suffering the health effects from exposure to the defoliant Agent Orange;
* Challenged Pentagon Secretary Rumsfeld and Chairman Myers of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the $2.3 trillion missing Pentagon money and on U.S.-sponsored war games taking place on September 11, 2001;
* Currently serves on (a) International Tribunal on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, (b) Brussels Tribunal on Iraq, (c) is participating in War Crimes prosecutions in Spain, and (d) is working with the Malaysian Peace Organization to criminalize war;
* Introduced legislation to eliminate federal subsidies for corporations taking jobs overseas.
Cynthia was never afraid to introduce legislation that showed her moral compass and where she felt our country ought to be. In that regard, after the tragedy of September 11th, 2001, Cynthia introduced legislation that would allow the survivors of the tragedy's victims to sue those responsible for the attacks as well as participate in the Victims Compensation Fund. She introduced legislation to establish a national living wage and she also introduced legislation to repeal the Military Tribunals Act. Her signature environmental piece of legislation was the National Forest Protection and Restoration Act which would have provided much-needed jobs and revenues for the restoration and protection of America's national forests. McKinney successfully authorized the USDA disparity study that demonstrated USDA discrimination against minority farmers. McKinney, like so many Americans, has long held Green values. McKinney is now proudly a Green.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:29 pmjpoke42,
"Get in Lockstep" sounds too much like what the R's have always done, and will do again in November no doubt, but this one time I think it's absolutely necessary that we vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is.
I don't like some of the things about Obama or Hillary, but we can't afford to have another 4 years of R's in control. If for no other reason than the Supreme Court. Another young Alito or Roberts and we are screwed for years to come.
There are huge differences between the way the R's see the world and the D's. If we have the case where an Independent candidate siphons votes like Nader did in 2000 and because of that we lose in 2008, I think that would be disastrous.
Maybe in 2012 we will have a strong Green Candidate, I think we have too much to lose in 2008.
I have a coffeee pin on my lapel, and a coffee bumper sticker.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:35 pmI am going to vote for Obama. Period. He's not the perfect candidate, by no means. But, truthfully, I think he's our best shot in not allowing at least 4 more years of R's.
Let's put McBomb to rest. Have some ZZZZ's McWar.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pmnanlichi, I have already contemplated all the arguments in your post and have come to close to the same conclusion which is why I said in my post that I will vote for Obama. However "lock step" is just what I mean after reading some of the comments on this thread.
Open, sincere discussion should always be welcomed.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pmJust because I like what McKinney stands for doesn't mean that I am dislusional in thinking she's going to win over McBomb. I just like her and everything she stands for.
I don't like anything that McWar stands for. He's an aged, senile, ass-kissing warmonger that needs to be put out to pasture.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:43 pmSure, I’ll vote for Obama, but I think that many people are going to be dissappointed with him once he gets into office.
Comment by jpoke42 — February 29, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Me as well. I am sorely disappointed at the total lack of backbone from within the Democratic Party. Very few of the Democrats have my respect any longer. I have no grand expectations other than it will be a different sort of morons in Washington.
The only reason I am not voting 3rd party this time, is we cannot afford a "3rd Bush Term", ie, another Republican.
I think now is the time to start planning a 3rd party. First you have to replace Government seats, state and federal to make your point and show what you are, not just talk the talk, before you will have a good chance of fielding a successful Presidential candidate.
Think about it. Who writes the laws of this country. Congress.
The President can only suggest and sign new laws.
Replace the anti-constitutional representatives currently in Congress first and that will change things much faster than electing a president for one term with no support from a petty, crooked Congress.
Thats the way to actually build a viable 3rd party movement.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:49 pmSome folks here have earned themselves some negative Karma.......I understand the passion but sometimes it just gets too judgmental.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pmI'm not innocent myself I should have added.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:52 pmWayne, I think congress forgot it was the branch that actully WROTE the laws. The president sure forgot that he was only to execute the laws written by congress. Congress seems to be acting as only a minor burr in his saddle. He does what he wants anyway.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:06 pmThere it is. They have, they do, they always will, sandbag us on something.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:17 pmComment by jpoke42 — February 29, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
The Republicans had a full majority and turned this country into a Tin Horn Banana Republic sh!thole.
2006, the voters had enough and to the stunned surprise of the jellyfish they call the Democratic Leadership, the voters gave them a majority.
They are lucky that the Republicans wer so bad, so criminal, so f-king evil, that the Democratic ineffectiveness and sickening spinelessness is the lesser of two.
Whatever God(s) or Pasta, help us, we do not need another 4 years of the pure unadulterated, uncontrolled evil the Republicans have given us.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:19 pmRamen to that Wayne!
