jayil, londonJun 7th, 2008 - 21:03:09

The Photos are excellent. Thank you M&C for uploading them.
It really doesn't matter who win's the U.S election. All candidate's worship AIPAC's money and will inflict more wars in the M.E. and the M.E will race to arm themselves with nuclear weapons for defence/deterrent purposes. As long as Israel exists; there will never be peace on earth.

Report this comment

SP4: JayilJun 8th, 2008 - 04:20:23

put the word out:

We don't scare easily.

Report this comment

Obama's Plan To Disarm The U.S.Jun 8th, 2008 - 06:35:01

Defense Policy: In the middle of a war on two fronts, Barack Obama plans to gut the military. He also wants to dismantle our nuclear arsenal. And he wants to keep you in the dark about it.

The Obamatons of the mainstream media have failed to report one of the most chilling campaign promises thus far uttered by the presumptive Democrat nominee for president.

He made it before the Iowa caucus to a left-wing pacifist group that seeks to reallocate defense dollars to welfare programs. The lobbying group, Caucus for Priorities, was so impressed by Obama's anti-military offering that it steered its 10,000 devotees his way.

In a 132-word videotaped pledge (still viewable on YouTube), Obama agreed to hollow out the U.S. military by slashing both conventional and nuclear weapons.[...]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnz1KF9ZjjE

You can bet that Obama will not make this sweeping indictment of our security forces again as he tries to move to the center in the general election. But this is what he thinks, and this is what he plans to do.

His campaign Web site doesn't list a separate category for military or defense under 'Issues.' But search shows near-identical language there regarding nuclear weapons.

While there is fat in the defense budget, defense spending both as a share of GDP and the total federal budget are still at historically low levels, despite the war.

And while cutting fat out of the defense budget is a worthy goal, Obama would cut beyond fat to bone.

Caucus for Priorities aims to redirect 15% of the Pentagon's discretionary budget away from 'obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, health care, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger and deficit-reduction.'

On the chopping block: the F-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia-class sub, the DDG-1,000 destroyer and the Army's Future Combat System.

Cutting allegedly 'unproven' missile defense systems is music to Kim Jong Il's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ears, let alone all the PLA generals wishing our destruction.

Yet Obama wants to kill a program that's yielding success after success, with both sea- and land-based systems. The military just this week intercepted a ballistic missile near Hawaii in a sea-based missile defense test.[...]

In contrast, John McCain has vowed: 'We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies.'

Report this comment

NoharnessJun 8th, 2008 - 17:28:50

RE:'Who will stop him?'

A number of corporations for starters, but then there is also Bubba Jones and the Republicans. Do you really think that they will just sit around and let this bunch run over them? I don't.

RE:'He hasn’t been in the senate long enough to know anything. Look at his record, he has missed most of his votes. Just kike when he was a state senator.'

Perhaps I should have said that he has been in politics long enough to know better. He certainly understands what happens if he annoys the wrong people. By the way, if there any out there still thinking that his past will catch up with Senator Obama now, had best disabuse themselves. There isn't a DA in the country who would try to indict the newly elected nominee of the Democrat Party.

RE:'Yes, the legislative branch is supposed to be a check on the executive. The democrats will have both if Obama is elected. They will have a sizable majority in the legislative. Not having obama IS the only check and balance we will have for at least the next 4 years. '

You forget that the people of this country are and always have been the final check, which is what I pointed out in my previous post. How do you think Bubba Jones is going to react when his job disappears? You think we had a high misery index under President Carter? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

RE:'You can’t just unilaterally abrogate specific terms on something like NAFTA.'

True, but there are other trade treaties pending.

RE:'The Canadians have rightfully said that if we were not going to live up to our word (remember that funny joke? Our word? Does that mean anything any more? Not in the face of hope ‘n change) then the whole thing was open for re-negotiation. When it was negotiated it was at $11 a bbl, now it is at $130 and rising. Where do you think we get most of our oil? That is just an example. The clear point is that you have someone who is dangerously naive and who has complete disdain for American sovereignty who is going to be making these compromises.'

