Obama hits back at Bush over appeasement comments
US News
May 16, 2008, 17:28 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
page: 1 2
I really do think President Obama can achieve peace in our time.
It is glorious!
'I hold in my hand.. a letter signed by Mr.Ahmadinejad and Mr. Kim Jong-il... '
Charles, you really have to use a bigger sledgehammer. No one here is going to get the Neville Chamberlain reference.
By the way, Obama is a liar and is flip flopping so many times it is enough to give an observer vertigo. At noon today Obama said: “I have never said I would negotiate with terrorists.” Then at 3 pm he reiterated that he will personally engage in “direct talks” with Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, as he complained bitterly about President Bush’s speech in Israel.
From his official campaign web site:
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior.
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. FULL STOP. Obama says very clearly that he’s going to negotiate with them, and somehow convince them to “change their behavior.” And yet, he stands there and denies it with a straight face. His lemmings don't care that he’s now blatantly lying, even when it’s a simple matter to fact check him. In his little tantrum today there were so many falsehoods, so many mis-characterizations of other peoples positions that the only conclusion one can come to is that he is a pathological liar.
It is also inescapable that he is a craven appeaser.
I disagree with Mr. Obama and Hillary C.....Oh yes, anti-appeasement sstatements should, absolutely be uttered by this President and any other president in this-modern-and-confused-by-the-slick-media-world! Hillary and Obama are trying to raise votes by pandering to the 'We will overcome' crowd who think our country's current enemies can be appeased by a gentler approach. That's the worst B.S. since Himmler and Hitler's Air Marshall conjured up and fed to the German people many years (not so many actually)ago.
Our enemies are very real and we best not ever even begin to appease them as the American media (some) have already done and do every single day. The Peace movement is the most gullible I have ever known. [Peace marches should be performed on Tehran and Pyonyang and Damascus if they are going to be done ANYWHERE. They are truly wasted in Boston, New York, San Francisco, and L.A. where Americans already know about the injusices served up in the capitols.
No APPEASMENT TO OUR ENEMIES. Turning one's cheek to our enemies is no part of patriotism.
Honestly I kinda like Obama. Of course his stock has gone down a bit the last couple months, but I can't pretend the world would stop turning if he became president.
More than anything, he comes across as weak and indecisive if you look at his actions (inaction) compared with his practiced eloquence when among admirers.
'Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness. (W.C.)'
'Honestly I kinda like Obama. Of course his stock has gone down a bit the last couple months, but I can't pretend the world would stop turning if he became president.'
It would be a disaster for the USA and would effectively end our status as a superpower... But yes, the world would continue to rotate on it's axis around the sun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ABRIDGED:
Barack Obama, our new appeaser
Sunday, March 30th 2008, 4:00 AM
Consider, for example, that Obama, alone among all major candidates this year, said he would meet our enemies without conditions, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. If his approach to Wright were applied, Obama would emerge from that meeting by condemning Ahmadinejad's threat to wipe Israel off the map while also condemning American and Israeli policies. This moral equivalency would be tacit support for Iran's warped grievances, and perhaps for its nuclear program.
After all, we have nuclear weapons and so does Israel, so who are we to deny Iran? Or, as Obama put it Friday when talking about race relations, 'People all want the same thing.'
They don't, but appeasement thinking often credits everybody with equally good and worthy intentions. That was the mistake of the most infamous appeaser of modern times, Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who, with France's help, gave in to Adolf Hitler in hopes of heading off war. In exchange for sacrificing innocent Czechs and others living on lands Hitler wanted, Chamberlain famously waved a treaty with Hitler's name on it that he insisted would secure 'peace for our time.'
Within days, Herr Hitler, as Chamberlain called him, attacked his neighbors and within a year Europe was engulfed in World War II.
Would Obama be so naive or craven? Because of his limited experience, we don't know. That's why the Wright episode, the most difficult issue of his idealistic campaign, takes on huge importance. The lessons are not pretty.
