Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 29, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Europe’s Warming Raises Tropical Disease Risk






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Obama Hedges on Withdrawal

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 3, 2008
Obama
Flickr / Jurvetson

Capping off a week of disappointments for his progressive supporters, Barack Obama backed away from the idea of a timely withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, a signature plank in his campaign. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground,” explained Obama, “I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Update: In response to criticism from John McCain’s campaign, Barack Obama has clarified his earlier comments, saying he would not extend his timetable for withdrawal, but would consider leaving more troops behind, depending on the advice of military commanders.


New York Times:

Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain.

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

As he arrived for a campaign stop in North Dakota, Mr. Obama told reporters on Thursday that he intended to conduct “a thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy during a forthcoming trip to the country. He stressed that he has long called for a careful and responsible withdrawal of American forces, but he declined to offer a fresh endorsement of his plan to remove one to two combat brigades a month.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By niloroth, July 9, 2008 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

Manni:

“As Cyrena warned me some time ago, where niloroth is concerned (and particularly re 9/11), save your breath: he will debate you with his “official story” belief until he simply wears you down with his uber-denial-based mindset.”

LOL.

The funny thing is my last post wasn’t as much about your lies about 9/11, but about the fact that you can’t even keep one story straight.  Even for a truther you are very very bad at that whole reality thing.  Seriously, at least cyrena is smart enough to never actually bring any facts into the conversation, so he can never be proved wrong.  Although we all know cyrena is a paid for lacky for the CFR and trilateral commission with her blind support of obama.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 9, 2008 at 4:27 am Link to this comment

maani:  I can see that wink Cognitive dissonance.  Ah well, he just can’t handle the truth.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 9, 2008 at 4:24 am Link to this comment

Tony:  Why do you think he will listen to you when he becomes president?  The dems won in 06. They have the majority.  Weren’t we all thrilled thinking.. yea! impeachment ! accountability ! oversight !  What did we get?  Impeachment off the table, no hearings with teeth and certainly NO oversight. 

Wake up.  The dems,for the most part, including your beloved obama are complicit in the fascist takeover.  Why?  I dunno.  Blackmail? Power? Greed?  I believe the last two words apply, not the first.  Which is why I have absolutely no faith in the democrats to get us out of this mess.  They haven’t even flippin’ tried (except for a few of the “good” ones) so far, so what makes you think that will change in 08?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 9, 2008 at 12:18 am Link to this comment

Jersey, girl,

We will see how progressive Obama is by what he does after he is elected, not by what he says before he is elected. A lot will depend on whether he has a filibuster-proof majority to work with. Much also depends on what he hears from his supporters. If Activity by progressive supporters within his campaign, will make him more progressive. Attacks and smears by progressives, calling him names     like “traitor”, “liar”, etc. instead of supporting him, drives him to the right and help the forces of reaction.

Report this

By Maani, July 8, 2008 at 8:16 pm Link to this comment

Jersey Girl:

As Cyrena warned me some time ago, where niloroth is concerned (and particularly re 9/11), save your breath: he will debate you with his “official story” belief until he simply wears you down with his uber-denial-based mindset.  NOTHING you say will change his position even one iota, and you will simply be wasting energy tpying your post.  I still reply to him mostly to see how many more epithets he can hurl at me…LOL.

Peace.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 8, 2008 at 7:25 pm Link to this comment

Tony Wicher:  You are NOT a progressive if you think it’s ok to use doublespeak to get elected. To deny your base to kowtow to the right wing crowd is despicable.  I for one, don’t think he’s just doing it to get elected.  His advisers are corporatists, hawks and imperialists. His support of the FISA compromise makes me ill. What the hell kind of constitutional attorney would approve of such a bill? It seems he has republican envy. He has stated his admiration for Reagan and has repeated over and over again he wants to “reach across the aisle” to the repigs.  He has even said he’d consider a republican as vp. As a true progressive, who has suffered through 8 years of right wing abuse, I want no such thing.  I want someone who will tell the republicans to sit the hell down and shut up !  Not some mamby pamby little pandering appeaser.  If you think he will change when elected, you have another think coming.  Once in office, he will be even more beholden to the corporate gods who pull his strings.

Obama is no progressive.  As for the supreme court. I don’t think he will appoint a left leaning moderate as most of you do.  And if he does, you and I know the republicans will not vote that person in.  So that point, to me, is a non issue.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 8, 2008 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

niloroth:  if you believe the official fairytale of 9/11 you are either very naive or very stupid.  Bldg 7 came fell down into it’s own footprint at nearly free fall speed just as the twin towers did. There were only small fires within the bldg and maybe you didn’t know this but a plane didn’t even hit it !! Larry Silverstein is on tape saying he told them to “pull it”.  What does pull it mean to you?  It’s a demolition term for taking down a building.  News reporters, policeman & fireman and people on the street all reported hearing explosions before it came down. 

As for the pentagon tapes, point me to the one that shows a plane hitting the building, please.  Show me the wreckage of a huge airliner on the lawn.  Explain to me how the most protected building in the universe could be hit over an hour after the towers were?  While you’re at it, explain to me how the president of the u.s. could sit in a child’s classroom reading my pet goat after andy card whispered in his ear the country is under attack.  WHy didnt’ the secret service shuttle him out of that building immediatelY???

Good god, there are thousands of unanswered questions including the money trail and the put options that only a person who is unable to think critically or is afraid to know the truth wouldn’t figure out in short order that it was certainly an inside job .