We buy about fifty-percent of our crude from the Canadians. Most of that comes from 'oil sands' and is only profitable for the Canucks because they happen to also have quite a bit of natural gas handy. The price of oil closed $139.54 on Friday. We may as well call it $140/bbl. I'm here to tell you, Bubba, that the only way the price of crude is going to go down in the currently climate is if Congress unbends and allows development of resources in US jurisdiction. By the way, the Chinese are now in a position to steal US oil thanks to Cuba. I KNOW they have been buying the equipment that would allow them to pull that off. John McCain continues to support this stupidity.

Back to our existing treaties. They are NOT being adequately enforced. Mostly because the US will be called big bad greedy assholes, but so what? We are already living with that label.

RE:'80+% of the crude oil used in the world today goes in and out of the Strait of Hormuz that connects the Gulf of Oman to the Arabian gulf. The Iranians have repeatedly threatened and tried to close it off. They have mined it.'

I know and I remember what happened the last time they did.

RE:'1) If we turn over Iraq too soon it will become stage for a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The sunnis and the shiites will be at each others throats over who gets control over the oil and it’s wealth. It doesn’t matter who wins, either side will set up a failed, terrorist friendly state in the geographic center of the middle east. Look up Mackinder's heartland theory and read about the concept of pivot points. Iraq is the hub of the middle east. If it is a successful democracy then stability will spread, if it is a failed terrorist state, then islamist terrorism will spread. It is that simple and that obvious.'

Yes, I agree. You and I have agreed on this in the past. No argument from me on this point. Invading Iraq made sound strategic sense. Whether or not there was a good moral case for it was and remains the issue. As I am sitting here writing this, C-Span is broadcasting testimony before Congress by Iraqi MP's. They are saying that we should withdraw our troops. They are proposing that we should withdraw on a timetable. They are also saying that the do NOT want us to have permanent bases in Iraq. They are also saying that the scheduled withdrawal should not last beyond two-to-three years. This is what they are telling Dana Rohrabacher. The Iraqis are insisting that there is no local threat with which they cannot deal with alone. We are about to be leaving Iraq whether we think it is a good idea or not.

The Iraqi position tells me three things.

1) They really do want us to leave. This should surprise no one. As much as we have in common with the British and as much as we genuinely love each other, we were sick and tire of each other by the time Germany fell.

2) They know that an immediate withdrawal of US troops would result in disaster.

3) They are, wisely in my opinion, doing their absolute best to get ahead of political developments in the United States. They can see what is coming.

There are no flies on Iraq's political leadership. If Barak Obama is elected there is great risk that we will simply withdraw at once, so they are agreeing with him in advance that US troops should be withdrawn, but then they ask that this be done on a schedule that allows them to take full control of their country. It seems very unlikely to me that even Barack Obama would refuse such a request from Iraqi leadership.

If Senator McCain wins the election, they fear that they will be pressured to accept a permanent US troop presence in Iraq. I happen to agree with Senator McCain on this point, we do NEED to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq, but the Iraqi's aren't having that. They also fear, quite reasonably, that there is a war brewing between the US and Iran. Were I an Iraqi I would say, 'We've had enough fighting, thank you very much. Please fight your war from some other direction.'

RE:'2) If our allies in the region see that we cravenly run from wars that we started there will be no incentive to help us do anything. If we are a country that can not be believed then you will see the gulf states stop cooperating with issues like terrorism and trade. Want to see the dollar take a bigger hit? Watch what happens when they start trading oil in other currencies.'

Do I want to see the dollar to take a bigger hit? No, but then I do not see how it can be avoided at this point. The dollar is done, stick a fork in it. As for the cooperation of our alleged allies, I think they are done with us. Their own politics are coming into play. After all, the lodestone of all politics in every country in the Middle East is the Koran, not Enlightenment Era Philosophy. Further, without the support of Russian and India, we will NEVER be able to do very much about Iran.