February 29th, 2008 at 2:21 pmI too was disappointed with some of the attitudes I encountered here this morning. It's interesting and sad to see that many of the indys/progressives have the same faults as the righties we've been lambasting for seven years. When did critical examination become unacceptable? As long as the discussion is factual and the person presenting his/her arguement is honest how can that be bad?
My question for Obama supporters (unless of course we're no longer allowed to ask honest questions)...Is there anything he could say or do, in the coming months, that'd be a deal breaker for you?
Is there anything he could say or do as President that'd lose your support?
Or is your support blind...(which is how we got in this mess in the first place?)
February 29th, 2008 at 2:25 pmComment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
I never, ever underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:34 pmI’m not innocent myself I should have added.
Comment by Fred — February 29, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
Hey, I've jumped the gun myself.
We are only human.
Sometimes blogging is a contact sport =)
February 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pmMy question for Obama supporters (unless of course we’re no longer allowed to ask honest questions)…Is there anything he could say or do, in the coming months, that’d be a deal breaker for you?
Is there anything he could say or do as President that’d lose your support?
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Fair questions. Of course Obama could say or do something to lose my support. Here is a list of things that Obama (or any other candidate) could promise to do that would cause me to look elsewhere:
1) Pre-emptively invade another country for no good reason.
2) Increase tax breaks and other corporate welfare for our largest companies (especially the oil companies!).
3) Promise to appoint SCOTUS judges that will reverse Roe v. Wade.
4) Support private school vouchers, saying that public schools have failed and deserve to wither away.
5) Push for anti-gay amendments, such as DOMA.
6) Appoint Dick Cheney to be his running mate.
7) Weaken environmental laws.
8) Claim that global warming is a hoax.
9) Tell people who can't afford health insurance that they just need to work harder so they can get better jobs.
10) Claim that Hitler wasn't really so bad -- he was just misunderstood.
And this is a partial list. Right now, I support Obama. However, I will make an honest and fair evaluation of both candidates before I cast my vote in the primary. Even though I live in NC and our primary isn't until May, I might even actually have a voice in the primary this year!
And come November, I will do the same thing. I truly doubt that I will agree with any candidate on every single issue -- I never do. But I will pick the one who I trust to do the job most closely to my values.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pmIf I got one person to call Obama's office today and endorse Jan Schakowsky and Bernie Sander's legislation banning Blackwater troops from Iraq then all this posting was worth it. Or if I got at least one Obama supporter to reconsider the issue and talk to others about it.
I believe it's the position most Democrats want Obama to take and what's best for the country.
I also believe it's a position that'll bring a lot of lefties out to vote for him who mght otherwise stay home.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pmIs there anything he could say or do as President that’d lose your support?
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Support torture.
I made my mind up between Hillary and Obama when Obama supported Dodd's filibuster of telecom immunity and hillary didn't.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:54 pmFair questions. Of course Obama could say or do something to lose my support. Here is a list of things that Obama (or any other candidate) could promise to do that would cause me to look elsewhere:
Comment by missmolly — February 29, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Yes. You can also add any circumstance where Jeff Gannon is the punchline.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda,
missmolly has a good list, thanks for that. Obama and Hillary are both very good candidates and I have swung from a Hillary to an Obama supporter, mostly through the debates. He could say or do a lot of things that could reverse that.
I think he is more electable. For reasons I don't fully understand, the right hates Hillary and she could energize the R base who may stay home if Obama runs. My support is not blind for either candidate but I will vote D.
And there are a lot of things that would cause me to lose confidence once he/she is elected.
Your turn. What about Obama don't you like and will you support him in the general?
February 29th, 2008 at 3:00 pmI made my mind up between Hillary and Obama when Obama supported Dodd’s filibuster of telecom immunity and hillary didn’t.
Comment by Wayne — February 29, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
At the risk of starting another heated debate I heard Dodd say a few days ago that Obama supported his filibuster. Then i said to myself that's not correct. I'll have to double check but I believe both Glenn Greenwald and Firedoglake dot com reported that Obama did not show up to Dodd's December filibuster. Additionally, I believe, Obama did not vote on the FINAL FISA bill that came out of the Senate a couple weeks back. He voted on an earlier version that same day, I believe. My information may not be accurate. I'll have to re-check. Perhaps by "Support" Dodd meant something else. Perhaps Dodd knows Obama supports this issue but chooses to do so silently for the sake of politics. But yes, I heard Obama make public comments against telecom immunity.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pmComment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
It’s official: Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:
“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.â€
February 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm-- Crooks&Liars October 24th 2007
Your turn. What about Obama don’t you like and will you support him in the general?
Comment by nanlichi — February 29, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Short list. I like that he gets his money from the people. You owe your loyalty to the people who fund you.