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 7, 2008 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment

re Bobadi, July 7 at 6:51 pm #

Very thoughtful link. That’s exactly the way I see it. I consider myself highly progressive, far out in front of the American people on most issues. So, naturally I do not expect my views to be majority views. I’m way on the left end of the bell curve. The best that we leftists can do is to be part of a coalition for change, and as part of it we can try to steer it more in the direction we want. I accept Obama as the leader of the whole coalition, and I understand that he must compromise as best he can with people of many different viewpoints, especially at election time.

Report this

By Bobadi, July 7, 2008 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

Have any of you heard of Marc Coopers take on this thread? I think he has it right:

http://www.laweekly.com/news/dissonance/dissonance-obamas-middle-ground/19203/

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm Link to this comment

Rey Mary Ann McNeely, July 7 at 1:53 pm #

Obama is running for the presidency, not the board of supervisors.  The ambition to be President of the United States, in and of itself, and to garner enough votes from the celebrity addled American public, is conclusive proof that Obama has no intention of ever getting out of Iraq, lock, stock and whiskey barrel.”
—————————————————————————-
That remains to be seen. Obama isn’t president yet. I have backed him since he started running because I could see he was a highly skilled politician and I hoped he had some integrity. I am at least going to wait until he has had a chance to be president for a while and can see what he actually does, instead of rushing to judgment even before the election. You seem to be saying that the mere fact that somebody runs for President already “conclusively proves” that he has no integrity and cares only for fame and power. Well, what about Kucinich, then? What about Gravel? They ran, didn’t they? No, Obama is right saying that such an attitude represents the cynicism and apathy that prevents movements for change from happening. Such cynicism, of course, furthers the true Republican agenda of vitiating the democratic process, leaving wealth (capital) as the only organized power.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, July 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Some persons may claim that the polls mean nothing in the early parts of the game.May be so.But,the polls have proven to be generally accurate,except
when and where elections were rigged.


Dukakis over Bush by 14 1988

Report this

By Mary Ann McNeely, July 7, 2008 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama is running for the presidency, not the board of supervisors.  The ambition to be President of the United States, in and of itself, and to garner enough votes from the celebrity addled American public, is conclusive proof that Obama has no intention of ever getting out of Iraq, lock, stock and whiskey barrel.  Only the Iraqis can throw us out and if today’s announcement by Maliki that he wants whatever stuffed shirt is president in 2009 to give him a timetable for withdrawal is true . . . then that’s good news.  Obama, however, like McCain, is on fire with ambition, for having statues of himself erected in every courthouse square in this nation long after he is gone.  People like that don’t make sane and humble decisions such as ending a bloody catastrophe and war crime like the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Once they achieve power, they truly begin to believe all the nonsense told to them by every sycophant they’ve ever come into contact with.

Report this

By Sodium, July 7, 2008 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Subject:Unfavorable Trends for Obama…

Just three weeks ago,various national polls had shown
that Obama leading McCain by a whopping 17-20 percentage points.That was three weeks ago.

Now,the same various polls have shown that Obama is
still in the lead,but by only 3 (three) percentage points,specifically 46 percent for Obama and 43 percent for McCain.This difference is small,within the statistical margin of deviation.Therefore,it is unwise to assume or think that Obama will win the presidential election in next November,2008.Reasons:

(1)Due to various reasons/causes,ranging from poor
economy,to high prices of gasoline at the pump,to
increasing prices for foods,to a large number of
houses closures,to skyrocketing cost of health-care,
to the war in Iraq,to,to,to etc…one may conclude that the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee will win the election by land slide.Regrettably,the trends,so far,are against making such a conclusion.

(2)Since McCain has succeeded in closing such a huge
gap of 17-20 points to merely 3 points behind Obama, in only three weeks and within the statistical margin of error,one may wonder how it is going to be on election day,in November,2008.

(3)The whole outcome of the Presidential election seems to be totally unpredictable due to the presence
of other Presidential candidates such as Ralph Nader
and Robert Barr.According to recent polls,Nader holgs
6 (six) and Barr 3 (three) percentage points of the
whole national electorates.In my estimate,this total of 9 percentage points will have a great deal of
weight in determining the outcome of the election in
next November,assuming a tight election between Obama
and McCain.

The Trends,as they appear to me now,are unfavorable
to Obama,if McCain continues to close the gap as he has done so in the last three weeks.

Some persons may claim that the polls mean nothing in the early parts of the game.May be so.But,the polls have proven to be generally accurate,except
when and where elections were rigged.For those who
are interested to know what had happened in the
Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004,I suggest
reading the following book:

Fooled Again
By
Mark Crispin Miller

The book is well documented,and has made a lot of
sense to me.It is worth the time in reading it,
especially by those who intend to act as watchdogs
against fraudulent attempts to temper with the genuine votes of the voters.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 7, 2008 at 12:42 pm Link to this comment

Sue Cook,

Yes, experience, such as we have now? Vietnam evader war monger, don’t you love it?

Are you touting McCAin?  He does not flip flop?  How about your option if not McCain?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, July 7, 2008 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

Re: Sue Cook

Obama was NEVER “left” (whatever that “technically” means).  But now that he’s endorsing a full Clintonian foreign policy group he’s chosen a more vicious and corrupt path, just like ol’ Bill and Hillary.  While a select few of these advisors might be “centerish” the rest are hawks and that is dangerous for us as well as the world.

Since Reagan the “center” has decidedly moved RIGHT, so much so that many people who consider themselves Republican, thought Clinton was a hawk and endorsed Obama.  However, Obama’s latest stance on several issues will drive even these Republicans away…but they will not vote for McCain.

Report this

By Sue Cook, July 7, 2008 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

McCain did a very significant thing when challenging Obama with a trip to Iraq.
How very clever of him.
At first Obama backed down, but realized his error in doing so. He knows that conditions there are improving, so he can’t just argue to the contrary and look credible.
We’ll soon see how much more he will flip-flop and try to justify is ever-changing rhetoric (pandering) on the subject because he likes having it both ways.
He’s left, he’s center. I don’t know one issue he has stayed true to since entering politics.