3) If Iran is allowed to acquire an atomic bomb they can make good their threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. They will too. They will also probably make good on their threat to wipe out Israel.

Yes, I agree. They certainly WILL close the Strait of Hormuz. They will not close it forever, but just long enough to separate us from what is left of our European and Asiatic allies. They are already paying dramatically higher prices for liquid fuels than we are. If we impose a blockade on the Iranians in an effort to bring them to heel, we will immediately broaden the war. Our remaining 'allies' will not support such a blockade and they certainly will not help us out in the ensuing war. If we are to tackle Iran without help, then we need to do a great deal of preparatory work prior to hostilities. We had best hurry that up because there are no flies on the Iranians (they are crazy, not stupid) and they will begin hostilities at time and place suitable to THEM.

The real answer to the Iranian problem is three-fold. First, we MUST tap our own resources as a stop-gap. Just the mere announcement that we intend to do would drop the price of oil dramatically. Second we MUST start working on substitutes for crude, RIGHT NOW. Third we must continue to enact increasingly strict fuel economy standards. We must find a means of staying on this course in the face of falling crude prices, because the price of crude WILL. This is not a problem that the free market can solve. Also, this approach will be of great use to us and everyone else once the Straits of Hormuz are closed--and they will be.

As for Israel, Ahmadinjad is ALREADY making good on his threat. He does NOT need nukes to do that job. The Israelis themselves are doing that job for him, helped along by AIPAC and the UN. No, I am not crazy. Take a good hard look at the stuff AIPAC has been championing and read the pages of Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post. The Israelis have come down with the same debilitating disease afflicting our own Democrats. Despite all the decrying of AIPAC by Arabs and anti-Semites, AIPAC and the UN are the two best allies they have. HAMAS and Hezbollah are shaping the battlefield ahead of the war as I sit here writing this. They have been doing that for a long time now. They have studied General Giap closely and they are doing a good job of emulating him. Hell, I'll quote the wily old Jungle Fox:

'We paid a high price [during the Ted offensive] but so did you [Americans]... not only in lives and materiel.... Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people. ... The most important result of the Ted offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory....

The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.'

More in my next post.

Report this comment

NoharnessJun 8th, 2008 - 18:50:24

RE:'Not really. I do not support the cap and trade nonsense,'

Okay, so here's a little bright spot on a news site. That's good to see.


RE:'but he also supports allowing states to decide whether or not they can drill off shore.'

Oh, do give me a break! If he is doing this just to pander to his Democrat buddies, it's a very stupid thing to do. He is hard core on national security, how can he hide behind his 'federalism' on this? I think he has decided that the Democrats are right about this is what I think. He is for damned sure buying into the rest of their watermelon blues. How do we otherwise explain his backing the Democrats when it comes to drilling for oil in Alaska?

RE:'He supports nuclear power'

And he's going to get oodles and oodles of heartfelt support from the Democrats on that, now isn't he? He will NOT get any support for the development from the Democrats and he WILL go along with them to create bigger monster than the SEVEN TRILLION dollar monster that just recently danced around on the floor of the US Senate.

RE:'and he has PROMISED not to get caught up in an international agreement like Kyoto unless China, India and Brazil also get on board.'

So did the Democrats! Kyoto was DOA, remember? 95-0! Oh, and he uses his 'federalism' to hide his support for OTHER watermelon nonsense. Quoting OnTheIssues.Org:
==========
Q: Schwarzenegger has proposed that California be allowed to implement much tougher emission requirements than apply to the rest of the country. Do you side with the governor or with the Bush administration?
A: I have to agree with the governor. I'm a federalist. The states should decide to enormous degrees what happens within those states, including off their coasts. The people of California have decided they don't want oil drilling off their coasts. The people of Louisiana have decided that they do. I applaud the governor's efforts and that of other states in this region and other states to try to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. Suppose that the governor and I are wrong, and there's no such thing as climate change. We adopt these green technologies, of which the US and the innovative skills we have and the entrepreneurship and the free market cap-and-trade proposal is enacted. Then all we've done is giving our kids a cleaner world.
==========