He sloppily compared Wright's virulent anti-Americanism with his grandmother's private expressions of racial prejudice in a way that makes them seem equally guilty. He complained repeatedly, including on Friday on ABC's 'The View,' that the profane, inflammatory remarks captured on video clips are a mere 'snippet' of Wright's many sermons.
'People are a mix of good and bad,' he said, and added, 'I feel badly he's been characterized in this way and people haven't seen the broader aspect of him.'
What 'broader aspect' offsets such hate and lunacy? With new examples emerging of anti-Semitic writings in the bulletin put out by Wright's church, there is no mitigating context.
And even as he gradually undercuts his initial denial that he knew of Wright's distorted views, Obama still suggests the case reflects how he would behave as President.
By the way, Bush never mentioned the word Obama or Barack or Democrat in his speech... Isn't it odd that Obama would immediately think people were talking about him when he heard the word 'appeaser'?
Barack Obama claims he's not an appeaser. But when President Bush attacked those who 'seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists,' why was the senator sure he was talking about him?
'The lady doth protest too much, methinks' is the famous Hamlet quote referring to pleas of innocence that actually indicate guilt. Did Obama, the near-certain Democratic Party nominee for president, 'protest too much' in complaining about Bush's speech to Israel's Knesset on Thursday?
Addressing lawmakers in Jerusalem in a special session of the legislature commemorating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel, the president made comments with which few Americans could find fault.
'Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,' the president said.
'We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' '
According to the president, 'We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.'
That infamous senator, William Edgar Borah of Idaho, wasn't even a Democrat; he was a 'progressive' Republican, an isolationist who in 1919 helped wreck Woodrow Wilson's internationalist dream of a League of Nations. So why would Obama issue such a stinging statement in response to the president's remarks?[...]
Furthermore, the terrorists themselves know a President Obama will engage with them. The chief political adviser to Hamas' Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh is on record as saying, 'We like Mr. Obama, and we hope he will win the election.'
Earlier this month, Obama described the takeover of West Beirut by Hezbollah gunmen as a 'power grab' and declared, 'It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus.'
Letters found on the seized computer of Raul Reyes, the warlord with Colombia's Marxist-Leninist FARC terrorist group who was killed in an army strike in March, happily reported that 'two gringos' he met assured him that Obama would win the election.
www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=295744081664205
'Here we have our president who promised to go after osama bin laden, and the 9/11 terrorists, and the countries that harbor them. '
LOL, how many more countries do we need to invade? You would be in the streets with giant paper-maché puppets of Bush and Cheney reeking the place up with your pot and patchouli stank you harry arm pitted woman.
'The Taliban had been created, funded, and allowed safe haven by Pakistan, and after the US ran al qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan, they fled over the border back into Pakistan. '
And groups like them are scattered all over the globe. Do we invade every country with a bunch of islamist idiots? We would be invading the UK, Canada and Detroit.
'Our failure to capture/kill osama bin laden is because we did not follow him and his al qaeda terrorists into Pakistan in the winter of 2001/2002, but we allowed them to escape instead.'
We didn't 'allow' anyone to escape, They ran off like the pussies they are.
'Taliban and al qaeda still exists on both sides of the Afghan/Pakistan border, perhaps even stronger than they were in 2001'
1500 less of the rats since 6 months ago, and no they are getting weaker not stronger.
'There is no credible expanation for what has happened except that Bush became a terrorist appeaser, by not going after them when we could, into Pakistan.'
The credible explanation for that comment is that you are a moron. WE HAVE US TROOPS OPERATING IN PAKISTAN.
We have troops hunting for bin laden and troops guarding their nuclear arsenal. You simply do not have a clue.
in your appeasing delusion of not holding the military dictator of Pakistan accountable for anything, and being a blind apologist for the blunders of the bush admin, please tell us what countries beside Iraq do you endorse invading in the effort to kill/capture osama bin laden? Let me guess how you tow the appeasing admin line- next you want to go into Iran, Syria, North Korea, and anywhere else you want, except Pakistan, where osama bin laden lives laughing at us, protected by your buddy Musharraf.