Experience not experiment for president!
NoBama!

Report this

By niloroth, July 6, 2008 at 8:56 pm Link to this comment

Manni:

Your delusions just don’t stop do they?

You originally said:
“It should also be noted that, just weeks after this report, the BBC claimed that all of its live studio tapes recorded on 9/11 had “gone missing.” [Thank God that YouTube has the original video.] Sounds to me like whatever report they are about to give is going to be a doctored version of those live tapes.”

Which, to those of us with better than 3rd grade reading comprehension, if very different from:

“Yup, they claim to have found it OVER SIX YEARS AFTER THE FACT: as late as February 2007, BBC World News editor Richard Porter was still asking people for help finding the footage.”

But, just in case anyone thinks this is a unique incident, lets look at what else you say.  As an example:

“Actually, you are incorrect again.  The FBI released PORTIONS of the videos from THREE of FIVE sources”

Is fully different from what you said (and i was pointing out as an example of your ignorance on the events surrounding 9/11) in This post.

“As well, the FBI continues to refuse to release at least half a dozen videotapes of the Pentagon “crash,” and only released a single graint (sic) on-site c/c video which does NOTHING to support their case.”

See, in both of these cases, you are backtracking on the original meaning in a sad attempt to not look like either ignorant, or wrong.  As well, notice the fact that in the 2 posts, there is no logical way to make the math on the actual number of tapes the government has supposedly not released add up, so i guess you are not a mathematician either.  Sad, very sad.

Could you please clarify in the future?  I myself never say anything i don’t mean and can’t back up, you should try it some time, but then i guess you would have to give up your fairy tales in place of reality.  And don’t you ever get tired of me proving you wrong?  And with your own words even.

Anyway, continuing on, i am glad you decided not to challenge me on the whole 9/11 ballot thing, since i guess even the true believes like you have realized it is never going to get off the ground.

And as for the rest, I guess you could try to get yourself off the hook again by trying something like this:

“As noted, it does NOT come as news to me; I simply do not believe their claim, so I do not repeat it.”

But please note that that is a non sequitur, since the claim you made was not your trust in the tapes, it was your assertion that they were never found. 

And, as an aside, you should probably know that there were actually multiple news feeds that either said that WTC7 had or was going to collapse before 17:20 on 9/11.  The BBC was just the most well known one.  The reason for this probably had to do with the fact that everyone was in fact being TOLD that WTC7 was going to collapse, since it was known to the fire department, the police, and most importantly, to the local media outlets.  I would suggest you actually do some REAL READING on the events of that day, but we all know you like to remain as ignorant as you are able about 9/11.

I am almost getting tired of being the one who teaches you about these things.

Just answer me one question.  Do you ever look in a mirror and think, “i really need to stop lying about 9/11”?  Or are you just as buffered from reality as GWB is?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 6, 2008 at 7:29 pm Link to this comment

Outraged,

The Realnews videos seem fairly objective to me. One one hand if you say is going to be another Clinton, I admit that’s pretty disappointing to me - after all, I backed Obama against Clinton because I hoped he would be better. On the other hand, if that’s the worst you can say about Obama, then I would like to point out that Clinton is really a lot better than Bush. Clinton is a corporate Democrat. Bush is an out-and-out fascist. Clinton, the video says, “is no pacifist”. Sure, but compared to an out-and-out warmonger like Bush, he looks pretty peaceful.

Report this

By troublesum, July 6, 2008 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment

Outraged,
Thanks for that link.  This is the worst fraud in American politics since Nixon said he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam.

Report this

By Maani, July 6, 2008 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment

niloroth:

I would add that BBC world News Editor Richard Porter CONTINUES to be evasive about the reporting done that day re WTC7.  Here are his words:

“Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.”

VERY weak.  But then he adds further evasion:

“If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.”

Excuse me?! The #1 media outlet in all of Europe - and one of the top media outlets in the world - calls this an “error - no more than that?”  An “error” that they announced - with complete conviction and certainty, including DETAILS - the collapse of a building that remained standing for another 25 minutes?!!  And NO OTHER MEDIA OUTLET IN THE WORLD - whether large ones that were also on-site or tiny ones that were less “plugged in” to the events - made that error?

Please.  That stretches credulity WAY past the breaking point.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, July 6, 2008 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment

niloroth:

“It should also be noted that the BBC did in fact find the original footage, and has made it publicly available.”

Yup, they claim to have found it OVER SIX YEARS AFTER THE FACT: as late as February 2007, BBC World News editor Richard Porter was still asking people for help finding the footage.  But this claim is no more believable than the original claim that they lost the tapes of the most important footage that the BBC has ever shot!  The bottom line is, it is impossible to know WHAT to believe re the BBC.  Nice try.

“It should also be noted that this should not come as news to you, since you have ‘spent years researching 9/11.’”

As noted, it does NOT come as news to me; I simply do not believe their claim, so I do not repeat it.

“It should also be noted that you also had no idea that all the videos from the pentagon attack had been released for over a year when you said they had never been released.”

Actually, you are incorrect again.  The FBI released PORTIONS of the videos from THREE of FIVE sources - and the portions they DID release do NOTHING to support their claim of a 757 hitting the Pentagon. In fact, if anything, they support the movement’s claim that something is fishy about that whole affair.

“It should also be noted that you are either 1) fully ignorant about 9/11, and lying about your research into it, or 2) you know these things, but willingly lie about them.”

Nope.  See above.