RE:'A reoccurring theme in your whines about McCain is that he doesn’t deliberately offend democrats just for the sake of offending them. Maybe he isn’t stupid…'

You cannot oppose Democrat Ooglia without offending them! Their political approach is to act like a spoiled child in front of the news cameras. Oh, then they call you names and they swear to God and any who will listen that you are greedy blackguard who wants to destroy everything. So, if you are going to oppose them, you must NECESSARILY offend them and put up with their childish behavior.

RE:'For the Zillionth time, your choice is between someone who is going to give you some of what you want, someone who will listen to what you have to say and someone who doesn’t give a rats ass about National Security.'
He is NOT going to give me some of what I want. He isn't going to have the wherewithal to give me what you and I want. He does NOT listen to me or a great many other Republicans. Whenever we try to talk about what we want he gets mad, swells up and blows shit at us. He has gone out of his way to piss us off and guess what! He succeeded!

RE:'I hope it’s your friends and loved ones this time then. '

I don't blame you one bit for saying this. The truth is, I hope it does not happen at all, but there are no guarantees and there will not be any guarantees, even with John McCain in the White House. The truth is, those people mean us harm and they intend to do us harm and they will not go away just because we put an ersatz Republican in the White House. And, they will be after us just as hard as they ever have been with Barack Obama in the White House. It won't make any difference. That risk will remain the same irregardless. I don't buy the notion that electing a Democrat will increase that particular risk. If anything, a Democrat would have a freer hand to respond to another atrocity than a Republican would. The Democrats would not oppose Barack Obama after such an event.

RE:'If 9/11 didn’t get peoples heads right, and it didn’t obviously, you are going to have to reconcile yourself that a large segment of the population is simply oblivious and will be until something unimaginably horrible happens. You seem to have joined them, indeed, they are just clueless; You are something worse.'

I think that the World Trade Center Atrocity got the vast majority our heads right. What fouled everything up was Donald Rumsfeld and his gross mismanagement of the War in Iraq. Congress, I remind you, President Bush's approval rating hovers around 31% while the approval rating of Congress has been as low as 14%. People have more faith in large corporations than they do our sitting Congress.

What amazes me is that the Republicans, NOT being led by John McCain, have capitulated. They have shown all the vigor and willingness to fight that you would find in a beached jellyfish. Have I made you good and mad? GOOD! Maybe I can make a few more Republicans mad. You are all a bunch of spineless boobs who do not deserve my vote!

RE:'When Jimmy carter was elected we weren’t in the middle of a 2 front war against an enemy committed to murdering as many civilians as possible.'

Whoa! Wait a cotton picking minute! We were up against the Soviet Union back then, Bubba! They had targeted every US city of any size with them great big county-killin' nukes! Talk about being committed to killing as many civilians as possible! The Soviets were dead serious!

RE:'We didn’t have a debt that was 60% of gdp. Indeed, the USA was at arguably the height of the dynastic cycle.'

Boy, you really did buy into that revisionist bullshit they teach kids in college, didn't you? After Richard Nixon? After we had Henry Kissinger running around telling us that we would have to settle for being a second rate power? Give it a rest! Richard Nixon wrecked this country and the wrecking had nothing to with Watergate. Watergate was just the cherry on the frikkin' rubble.

RE:'At this critical juncture we do not have the luxury of electing someone as incompetent or as morally cowardly as Carter or Obama. Obama is actually worse then Carter by leaps and bounds. He can talk his way out of anything. Carter just looked hapless. Obama will have the failures pinned on the usual suspects.'

Oh, its worse than you realize! Guess who is about to become one Obama's key advisors! I'll give you a hint. It ain't gonna be Newt Gingrinch!