'n your appeasing delusion of not holding the military dictator of Pakistan accountable for anything, and being a blind apologist for the blunders of the bush admin, please tell us what countries beside Iraq do you endorse invading in the effort to kill/capture osama bin laden? '
Wait a minute.. You were the one who was endorsing invading Pakistan (even though we have troops there and even though you do not know bin laden is in Pakistan at all...)
'Let me guess how you tow the appeasing admin line- '
You guess wrong idiot.
Where in Pakistan is bin laden? Are you sure he is not in Yemen? The Sudan? Iran? Are you prepared for a full scale invasion of EVERYWHERE on earth that he may be hiding? Kashmir, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia? You probably whined like a stuck pig over Afghanistan/Iraq. Now you want to invade everywhere he may be hiding. What if he is in Russia?
If you have a concrete idea where he is I support moving heaven and earth to kill him. Seriously. But you don't. You do not have any ideas about anything. By your stupid 'logic' we should be launching a full scale invasion on a country that already is allowing our troops to operate on their soil. I have trained Pakistanis and trust me, they wouldn't be push-overs. Add to that fact one little detail, they have the atomic bomb.
So shut your stupid hole.
Obama Rules
Ten new regulations for the 2008 election
by Victor Davis Hanson
[abridged]
1. The 2008 campaign must stick to concrete issues and detailed policies. That said, Barack Obama can continue to speak only in vague terms of “hope and change.”
2. Rev. Wright’s racist tirades must be contextualized and only understood in their proper historic milieu of white racism — that is, unless he suddenly turns on Barack Obama, in which case one is now free to deride him as “mean-spirited,” “malicious” and on a “vendetta.”
3. Rev. Wright is like “an old uncle” and his church “not particularly controversial.” Those who insist otherwise are using “snippets” and “loops” out of context for cheap political advantage. But should the Rev. repeat his serial lunacies at the National Press Club on national television, and insult the sympathetic liberal DC press corps, then he is suddenly expendable and inexplicably not the same pastor that Barack Obama knew for 20 years — and so now to be freely derided as a “spoiler.”
4. It is assumed that Barack Obama’s exotic middle name Hussein can provide authentic multicultural fides and hope of projecting a new, more globally sympathetic American image abroad, but to voice ‘Hussein’ aloud is assumed to be nefarious.
5. It is legitimate to appeal to, and thus win en masse 90% of African-Americans of all classes over a rival liberal candidate, but it is absolutely illegitimate and a sign of a racialist strategy should someone else win two-thirds of that total of the white working-class vote — and, worse, acknowledge it as such.
6. John McCain can be written off as “losing his bearings” and wanting U.S. troops in Iraq for “100 years.” But to repeat the fact that a Hamas advisor has praised Obama, or that one of his own foreign policy advisors has met with officials of that terrorist organization, is “divisive,” “a distraction,” and the “old politics as usual.” McCain’s fuzzy references to Shiite/Sunni terrorist cooperation are signs of his senility. Obama’s repeated confusion over how many states there are in the Union (48? or is it 58?) is proof of exhaustion and lack of sleep.
7. Racial generalizations of any type in connection with the candidacy of Barack Obama are out of order. Barack Obama is free to characterize his grandmother as a “typical white person” and to lump the middle-class voters of Pennsylvania together as nativists, racists, and superstitious in their reliance on religion and guns. Only endemic white racism — never anger over Obama’s overt racialist stereotyping of the white middle class and his Reverend’s slurs — can explain that group’s rejection of him at the primary polls.
8. Substantial campaign contributions and the money nexus in politics are pernicious, proof of the “old politics” with a long history of distorting campaigns. The record fund-raising and enormous war-chest of Barack Obama are instead proof of a healthy American democracy and preclude any need for public campaign financing.