“It should also be noted that either way, you are an idiot, and displaying about the level of understanding about the events of 9/11 that i have come to expect from the 9/11 deniers.”

Sorry you feel that way.  Rather than return the epithet, I will simply say that YOUR understanding of the events of 9/11 is exactly what I have come to expect from those who still believe the hopelessly insupportable “official story.”

Peace.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, July 6, 2008 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment

Obama has chosen a foreign policy team made up of some STRANGE bedfellows if one is TRULY thinking of getting out of Iraq.

!Madeline Albright..!!! Now that’s a scary woman, vicious and wicked, remember… killing a half million Iraqi children, WAS WORTH IT TO HER…! Were these people hatched….the cold-blooded freaks…I swear Truman Capote couldn’t top the likes of what these people conjure up before breakfast.  Imagine the machinations that go through the heads of people like Albright, (and she’s certainly not the only one), by the time dinner rolls around.

Desk murders…just like Eichmann.  I’ll write my own name in before I’d vote for someone with the likes of these people “on his team”.  I don’t really have a death wish for myself…nor for the world.

Check out these videos from “The Real News”

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=165

Report this

By niloroth, July 6, 2008 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

Manni:

“It should also be noted that, just weeks after this report, the BBC claimed that all of its live studio tapes recorded on 9/11 had “gone missing.” [Thank God that YouTube has the original video.] Sounds to me like whatever report they are about to give is going to be a doctored version of those live tapes.”

It should also be noted that the BBC did in fact find the original footage, and has made it publicly available. 

It should also be noted that this should not come as news to you, since you have “spent years researching 9/11”.

It should also be noted that you also had no idea that all the videos from the pentagon attack had been released for over a year when you said they had never been released. 

It should also be noted that you are either 1) fully ignorant about 9/11, and lying about your research into it, or 2) you know these things, but willingly lie about them.

It should also be noted that either way, you are an idiot, and displaying about the level of understanding about the events of 9/11 that i have come to expect from the 9/11 deniers. 

I will not await you blathering on about some completely different issues about 9/11 since like most 9/11 deniers, you are bad as responding in debates, but good at moving goalposts.

Oh yeah, and about the ballot initiative, aside from the fracturing of the ny truth legions, which is great, i am wondering how you figure even with 18 months they will get enough sigs?  They need 30,000 verified sigs, and have only 10,000 so far.  Even if they should be able to pull off another 20,000 if even one is found unqualified, it will invalidate the initiative.  So they need more than that really.  And the original target was for 100,000 by july 30th.  Well, that one will fail.  And then they moved the target to september, but still have yet to pass much over 10,000.  So now that they have already signed up all the 9/11 deniers, and those they can harass in the streets, where are the other 20,000 going to come from?  Especially since there is no money and few volunteers to work on the streets?

9/11 truth is moving to the ‘no planer’ fringe, and that is where they will lose the public.  The truth movement failed, and is fading.  Mostly because most of it’s supporters are uninformed and ignorant, much like yourself.

Report this

By Jim Yell, July 6, 2008 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would not vote for Hillary, because she was a Clinton and the Clinton’s have shown themselves to be to the right of center and opportunistic in the extreme.

I know the leftie candidates I would prefer would never be allowed to run, if peoples willingness to cut off their noses to spite their faces wouldn’t block their candidacy, corporate America would not allow it.

So I was content and mildly optimistic with Obama. It wasn’t that I was blind to his toe testing of right wing waters. I thought well he has to win, to be of any use at all.

However, here we have an accumulation of sidestepping issues and not being present when important votes are taken. We now seem to have a candidate who seems very Hilliary like. Contantly spitting on his finger and holding it up to test the wind. It seems very McCain like too, to change ones mind even about core issues.

We can not protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by locking it away in a drawer, or by ignoring it and doing what ever seems expediant. We can not expunge the wrongful invasion of a country by forcing its people to accept occupation and by high jacking that countries resources for the benefit of the International American Corporate Energy companies. It remains wrong and will be wrong, just as wrong if we prevail.

Report this

By Maani, July 6, 2008 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment

Fadel:

I am not finding any listing for that program on the BBC channels that we get in the U.S.  Perhaps it is only being shown in the UK.  Please advise if you have any additional info.

As well, the BBC is HIGHLY suspect PARTICULARLY on the issue of WTC7, since THEY were the ones who “jumped the gun” and reported the collapse of WTC7 almost HALF AN HOUR before it actually collapsed.  In fact, the BBC reporter in NYC was standing at a window behind which the smoke from the collapses of the twin towers was visible.  And as she was reporting the collapse of WTC7, that building - completely intact and uncollapsed - was visible behind her.

It should also be noted that, just weeks after this report, the BBC claimed that all of its live studio tapes recorded on 9/11 had “gone missing.”  [Thank God that YouTube has the original video.] Sounds to me like whatever report they are about to give is going to be a doctored version of those live tapes.

Here is the original report.  When the NYC reporter comes on, look over her left shoulder (right side of the screen), and you will see WTC7 standing tall as she reports that it has collapsed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

Peace.

Report this

By dihey, July 6, 2008 at 7:39 am Link to this comment

I have greatly enjoyed reading the Maani-Louise debate. At the end I had the sneaky suspicion that BOTH are really Cyrena debating herself whether she is a Democrat or a Republican.
Unfortunately the debate was so short of new facts pertaining to the presidential race that I learned almost nothing. Here are some new facts. All are from the mouth of Richard Danzig a former navy secretary who advises Senator Obama on national security.