RE:'They were like pigs at the trough. They have made an undeniable mess. There is simply no excuse for the waste over the past 7 years. One of the few that stood against it was McCain which is why they hate his guts. Poorly lead? Perhaps. But the precise truth is that THEY screwed up. Again, McCain was one of the only ones shouting about the disgusting waste of money that is only going to get exponentially worse under Obama. '

Oh, I ain't all that upset about them rooting around in the trough with the Democrats. We will never put an end to that kind of crap. The best we can hope for is to keep it down to a dull roar. As disgusting as that is, it is not the real harm they did to us. It was there sloth and their failure to enact the things they promised that sticks in my craw. I could forgive a hundred bridges to no-where had they taken care of business.

You are, of course, completely correct about what will happen under a Barack Obama administration when it comes to porking around. It is part of the Democrat's self-destruct mechanism.

Report this comment

NoharnessJun 8th, 2008 - 20:10:19

RE:'The obvious issue is how you go about doing it. The Khmer Rouge fixed their crude oil energy requirements in a few weeks by blowing up anything that ran on internal combustion. In the mean time, what then? Price controls? Nationalize the oil companies? Rationing?'

1) Conservation first. We build vehicles that use less fuel.
2) We tap our OWN resources and use them wisely.
3) We get serious about developing sources for bio-diesel. Bio-diesel can be grown in the oceans. It need necessarily be grown in tanks ashore where they would take up invaluable crop land. I would encourage the oil companies to develop this kind of resource. Oh, an there are also the reserves of methane clathrates that remain untouched to date. There is also cellulosic methane. We have the technology to make that in hand right now and are doing nothing with it.

RE:'All he needs is enough to be able to stop a veto override for Iraq and Afghanistan. North Korea and Iran will have to simmer a bit more.'

I think the issue over Iraq is moot. We'll be there for at least another three years. Obama would not be able to say no to the Iraqi's requests. Afghanistan is a completely different bucket of worms. There we are relying entirely too much on our spineless allies and we need to put more boots of our own on the ground, or our allies who do have spines will throw up their hands in disgust and go home. Obama did NOT promise to leave Afghanistan and has in fact promised the exact opposite. He and the Democrats made a bad move by insisting on the ouster of Musharaff. The newly elected 'democrats' in Pakistan are capitulating to Taliban demands.

Neither the DPRK nor Iran ever simply 'simmer'. Either or both will strike at a time of their choosing.


RE:'Regardless, for the Zillionth time, you have a choice between someone who will confront/engage and someone who will capitulate/appease. (yet you know this)'

Yes, I do. I also know that he is of considerably less danger to us than Jimmy Carter ever was and is now. I think that a President Obama will never be anything more than a puppet operated by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. He will become Nancy's fall guy very shortly after his election.

RE:'Yet you are going to vote for the most rotten one.'

Voting for Harry Reid? Nah. I can't. He's from Nevada. I can't vote for Nancy Pelosi, either. They, by the way, are the two I would most like to see retired.

Re:'At this point the heavy lifting is done in Iraq and Afghanistan still has support. We simply cannot afford to lose either.'

The fate of Iraq is already cast with the Iraqi's making the throw. I agree, we can ill afford to lose Afghanistan.

RE:'At what cost? The death of the USA?'

Again, I think your estimate of American courage is entirely too low. I think you have bought into the news-puke's portrayal of us just a wee bit too much.

RE:'Look, I won’t be here, I live in the red part of the bulls eye but I do not appreciate the woman and children that I see every day being so “blithely“ sacrificed in your bazaaro-world scenario of allowing Americans to be murdered in order to properly “motivate” the survivors.'

Bubba, we lived with this very same risk from 1941 to 1991. The truth is, the very worst the Islamists can do is nothing compared to what the Soviets could have done and threatened to do--at least when it comes to using nukes against us. In some ways we are still fighting that war because at least half the battle was against leftist ideology. Nothing has changed. Remember Nancy Pelosi wearing that scarf over her head? She is just as much an enemy of this country and the ideas it was founded on as Nikita Kruschev was.