9. If a zealous pastor endorses John McCain, then his past illiberal talk about Catholicism demands a formal rebuke. If Barack Obama’s spiritual advisor of some twenty years addresses a meeting of a branch of the NAACP and announces that blacks and whites have genetically different brain chemistries and learning abilities, then one simply keeps quiet about it.
10. For conservatives to have suggested that the media was biased in favor of the Clintons in the 1990s was McCarthyesque. For Clintonites to suggest that it is now even more biased toward Obama is even more McCarthyesque.
This is the new political landscape that we are in, and those who object to it should expect to face hysterical outrage — in the manner of anyone who suggests that a messiah should at least try to practice what he preaches. And the problem is that those he will face as President — whether an Iranian religious nut, a Hamas terrorist, a Chinese communist, a Castro, Chavez, or North Korean extortionist — will follow no such Obama rules.
where is the 'tortured logic'? We went to Afghanistan to get osama bin laden and al qaeda who were being protected by the Taliban. They fled into Pakistan. We did not go after them, after the president promised to do it.
Why not. you explain it. There is no 'tortured logic' linking Pakistan to terrorism, there are facts. These facts you ignore. You seem to believe that going after bin laden and al qaeda in Pakistan is somehow not acceptable, a radical idea, etc. but linking Afghanistan/Iraq as you do is seemingly reasonable. You falsely accuse me of being against Afghanistan/Iraq. Afghanistan/Pakistan region had everything to do with the 9/11 terrorists, Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists. You answer the compelling question that is very logical- why did we attack Iraq after 9/11, instead of going into Pakistan? Don't forget to analyse the facts that Pakistan is run by a military dictator, has nuclear weapons, assisted North Korea in developing nuclear bombs, created and harbors the Taliban and al qaeda, and most likely bin laden, and supports islamic extremists terrorist activities against India. Are you a paid lobbyist for Pakistan, or just a dumb apologist/appeaser neocon goon?
Could you get anymore dramatic? You are such a 'drama queen'. You must sit around in your tutu and scan all the republican blogs, right wing nut-jobs websites, Fox Network, Rush's blog and copy everything so you can spew your fake patriotic bullshi- over anyone who does not agree with you. Your ranting only makes you more suspect.
Get a life and concede that Mr. Obama is going to be the Dems choice and in all likely hood he is going to kick the crap out of George Bush III. Get over your obsession or do the only thing a nut-ball like you can do and get some counseling.
' They fled into Pakistan. We did not go after them, after the president promised to do it.'
We have soldiers in Pakistan hunting for bin Laden. Idiot. A full scale invasion would have only succeeded in turning the Pakistanis against us and would have had no guarantee that we would have found him, idiot. We do not even know Bin Laden is in Pakistan, idiot, we do not even know if he is alive, idiot.
'Why not. you explain it.'
See above for the 3rd time now, idiot.
'You seem to believe that going after bin laden and al qaeda in Pakistan is somehow not acceptable, '
No, not at all, idiot. As I have clearly spelled out, idiot, if you know where he is I support doing whatever tit takes to get him, idiot. But we do not even know if he is in Pakistan, idiot. You see, idiot, he is hiding, you idiot. He could be in Pakistan or anywhere else idiot, As I have explained to you, you idiot, we can not go invading EVERY country on earth over rumors that he might or might not be there, IDIOT.
'You falsely accuse me of being against Afghanistan/Iraq.'
Well then, get off your ass and go join the special forces so you too can go looking for bin laden in Pakistan. Not that you would make it, because you are an idiot.
', Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists. '
And? Are the same group who was behind 9/11 there now? Well yes, yes they are, idiot. Al Qaeda is in Iraq, idiot. They call themselves 'al Qaeda in Iraq', idiot.
'. You answer the compelling question that is very logical- why did we attack Iraq after 9/11, instead of going into Pakistan?'
We are in Pakistan, We went into Iraq because 1) it was being run by Saddam, a declared enemy of the USA who had killed 400,000 of his own people and started wars that had killed a million. 2) more importantly, Iraq is in the dead center of the middle east. It borders Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey. It is one stop shopping for the generation of jihadies that were educated in madrassahas to hate the west and who went to college in terrorist training camps to go kill the Kuffur to go get themselves killed instead of flying aircraft full of people in to buildings full of people.