“It’s hard to see how we [meaning an Obama administration] could spend less on the military in the near term. Cuts would be hard to make due to the costs of Senator Obama’s plan to withdraw troops from Iraq and of repairing and replacing equipment from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

In other words: expect Obama’s first DoD budget request plus his Iraq/Afghanistan “supplementals” to be close to one trillion dollars. Danzig also glibly forgets to tell us that Obama wants to expand the army with 65,000 new soldiers which, of course, is old news but will require increased funding.

“Senator Obama has also said he wants to send at least two more combat brigades - the equivalent of between 6,000 and 10,000 soldiers - to Afghanistan, where violence has climbed as the Taliban and al-Qaeda regrouped.”
“Mr Danzig said he could not say precisely when more troops would go to Afghanistan under Senator Obama but stated: “I don’t see it as very far off; I think it’s a priority.”

Have they ever considered the possibility that the renewed growth of Taliban is due to the presence of too many and not to too few foreign soldiers in Afghanistan? This smells like President Johnson and Vietnam: escalate, escalate, and then escalate some more. Obama has once stated that he is not against all wars, he is only against “dumb” wars. Obviously he considers the “war” in Afghanistan a clever (intelligent?) war. In reality it is just as dumb as the occupation/war in Iraq. And the summit of dumbness will be the bombing of Iran which Obama does not oppose.

“Mr Danzig said Senator Obama supported current efforts to build a missile defense system to protect the United States and its allies from attack by rogue nations.”
“But he said the program would be subject to more careful scrutiny under Senator Obama.”

In other words: a president Obama will throw billions of additional but “well-scrutinized” dollars at the military-industrial complex for a project that most experts think is a total waste of taxpayers money because that “defense” can always be overridden by potential opponents.
It is now perfectly clear that a loss by Obama in November, should that happen, can no longer be blamed on Hillary and Bill Clinton but only on Obama and his advisers themselves. They are digging their “national security” foxhole deeper and deeper until they are out of sight completely.

Report this

By troublesum, July 6, 2008 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

Scott Ritter’s words on the youtube video, “the genie ain’t going back into the bottle” reminded me of this Frost poem.  The title is an allusion to the biblical flood and “summits stained”  reminds us that in the mythological flood the waters reached the mountain tops.  We are well down the road to our own destruction.  Every move we make militarily only gets us there quicker.  The blood we are shedding is our own.  Neither Obama nor McCain understands this, and neither knows how to stop it.

Report this

By troublesum, July 6, 2008 at 5:57 am Link to this comment

The Flood
by Robert Frost

Blood has been harder to dam back than water.
Just when we think we have it impounded safe
Behind new barrier walls (and let it chafe!),
It breaks away in some new kind of slaughter,
We choose to say it is let loose by the devil;
But power of blood itself releases blood.
It goes by might of being such a flood
Held high at so unnatural a level.
It will have outlet, brave and not so brave.
Weapons of war and implements of peace
Are but the points at which it finds release.
And now it is once more the tidal wave
That when it has swept by leaves summits stained.
Oh, blood will out.  It cannot be contained.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, July 5, 2008 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment

since both Maani and Tony Wicher brought up the issue of 9 /11 on this thread, I would like to bring to your attention that on BBC Website, under most popular Video/Audio, they listed two items related to 9/11. One is entitled, “The Collapse of the Third Tower,” and the other one is entitled, “Third Tower Mystery Solved.”

They announce that “The Conspiracy Files:9/11-The Third Tower” will be broadcast on Sunday, July 6 @ 9:00 p.m.

There is also another link saying that, “BBC denies 9/11 Conspiracy.”

I am afraid that BBC has come under pressure to formally deny the 9/11 conspiracy since this news outlet is deemed credible by large numbers of people around the world. I don’t want to rush to comment till I see the program and related links. Let’s all watch the program on Sunday, July 6 and have a lively exchange after that!

Report this

By Maani, July 5, 2008 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

Tony:

I am not, and have never been, a nasty person.  I am passionate - occasionally fervently - and admittedly sometimes a mite sarcastic (though I’m trying to work on that).  But I simply don’t do “nasty.”  It is not in my bones.

Re 9/11, here you and I are on the same page.  As one who has been actively involved in the movement for over three years - and deeply immersed in studying 9/11 for over four years, including facts, theories, criticisms, articles, videos, etc. from BOTH sides of the issue - I am as certain that 9/11 was, as you put it, our “Reichstag fire” (a comparison that is made often within the movement).

It was the pretext for both the regime change in Iraq (for oil, as has now been made clear vis-a-vis the contracts for the Big Four oil companies), and the imposition of the neocon agenda, as pre-written in (i) PNAC’s document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” which came out EXACTLY a year before 9/11 (September 2000), and which includes the realization (in words that should stun anyone who hasn’t seen them yet) that “the process of transformation” to the neocon agenda “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor,” and (ii) the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, which had been pre-written and was sitting on the shelf just waiting for 9/11, as proven by the fact that this 170-page behemoth appeared “full grown from the head of Zeus” when it was provided to Congress in October 2001.

Add to this the hopeless sham of the 9/11 Commission Report, which was replete with errors, omissions, distortions, etc., as well as almost all of the commissioners having serious conflicts of interest, including fiduciary and/or directorship responsibilities at Boeing (the maker of the planes), and American and United Airlines (the owners of the planes).  And then there is the Commission’s Executive Director - the person responsible for choosing which lines of inquiry to follow, which witnesses to depose, etc. - Philip Zelikow, a hard-core neocon who was a member of the Aspen Strategy Group (Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle et al), a member of the Bush-Cheney transition team, and a close personal fried of Condi Rice.

All of this may be “circumstantial,” but cases have been won in court on far flimsier evidence than this.

Yup, 9/11 was about misdirection, smoke and mirrors, the unseen strings, shock and awe, and the deliberate traumatizing (for “control” purposes vis-a-vis the never-ending “war on terror”) of not just a majority of Americans, but a large part of the rest of the world.