I find it far more worrisome that the Democrats aid and abet the infusion of Islam into our society, even going out of the way to encourage its instructions in our school systems in the name of multiculturism. They would not dream of allowing Christian children do what they ENCOURAGE Muslim children to do in our schools, yet you hear damned little about this from the news-pukes or the Goopers. Amadinejad is right about something here. The nukes are not nearly so important to this struggle as religion and ideas.

Report this comment

bubba from tribecaJun 8th, 2008 - 21:17:48

'Who will stop him?'

A number of corporations for starters'

Ok, to recap. you want to elect obama because you believe he will wreck the economy, lose us the wars and drive the USA in to the ground there by waking up the American public to the evils of socialism. Now you think that the cooperations can stop him? Firstly cooperations are not lawmakers, secondly they can pack up and move to the Bahamas and be done with the BS, thirdly What you are after is the destruction of our economy to make it 'pure capitalist'... Why would you want these 'corperations' to even slow him down?

'Do you really think that they will just sit around and let this bunch run over them?'

They will not have a choice.

'He certainly understands what happens if he annoys the wrong people. '

He is the messiah. He doesn't have to worry about annoying people. You just don't get it. (I wonder if you understand how dangerous this is? Hitler used the same shtick, I wonder if anyone voted for him because they thought he would be a cautionary tale for Germany.)

'. By the way, if there any out there still thinking that his past will catch up with Senator Obama now, had best disabuse themselves.'

His followers do not care if he has broken the law. You still do not seem to understand that this is not about rational examination of his record and qualifications for them. How could it be?

'You forget that the people of this country are and always have been the final check'

Again, you are not getting it. There are many who will elect/reelect him because he is not Bush or because he is black or because he says the things they want to hear. This is not about merits or qualifications. This is about his cult of personality. When he screws up the narrative will be because the neo-cons stopped him or because he wasn't allowed to go far enough or because of racism... Not because of his actions. When he fails it will be someone else's fault, the usual suspects. Look how he has handled all that has been thrown at him! Deny, stall, tell people they do not understand, question their motives for wanting an explanation and when left with no other choice, toss someone under the bus and proceed with business as usual. There haven't been any changes in core beliefs here and certainly not in the direction the campaign is taking. He is continuing on exactly as before and the people are eating it up.

'ow do you think Bubba Jones is going to react when his job disappears? '

Yeah, another great depression is what you are rooting for.. So much for your grand kids. After the last great depression Bubba Jones was rooting for communism. We got the new deal. the only thing that got us out of it was the build up for WW2. This is what you are hoping will save the USA? Breadlines? When I read what you have written I honestly cant comprehend how someone who is as articulate as you are has come to such an incredibly boneheaded conclusion.

'I'm here to tell you, Bubba, that the only way the price of crude is going to go down in the currently climate is if Congress unbends and allows development of resources in US jurisdiction.'

So, wouldn't it be easier and more patriotic to focus your attention on that then wishing for a catastrophe on my country? Oh, I forgot, that would mean work.

'John McCain continues to support this stupidity.'

No he does not. He supports allowing the states to drill. That is an opening. What you are insisting on is all or nothing and you are not going to get 'all'.

'They are NOT being adequately enforced. Mostly because the US will be called big bad greedy assholes,...'

And Obama will do that? Have you seen the atrocity that is the 'Global Poverty Act'? Of course you have, again, I keep forgetting, you want an economic collapse in the USA. If you haven't look it up: 'Global Poverty Act', it just ships billions of American money out of the country via the UN and turns over American sovereignty to people who despise us.

'I know and I remember what happened the last time they did.'

Well this time will be different! We will unconditionally negotiate!

'
Yes, I agree. You and I have agreed on this in the past'

And the oil price shocks will cause a world wide depression along the lines of the 1930s... People literally starving to death in developing countries. People hungry here. But I keep forgetting, that is what you want.