Bin Laden has declared Iraq to be the most important battleground against the jews and infidels, He has declared Iraq to be the fork in the road to defeat or victory, and you want to hand it to him. Please don't go on about invading Pakistan, you IDIOT, when you are not willing to give our military the time to finish the battle against al Qaeda in Iraq.
'...and supports islamic extremists terrorist activities against India.Are you a paid lobbyist for Pakistan, or just a dumb apologist/appeaser neocon goon?
India can fight it's own battles for once. I am interested in doing what is best for the United States. India has been on the fence long enough and I couldn't think of a better example of APPEASEMENT not working.
'Could you get anymore dramatic? You are such a 'drama queen'. Y'
Hey Jenny Craig eater... when are you going to come up with an original insult? When I call you something like.. oh a 'drama queen' it is only a matter of time before you waddle on over to the computer and regurgitate the same thing back. Not terribly imaginative of you.
'Get a life and concede that Mr. Obama is going to be the Dems choice '
Oh yes, cankles, I concede that Obama is your choice. I also happen to firmly believe he would be a disaster for the USA because of his corruption, bad character, elitism, naiveté, sanctimony and contempt for the very people who he is running to represent. Add to that his socialistic economic policy which will bankrupt the country (Pushing our debt load above our GDP, wrecking the worth of the dollar) and his selling out the country to the islamist terrorists who have REPEATEDLY attacked us and will just be encouraged to attack us more if he gives a huge victory to al Qaeda by surrendering in a war that we are WINNING.
You too have expressed your contempt for the USA repeatedly. That is why you are for obama no doubt.
Let break this down so you can to talk to your counselor about it:
'Hey Jenny Craig eater...Insult someone because you hate yourself so much you try and make someone dislike themselves'---doesn't work unless you are using it on a 13 year old.
'when are you going to come up with an original insult?'...Like you have an original thought, ever---only half truths and bigotry.
'When I call you something like.. oh a 'drama queen' it is only a matter of time before you waddle on over to the computer and regurgitate the same thing back'...Another insult, give up you are still worthless.
'Not terribly imaginative of you'...Imaginative being defined by someone who lives on their computer, nice life wing-nut.
'Oh yes, cankles, I concede that Obama is your choice'... he is not only my choice but at this time 55% of the countries choice, how does it feel to have a suite on the Titanic?
'I also happen to firmly believe he would be a disaster for the USA because of his corruption, bad character, elitism, naiveté, sanctimony and contempt for the very people who he is running to represent'...Again half truths, conjecture and bigotry.
'Add to that his socialistic economic policy which will bankrupt the country (Pushing our debt load above our GDP, wrecking the worth of the dollar) and his selling out the country to the islamist terrorists who have REPEATEDLY attacked us and will just be encouraged to attack us more if he gives a huge victory to al Qaeda by surrendering in a war that we are WINNING'...you are not winning anything, only making more enemies and giving more lives to failed policies, and in your dream world you idiots call that 'winning', freaking losers. Oh by the way the current administration has pretty much taken care of the dollar.
'You too have expressed your contempt for the USA repeatedly'...too bad you are for someone just because he was in the armed forces, you do not care that he is as corrupt if not more corrupt than Obama---Keating, real estate deals, wives investments in our 'so called' enemies corrupt businesses, flipflopping on all stances in order to cater to the ultra right wing pukes, when he did not need to. That is why you are for McCain (Bush III)---you mesh pretty good with someone who is blown by whichever way the wind blows.
'That is why you are for obama no doubt'...Really obsessive about Obama, better get used to seeing him as soon he will be the 'Commander in Chief' and you will be saluting him.
'..Insult someone because you hate yourself so much you try and make someone dislike themselves'--'
I adore myself.
'only half truths and bigotry.'
Gee, a whole lot of originality there, you sure showed me.