And, sadly, that traumatizing continues to affect most Americans, who simply do not have the psycho-emotional wherewithal to step back, look at the events of 9/11 with a dispassionate eye, and try to wrap their minds around the idea that their own government would engage in mass murder of its own citizens in the name of power, greed, money, oil, and control.

Peace.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 5, 2008 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment

By troublesum, July 5 at 2:43 pm #


Obama’s attitude is that we should leave the business of government to the elites.  We should vote for one of The Party candidates and then shut up.  Several weeks ago much was made of the fact that VP Cheney responded with “So” when reminded of the fact that a very clear majority of Americans oppose the war, think it was a mistake, and want the troops withdraw.  democrats in congress have the same attitude; it could have been any one of them speaking though they are usually more careful to disguise their opinions in the rhetoric of populist horse shit.  But they feel the same way.  What the public wants is of little concern to them.
——————————————————————————-
troublesum,

Yes, and everything Obama has said and done - everything - indicates that he agrees with the American people about that. We shall see what he actually does when he becomes president. Hopefully there will also be a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress and with such a majority backed by a broadly based coalition of the people, I expect to see some fairly big changes in both foreign and domestic policy. If you are right and we wind up bombing Iran, etc. I will admit the error of my ways. We don’t have long to wait to find out.

Report this

By troublesum, July 5, 2008 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

This may have been linked to before on TD but it underscores the horrific consequences we face as a result of the democrats’ not standing up to Bush/Cheney a long time ago.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 5, 2008 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

By Maani, July 5 at 2:23 pm #


niloroth:

“You could ask him what he is going to do after the ballot initiative fails.  The don’t even have 1/3 of the names needed yet right?  And they have what, 3 weeks left to do it?  This will go down as yet another failure of the floundering ‘truth’ movement.”

First, even if we fail to get all the required signatures, at least we tried.  As well, the signatures remain usable for another 18 months, so we would not have to get them all again if we have to try again next year.

As for “floundering,” you need to do your homework.  Setting aside that the number of people actively involved in the “movement” - both in the U.S. and, especially, globally - has increased fourfold over the past two years, every poll done in the past three years in the U.S. shows that the number of people who either (i) question the “official story” about the events of 9/11, or (ii) openly agree that that individuals and/or agencies of the U.S. were complicit in the planning and/or execution of the event has risen each year.  These polls include, but are not limited to, Zogby, CNN, CBS, Ohio State and others.  As well, the number of high-profile individuals - in every conceivable industry, including the military, intelligence, law enforcement, academia, entertainment, etc. - who have come out in open support of the movement has increased dramatically over the past two years.  So, no, the movement is not “floundering”; it is growing.  [N.B. For an extensive list of those who question the “official story,” go to: ]
———————————————————————-
Maani,

Strangely, I find myself agreeing with you here. I am one of those who believes 9/11 was an inside job. I believe those who say that all three WTC buildings collapsed due to intentional demolition as I believe my own eyes when I look at the pictures of it. I believe this was done intentionally as a pretext for war in the Middle East and the establishment of a military dictatorship in this country. It was our “Reichstag fire”. I cannot say that I “know” this, but I am willing to bet on it. I would like to know, but we can’t really know unless there is a real public investigation. Obviously, no “investigation” conducted under the auspices of the Bush administration can be considered valid. If Obama recognizes this and permits real government investigations into the crimes of the Bush administration to go forward, with an honest prosecutor, he will deserve credit for restoring American democracy. If not, well, I’ll be very disappointed that my efforts to get him elected have been wasted. What else can I say? Would Clinton, or McCain be better on this issue?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 5, 2008 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

Maani, right now you seem like kind of a nasty person, but maybe I just don’t understand you. For the record, I am a political philosopher and I have been supporting Obama based on my political principles and my judgment about how best to move the country forward. Not only do I have no formal connection to the campaign, but email coming from my email address has been blocked by some groups at the Obama for America web site, most likely at the behest of Israel supporters who don’t like my One Democratic State stand on Israel. Nevertheless I support Obama because I believe that is the best thing for the country, at this time, under these concrete circumstances, when oil companies, defense contractors and fascists ride roughshod over us.

Report this

By troublesum, July 5, 2008 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

Bush’s approval rating is somewhere in the titanic neighborhood of 25%.  Given the Bush record of the past 7 1/2 years Obama should be at about 65% in the polls.  Gallup polls released Friday put Obama at 47% to 43% for McCain.  Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.  This election is theirs to lose.

Report this

By troublesum, July 5, 2008 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

Obama’s attitude is that we should leave the business of government to the elites.  We should vote for one of The Party candidates and then shut up.  Several weeks ago much was made of the fact that VP Cheney responded with “So” when reminded of the fact that a very clear majority of Americans oppose the war, think it was a mistake, and want the troops withdraw.  democrats in congress have the same attitude; it could have been any one of them speaking though they are usually more careful to disguise their opinions in the rhetoric of populist horse shit.  But they feel the same way.  What the public wants is of little concern to them.

Report this

By troublesum, July 5, 2008 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

Tony Wicher,
No thank you.  I will not vote anymore for democrats.  They continue to fund the war, refuse to look at impeachment, voted to re-enact the patriot act, granted immunity to the phone companies, continue to vote for insane defense budgets, will not support universal single payer health care which they themselves enjoy, continue to support free trade agreements in spite of the costs to American workers, caved to Bush/Cheney demands that they not do a proper investigation of 9/11, will not agree to withdraw troops immediately from Iraq, continue to support the president’s plan to have permenant military bases there, voted to give the president a green light for military action against Iran, continue to give unequivical support to Israel, have done nothing to stop the Israeli seige of Gaza,.... on and on.  There is no credible reason to vote for them.  Save your breath.