'Invading Iraq made sound strategic sense.'

I was against it, vocally, because I thought it would outlast our attention span. I am getting pretty goddamn sick of being right and ignored.

' As I am sitting here writing this, C-Span is broadcasting testimony before Congress by Iraqi MP's.'

I wonder what the German, Japanese, Philippine, etc 'mp's would have said. Actually no, I do not wonder or care. We have to do what is best for the USA first.

' We are about to be leaving Iraq whether we think it is a good idea or not.'

You got all of that from C-span.

'The Iraqi position tells me three things. '

You got all of that from C-span.

'Do I want to see the dollar to take a bigger hit? No, '

Well yes, yes you do. That will bring about this collapse you are after faster.

'The dollar is done, stick a fork in it. '

Give me yours then.

' As for the cooperation of our alleged allies, I think they are done with us.'

Better just roll over and take it, eh? You sound, are at your core, pretty cowardly I am afraid. There is still leverage that we have with the gulf states. Indeed we provide their security.

'Yes, I agree. They certainly WILL close the Strait of Hormuz.'

World wide depression. (what you are after)

'They will not close it forever,'

It doesn't matter. If free passage cannot be guaranteed without some kind of tribute then investors are not going to be putting their assets through the gulf. The price of oil will go through the roof. Look at our gdp and look at how much oil we consume. There is a direct correlation to the decimal point.

'but just long enough to separate us from what is left of our European and Asiatic allies.'

'We had best hurry that up'

And Obama will somehow do that...

'This is not a problem that the free market can solve. '

Not when government stands in the way as it is. Had we been able too drill wherever we needed to we would not be in this mess. Is that what people are going to be persuaded to believe? Don't bet on it.

'lso, this approach will be of great use to us and everyone else once the Straits of Hormuz are closed--and they will be.'

Our economy is interlocked with world wide economies. When they go down, we will go down.

'He does NOT need nukes to do that job.'

Whatever... I am an American. I have been to Israel and found it to be nice, I liked the people there. Whether or not they are at war with the 'palestinians' is irrelevant to the situation we are discussing. Feeding them to the mullahs is not going to buy one second of peace, it will only wet their appetite.

' AIPAC and the UN are the two best allies they have.'

So you talk about the power to shape public opinion yet you think that Obama and the democrats will somehow be held accountable, even in their first term? Can't you see how good he is? What a brilliant con artist he is? God, how you have underestimated the capacity for people to believe what they want to believe.

'The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.''

''I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often.'' -Chris Matthews 'news reporter'

'More in my next post.'

Give me time to catch up.

Report this comment

BubJun 8th, 2008 - 21:26:03

Here, go read this and tell me if you are not doing the same EXACT thing that they have done. Tell me where a never ending cycle of working for the worst for the USA will lead to...

www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/the_audacity_of_the_democrats.html

Report this comment

SP4:Jun 8th, 2008 - 23:29:22

we've had liberal presidents before. Outside of Carter, they all bought into containing communism.

Bush, in his bumpkin act, dis something that not even Barack the magic negro can beat: He set the terms for success.

No one who wants the job of President will be able to walk away from the Middle East. You can watch him twist and shout, but he's not going anywhere. He will have to project power to even stay in office. No president, from now on, will be able to retreat as Clinton did.

Nope, he's trapped. His advantage is that he has a constituancy that will ignore anything short of murder to keep him there and they'd probably greenlight that to get his ass in the White House.

Report this comment

he is not kidding.Jun 9th, 2008 - 00:18:35

'No one who wants the job of President will be able to walk away from the Middle East. '

Watch him. He is as serious as a tumor.

'His advantage is that he has a constituancy that will ignore anything short of murder to keep him there and they'd probably greenlight that to get his ass in the White House.'

And keep him there... Regardless of how far he drives us in into the ground.

Report this comment