'.Another insult, give up you are still worthless.'
'Worthless?' Sniff, sniff, you just insult someone because you hate yourself so much you try and make someone dislike themselves... Didn't you know that my self esteem is tied in to what you think about me?
'.Imaginative being defined by someone who lives on their computer, nice life wing-nut.'
Multitasking. That doesn't preclude imagination by the way, you illiterate clown.
'he is not only my choice but at this time 55% of the countries choice,'
Get back to me after you read about the electoral college, cankles.
'Again half truths, conjecture and bigotry.'
Not really a rebuttal, now was that?
'you are not winning anything, only making more enemies and giving more lives to failed policies, and in your dream world you idiots call that 'winning', freaking losers.'
So surrender is the only option. Fool, we are winning in Iraq and Afghanistan by every metric and you want to pull the plug.
''...too bad you are for someone just because he was in the armed forces,'
Too bad you are for someone just because of his race.
'you do not care that he is as corrupt if not more corrupt than Obama---'
Want to run down the list?
'That is why you are for McCain (Bush III)'
I am for McCain because he is a principled leader who loves the country he is running to represent and I am against obama (Carter II) because he resents this country and has nothing but contempt for those who have the audacity to challenge his vacant platitudes and BS.
'Really obsessive about Obama, better get used to seeing him as soon he will be the 'Commander in Chief' and you will be saluting him.'
No he will not.
'Get back to me after you read about the electoral college, cankles.'
So now you are losing, you are going to tout this myth? Thought you were smarter that that, keep dreaming.
'So surrender is the only option. Fool, we are winning in Iraq and Afghanistan by every metric and you want to pull the plug. '
That may be a valid point, but it is complete bullsjh-t. What 'valid point', the right wing 'valid point'? The Afghans love us we let them grow their poppies and make the best heroin in the world, so they can sell and support the the Taliban---In Iraq we have failed at everything we have tried to do, the people hate us, the Government despise us, but the Iranian government loves us being there, they can kill our troops without having to get on a plane. I love how you think, 'winning by every metric'.
'Want to run down the list? '
I would like it (and I have ask before to no avail) for you to give me a list of anything Obama has been charged with, convicted of, etc. If you cannot you really need to accept te fact that you are a liar.
'No he will not.'
Just because you sit around and chant ' no he will not' will not make it so. Get ready to salute.
'So now you are losing,'
The 2 polls that count:
Gallup Tracking 05/12 - 05/16 4385 RV 44 47 McCain +3.0
Rasmussen Tracking 05/13 - 05/16 1600 LV 44 45 McCain +1.0
So no, not losing.
'you are going to tout this myth? Thought you were smarter that that, keep dreaming.'
Yeah, the electoral college is a 'myth'. Riiiiight...
'That may be a valid point, but it is complete bullsjh-t. '
Nothing like contradicting yourself.
'---In Iraq we have failed at everything we have tried to do, the people hate us, the Government despise us, but the Iranian government loves us being there, they can kill our troops without having to get on a plane.'
We have killed off a good deal of the al Qaeda as well as the jihadies from the surrounding countries. We have installed a democratically elected government that is starting to police it's own streets and has genuinely cracked down on militias. We have decreased violence by about 75-80% from it's highs and yes, Iran is killing our troops because they want us out so that they can control Iraq. What you propose is surrender to the Iranians, as well as al Qaeda.
'I would like it (and I have ask before to no avail) for you to give me a list of anything Obama has been charged with,'
Charged with? I have, the Chicago sun times has charged and it isn't even refuted by obama that he wrote letters for his 17-plus year friend and benefactor Antoin 'Tony' Rezko to get millions of tax payer dollars to refurbish properties on Chicago's south side which Rezko did not. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of this tax payer money made it's way back in to obamas campaign and hundreds of thousands more helped him buy the property that he is living on. Obama called it a 'boneheaded move' but it was criminal kickback taking.