I'm very upset that Barack is anti-impeachment. In my post #168 I provide his comments on this topic. I believe impeachment is NECESSARY to save the Republic. I also believe it's IMPERATIVE that all the criminal members of the Bush admin must be prosecuted for their crimes, even when they're out of office. I don't see Obama expressing any will to do this. Robert Parry has written passionately on this topic. He explains how Bill Clinton's failure to go after Poppy Bush for Iran Contra has put us DIRECTLY in the mess we're in today. I can only imagine what this country will face in 10 more years if all these fascist criminals are allowed to get away with their crimes. I'm looking for the link to the article but cannot find it at this moment. If I do I will post it.
I'm also against Obama's plan to help insurance companies sell policies and calling this a Health Insurance Program. I should stop for a moment before I start another war and say I DON'T SUPPORT HILLARY. She is worse. Much much worse. Okay I got that out of the way.
Healthcare is a very complex topic. Basically, I believe healthcare is a RIGHT of all citizens. It should be not for profit. It should be paid for with a progressive tax. It should be single payer. All the middlemen and bureaucracy need to go. They eat up 30 cents on every dollar. That's wasteful. The insurance companies are the problem. Barack should put the people first in his healthcare plan. He has the inspirational abilities to bring this very difficult program about. I believe early in his career he supported single payer. He takes a lot of money from the insurance industry. You do the math.
Those are condensed explanations on two issues.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:19 pm2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda,
Thanks for that, good answer. I can't agree more on the impeachment and criminal prosecution aspect. But there's a part of me that says that impeachment at this time could be cutting off your nose to spite your face, and unless you take them both out, you haven't accomplished anything. I will be sorely pissed off if the next President says to let bygones be bygones, we need to heal the country and lets the bastards off the hook from criminal investigations. I want to see that sneer/smirk smacked from Bush's face.
And I agree on the health care. A progressive tax to pay for health care for all citizens and cut out the parasites in the middle. I make plenty of money, I don't mind a bit that I would be paying for someone less fortunate's health.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:31 pm“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.â€
– Crooks&Liars October 24th 2007
Comment by Wayne — February 29, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
That piece was from Oct. 07. Dodd's filibuster was in Dec. I don't believe Obama showed up. I watched it on C-Span. I remember Feingold, Boxer, Kennedy and the guy from Ohio who looks like Columbo being there. Until I can find that information Here's what happened in the Senate on 2.12.08:
This first vote was on the Dodd/Feingold amendment (this is confusing)
UPDATE: The Dodd/Feingold amendment to remove telecom immunity from the bill just failed by a whopping vote of 31-67 -- 20 votes shy of the 50 needed for a passage. A total of 18 Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for immunity: Bayh, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Feinstein, Kohl, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Carper, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, and Lincoln. Obama voted against immunity, and Hillary Clinton was the only Senator not voting.
This was the final Senate vote:
UPDATE V: Final passage in the Senate of the Cheney/Rockefeller bill was 68-29. 19 Democrats joined all Republicans to vote in favor of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty: Conrad, Rockefeller, Baucus, Webb, Kohl, Whitehouse, Bayh, Johnson, Bill Nelson, Mikulski, McCaskill, Lincoln, Casey, Salazar, Inouye, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Carper, and Landrieu. Neither Obama nor Clinton voted on final passage.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:32 pmI’m very upset that Barack is anti-impeachment.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Doesn't matter if he is pro-impeachment, though I don't think he would be anti-impeachment with valid provable charges. A President cannot initiate impeachment. A Senator cannot initiate impeachment. As a Senator Obama cannot start impeachment.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pmThe House has the authority and the obligation to impeach if warranted.
The problem is Pelosi is squashing each and every impeachment effort and not allowing them to the floor. She is not even allowing debate on the subject.
Neither Obama nor Clinton voted on final passage.
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
That final vote was a given, since the filibuster was overridden.
Blame the Lap Dog Democrats that voted like Republicans.
Hows your math on showing Obama's vote on the final would make a difference with that tally?
The final only needed 51 votes, it got 68.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:44 pmHe is running for President in a heated campaign, you know?
Yeah, my memory was correct. Neither Clinton, Biden or Obama showed up for Chris Dodd's filibuster in Dec. 07.
This guy is really harsh on 'em all. So if you don't like hearing your candidate called out don't click:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/12/17/235834/10
February 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pmI don't believe McCain voted either, did he?
February 29th, 2008 at 3:49 pmA President cannot initiate impeachment. A Senator cannot initiate impeachment. As a Senator Obama cannot start impeachment.
Comment by Wayne — February 29, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
This will be my final post in this column today. The President, I believe, can exert influence over the Justice Dept. and either ask them to start an investigation or appoint a special prosecutor. We see Mukasey acting like Bush's well trained dog, just like Alberto Gonzales did.