Report this

By Maani, July 5, 2008 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment

niloroth:

“You could ask him what he is going to do after the ballot initiative fails.  The don’t even have 1/3 of the names needed yet right?  And they have what, 3 weeks left to do it?  This will go down as yet another failure of the floundering ‘truth’ movement.”

First, even if we fail to get all the required signatures, at least we tried.  As well, the signatures remain usable for another 18 months, so we would not have to get them all again if we have to try again next year.

As for “floundering,” you need to do your homework.  Setting aside that the number of people actively involved in the “movement” - both in the U.S. and, especially, globally - has increased fourfold over the past two years, every poll done in the past three years in the U.S. shows that the number of people who either (i) question the “official story” about the events of 9/11, or (ii) openly agree that that individuals and/or agencies of the U.S. were complicit in the planning and/or execution of the event has risen each year.  These polls include, but are not limited to, Zogby, CNN, CBS, Ohio State and others.  As well, the number of high-profile individuals - in every conceivable industry, including the military, intelligence, law enforcement, academia, entertainment, etc. - who have come out in open support of the movement has increased dramatically over the past two years.  So, no, the movement is not “floundering”; it is growing.  [N.B. For an extensive list of those who question the “official story,” go to: ]http://patriotsquestion911.com/.]

Tony:

“Something fishy about Maani. I can’t rationally understand this person’s motivations, but they feel bad.”

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.  However, given that you have been an Obama shill from day one - and have STILL refused to provide full disclosure and admit your direct connection to the campaign, and your blatant propagandizing on this and other websites - this is a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black.

If you “feel bad” about my “motivations,” perhaps it’s because they conflict with your FORMAL role with the Obama campaign, and not because you really care all that much.

My “motivation” is, and has always been, the truth. And as the expression goes: “Sometimes the truth hurts.”  But I will NOT engage in pandering, appeasement or other dishonest behavior simply because it is expedient.  Indeed, I vehemently reject the suggestion that expediency trumps honesty, no matter WHAT the outcome.

Peace.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, July 5, 2008 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I thought from Joan Baez circa 1969:

There’s a man by my side walking
There’s a voice within me talking,
There’s a voice, within me saying,
Carry on, carry it on.

They will tell their empty stories,
Send their dogs to bite our bodies,
They will lock us up in prison,
Carry on, carry it on.

When you can’t go on any longer,
Take the hand, hand of your brother,
Every victory brings another,
Carry it on, carry it on.

Maybe politics isn’t “The Way”

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 5, 2008 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

Re Louise, July 4 at 6:01 pm #


A life-long democrat? Well then you above all should recognize the damage that you do to your party by focusing with apparent passion on every bit of back stabbing, petty and basically irrelevant trivia you seem to have committed to memory and proudly repeat almost verbatim, to anyone foolish enough to take you seriously.

A life-long democrat? With members like you, the party needs no detractors.
——————————————————————————-
Damn right! Something fishy about Maani. I can’t rationally understand this person’s motivations, but they feel bad.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 5, 2008 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment

By the way, Hillary understands politics enough to understand that though she lost the nomination her the way to achieve maximum political influence now is by being the most valuable possible member of the winning team. Apparently some of her supporters would like to go on living in bitter disillusionment.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 5, 2008 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

Re troublesum, July 5 at 5:39 am #

“cyrena and Louise are the same person.  She wants to make it look like there is more than one Obama supporter here who hasn’t jumped ship.”
——————————————————————————
troublesum,

All right, that’s it! I have been an Obama supporter since Feb 2007 and I’m still an Obama supporter! I’m not jumping ship because the captain of the only other one is John McCain. So if anyone is thinking of “jumping ship”, unless you’re planning to start saluting Admiral McCain, good luck swimming with the fishes!

Obama cannot give progressives everything they would like, especially in the heat of an election. With Obama we might get 20% of what we want. With McCain we get bupkiss. The choice is clear. Bitching about it is pointless. Obama is trying to put together a broad-based coalition for change. We are only part of it. Let’s get on board and pull, just as progressives did for the Roosevelt administration, even though they may have disagreed with many of his policies.

Report this

By niloroth, July 5, 2008 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

“As you may know, Senator Gravel is also actively supporting the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative, which the group I belong to (NY911Truth) is the creator and sponsor of.  In that regard, I am going to meet with Senator Gravel this coming week.  Anything you want me to ask him?”

You could ask him what he is going to do after the ballot initiative fails.  The don’t even have 1/3 of the names needed yet right?  And they have what, 3 weeks left to do it?  This will go down as yet another failure of the floundering “truth” movement.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 5, 2008 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

Maani,

Now Mike Gravel is supporting the Green Party, what is your take?

Tell Mike Gravel, some of us really applicate his comments about the special interest of Military Complex during the first so called debate. Noticed the looks from the other candidates, seemed almost shocked. My disappointment was they did not agree, but why would they, seems Kucinich would have agreed?

Gravel’s comments on real change, change from business as usual are heard by me, it is my hope by others also.

Change and Hope, real change and hope, interesting you and I seem to be on the same wave length for a change.

Gravel’s medical plan seemed lacking, but on most of his other issues he filled the gaps.  His sincerity will never be in question, for I know what he did during the Vietnam War.

Question, what can we do?

Report this

By Maani, July 5, 2008 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

Louise:

I forgot to add the MAIN reason I will not support or campaign for Obama.  As I noted, had Obama run his primary campaign on the positions and policies he is CURRENTLY running on - i.e., having moved to the center, and continuing to do so - it is almost certain that Hillary would have won, since it was at least partially if not largely his position on Iraq (which he is ALSO now backtracking from) that separated him from Hillary.