Additionally, Obama lobbied HARD for an 'earmark' of tax payer subsidies for the hospital at the University Of Chicago where his his wife was working for, when they got a big pork barrel grant approved his wifes pay (never been proud of the USA Michelle) doubled.
Also Obama invested in AVI Biopharma after arriving in the Senate and then proceeded to seek federal funding for the company, an unbelievable conflict of interist. Why? Because some of his biggest political donors were also big investors in the company. He has done this before: 'The most recent financial disclosure form for Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, also shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.' (NY TIMES)
Want more? Man, I ain't even warmed up yet and there is another big shoe to drop... :-D
I am sure you do not want to mislead so full lets have full disclosure:
RCP Average 05/07 - 05/16 Obama +3%
Gallup Tracking 05/12 - 05/16 McCain +3%
Rasmussen 05/13 - 05/16 McCain +1%
Quinnipiac 05/08 - 05/12 Obama +7%
ABC/Wash Post 05/08 - 05/11 Obama +7%
POS/GQR 05/07 - 05/08 Obama +5%
'So now you are losing,'
Doesn't look like it to me. I love it that you consider the two polls that show Bush III leading are The 2 polls that count'. Thank you for proving my point that you only tell half the truth, thus a very big liar.
'So no, not losing.'
Again, looks like it to me liar.
'Yeah, the electoral college is a 'myth'. Riiiiight...'
The electoral college is a reality, the 'myth' is that McCain (Bush III) will win the election through the electoral college.
'We have killed off a good deal of the al Qaeda as well as the jihadies from the surrounding countries. We have installed a democratically elected government that is starting to police it's own streets and has genuinely cracked down on militias. We have decreased violence by about 75-80% from it's highs and yes, Iran is killing our troops because they want us out so that they can control Iraq. What you propose is surrender to the Iranians, as well as al Qaeda.'
Blah, blah, blah. When it ends, either in 2009 or 2019, it will all fall apart and the dead american troops will have been wasted on an idealistic mistake by the worst administration in the history of the country---and idiots like you that support their mistakes.
'Charged with? I have, the Chicago sun times has charged and it isn't even refuted by obama that he wrote letters for his 17-plus year friend and benefactor Antoin 'Tony' Rezko to get millions of tax payer dollars to refurbish properties on Chicago's south side which Rezko did not. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of this tax payer money made it's way back in to obamas campaign and hundreds of thousands more helped him buy the property that he is living on. Obama called it a 'boneheaded move' but it was criminal kickback taking. '
Again liar, charged with? I could accuse Mr. McCain with taking money in the Keating S&L scandle, but he was not charged with anything, so I would not like to lie---or tell half truths like you do liar.
'Additionally, Obama lobbied HARD for an 'earmark' of tax payer subsidies for the hospital at the University Of Chicago where his his wife was working for, when they got a big pork barrel grant approved his wifes pay (never been proud of the USA Michelle) doubled.'
Bah, blah, blah. Please stand and salute the next President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
'Also Obama invested in AVI Biopharma after arriving in the Senate and then proceeded to seek federal funding for the company, an unbelievable conflict of interist. Why? Because some of his biggest political donors were also big investors in the company. He has done this before: 'The most recent financial disclosure form for Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, also shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.' (NY TIMES)'
Blah, blah, blah, god you get tiring---legal charges for anything?????
'Want more? Man, I ain't even warmed up yet and there is another big shoe to drop... :-D'
You have yet to give anything of substance. Half truths again as usual, typical right wing babble.
page: 1 2
Similar articles
- ANALYSIS: On Obama's election anniversary, Republicans claim victory
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (Roundup)
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (3rd Lead)
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (2nd Lead)
- Republicans take Virginia in first election test for Obama (1st Lead)
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting
- 2. "We're family" - Texas town rallies after tragedy (News Feature)
- 3. In Pictures: 'USA Fort Hood Shootings'
- 4. Bitterness of war hits home, adds to Obama's dilemma
- 5. At least one dead in shooting at Orlando high-rise (Roundup)
USA
Your Talkback on this Story