If President Obama asked his justice Dept. to investigate any one of the hundreds of Bush crimes I think he could make that happen.
I may be wrong.
if I post any more today it'll be under other stories.
Thanks!
February 29th, 2008 at 3:55 pmThis guy is really harsh on ‘em all. So if you don’t like hearing your candidate called out don’t click:
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Let me make this clear.
I would vote for a potted plant if it won the Democratic ticket before I would vote for any of the Republican candidates.
A potted plant would also still have more intelligence than our current President.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:56 pm=)
Going way back in this thread--No, we're not going to have another recession. We're already in one. AND we're headed for Great Depression #2 if we allow another Republican to be elected!
February 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pmWho ever takes over the White House in Nov has alot of work to ,so before we all fall all over ourselves about keeping Blackwater there,remember THE BUSHCO CRIME FAMILY got us where we are today and unfortunatley we will need contactors for security, Let`s hope the president covers all the bases and gets the right contractors and not Blackwater under a new name. The president will need time and the cooperation of Congress.The only downside to this whole mess is if Johnny 100yrs Mclame wins!!!!!
February 29th, 2008 at 4:23 pm"I’m a little confused as to why you are so adamant on this subject. Are you trying to disillusion people about Obama? Are you a secret Hillary supporter? Or are you simply being argumentative?"
Comment by bilbobaggins
I'm just a little put off by all the hero worship by some on this thread. I oiginally challenged Molly's assertion that Bush wouldn't fill his successor in on current events, and you've been looking for a way to peg me, ever since. Why not just lay-off the stereotyping for a little while?
February 29th, 2008 at 5:10 pmperpetuate the belief that the Clintons murder people (or have it done for them), what do you honestly expect us to think of you?
Comment by missmolly
He did, missmolly...in 5 different countries.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:13 pmRE Drudge..
Where is Melanie Morgan when you really need her, to call for the trial and hanging of Matt Drudge, for the treasonous act of endangering coalition troops?
February 29th, 2008 at 6:08 pmComment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
I said that I thought the 1st part was accurate, I remembered having heard him say as much, and I was pissed at him for having said so.
But the second part is just what I said, your projection and a leap that he believes that those things are not serious.
None of the weak-knee'd-lilly-livered dems have taken the time to write up and Present any articles of impeachment (save Feingold) and I'd be willing to bet that if the Dems grew a set and and brought forth such articles Obama would support them.
We may never know. But I'd make that bet.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:19 pmComment by jpoke42 — February 29, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
I think, and I could be wrong, that I was the only one that used the term, "lock-step" on this thread and I used in reference to the repugs.
I wasn't suggesting that Dems should get in "lock-step" behind Obama.
I was suggesting that it seems some people in the Dem party get wrapped up in an ideological stance and are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
I was also suggesting that this is one of those times. The stakes are too high to throw away your vote. But it's your vote and your right. So go ahead and throw it away if you want. But if your going to stand on principle and vote Green, or Nader, because Obama isn't the perfect candidate,(which I've already said DOESN"T EXIST) then be prepared to suffer the consequences of having someone worse than Obama, just like we've had someone worse than Gore and Kerry for the last 7 years.
If you weren't talking about me, then please accept my apologies in advance.
To your point about being disapointed by Obama, if elected, There is no Perfect candidate and they will all disapoint us from time to time. It's a question of which one of the candidates will disapoint the least.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:37 pmOr is your support blind…(which is how we got in this mess in the first place?)
Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
To be clear, I am registered as an Independent. My support is far from blind. Unfortunately, there are no viable 3rd party candidates.
Obama could say or do many things that would cause me to waver in my support of him. So far he hasn't. But any candidate that doesn't have an R after it's name is far and away superior to any that does.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:10 pmComment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — February 29, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
I agree 100% with everything that you said here!
And again, I'm quite confident that if the Dems could get their act together and get Pelosi to put Impeachment ON THE TABLE, Obama would support it.
The real issue here is how can we get Pelosi to either do the right thing or go away?
February 29th, 2008 at 7:13 pmRecession? Economy? What economy? Not headed for recession - make that depression! That's all the idiot chimp and the detached elitists need to impose martial law and take away our rights! As they get closer to the loot they just can't wait!!! 2008 year of the neocon Rat!
March 1st, 2008 at 1:29 pmIf the media blackout was so effectively controlled on Prince Harrys deployment then i would expect that the leak was also under the same control. The timing and placement of the leak was, i have no doubt, well managed.
Of course the important issue here is not the content of the blackout but the blackout itself. we have clear evidence of how easy it is to centrally manage our so called free and independant western media/press.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:06 amnetlog
almanya chat
January 21st, 2009 at 4:36 pm