In this regard, in a very real sense, he stole the primary election from Hillary by adopting positions that he has all-too-quickly been backtracking from.

He deserves neither my active support, nor my pity if he loses.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, July 5, 2008 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

Jersey Girl:

Thanks for your support.  The only matter on which we disagree is the SC.  I do think Obama would choose a much more left-center candidate than McCain, and this may be the only reason why I might vote for Obama in November.

Louise:

“You just keep on bad mouthing everything that comes out in this campaign, that you disagree with. The end result will be the same. Another vote or two, or a hundred or more, taken away from the democrat candidate, whoever that ultimately may be.”

Boy, are you giving me an awful lot of credit and power!  Didn’t know I had such power!  And the “end result” of my “bad mouthing” things I “disagree” with is called…honesty.  Something you apparently would not know if it bit you on the ear.

“We can always count on you’all to crawl out of the woodwork and start throwing gas on the fire whenever an article like this comes out…Way to go guys! Keep that “support” and “campaigning” coming.”

The question is: why should I support or campaign for someone who has shown himself to be a blatant liar.  And not JUST a liar, but someone who purported - over and over and over - to be something he was NOT (a “different” politician, someone who would NOT play “politics as usual,” someone who would NOT cave to special interests, etc.) and who now betrays his supporters almost weekly.  Sorry, Louise, but while I may or may not vote for him, I have ZERO interest in supporting ot campaigning for him.

Leefeller:

As you may know, Senator Gravel is also actively supporting the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative, which the group I belong to (NY911Truth) is the creator and sponsor of.  In that regard, I am going to meet with Senator Gravel this coming week.  Anything you want me to ask him?

Peace.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, July 5, 2008 at 9:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Louise, July 4 at 6:01 pm

” A life-long democrat?”

How is this possible?  The Democratic party is a chameleon. When I was born, the Democrats were the party of Stron Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Orval Forbes.  They became the party of George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Lester Maddox, They were the party of the Vietnam War, the 68 Chicago convention, the party of the majority who pushed their myopic view of dominoes. They became the party of losers forfeiting 5 of 6 elections four in landslides.  Then they became the party of “compromise ” sacrificing health, jobs, and children’s benefits in the name of “victory…ever so shallow victory, but oh, well we’ll take what we can get.

life long Democrats have a lot to answer for… at least as much as “life long” Republicans.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 5, 2008 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

Has anyone else seen Mike Graves 2008 declaration of Independence?  He does a great job of telling it like it is without animosity.  Check it out at much of what he says makes perfect sense.  Or is it just me?

http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2008/07/04/declaration-of-independence-2008/  Hopefully TD will pick it up.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, July 5, 2008 at 9:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maani

“....at least Hillary didn’t pretend to be something she is not.”

Pro-NAFTA in public, anti NAFTA in private (her words) 

Arrived under fire in BOSNIA..  (yeah right)

Played up her membership on CDF board (where she failed to get Marian Wright Edelman’s support, and where she served fewer than 12 months.) Played down her membership on Walmart’s board (where she served 8 years while doing NOT ONE THING for that companies beleaguered workers.)

Ran as the working-person’s champion while the truth is she shilled for the chicken industry helping them pay lower wages, give fewer benefits, and cover their dangerous workplaces.

Ran as the “clean” candidate while lobbying hubby Bill to pardon the FALN terrorists (who placed 86 bombs in and around New York City) to garner a few Hispanic votes.

....and with all that slimy behavior, she still couldn’t beat a second-rate nobody.

Yeah Maani she’s definitely top shelf.

Report this

By Louise, July 5, 2008 at 9:42 am Link to this comment

Maani:
I was on the editorial board of a regional newspaper publisher, publishing newspapers covering four counties, a capital city, four county seats and a large resort center, for seven years. I left because I got sick and tired of covering murder trials. Nothing like the blood and guts of the real world. Not at all like TV.

Before that, I was on the editorial board of a monthly children’s publication for quite a few years.

You do not have to campaign for McCain. You do not have to campaign against Obama. You just keep on bad mouthing everything that comes out in this campaign, that you disagree with. The end result will be the same. Another vote or two, or a hundred or more, taken away from the democrat candidate, whoever that ultimately may be. And then you can “lament” over McCain’s victory. In fact, if you campaigned in the past the way you do now, it’s little wonder Reagan and Bush and Bush won, cause there are a lot of folks out there just like you.

We can always count on you’all to crawl out of the woodwork and start throwing gas on the fire whenever an article like this comes out. So terribly predictable. Way to go guys! Keep that “support” and “campaigning” coming.

troublesum:
I am not cyrena, wish I was that smart. But I am flattered by the comparison. Thanks. wink

By the way Maani, spending every waking moment attacking Obama, as opposed to elevating Clinton did Clinton no favors. That negative approach by so many of her alleged supporters contributed to her defeat. But for gosh sakes, whatever you do ... don’t learn anything from that experience!

Report this

By mackTN, July 5, 2008 at 9:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

People don’t realize that syntax is like a fingerprint; it’s unique, hard to disguise.  After years of grading term papers and essays, I’ve become quite skillful at identifying people by their syntactical structures.

Report this

By kath cantarella, July 5, 2008 at 7:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I just read that Obama is currently campaigning in the red states. He’s really trying hard to get conservative votes because he believes he needs them. This means his lurch right needs to be viewed in the context of the campaign and is no indication of what he will do after Jan 20.

Both left and right voters can be assured of one thing: he is unlikely to start an unnecessary war.

Report this

By troublesum, July 5, 2008 at 6:39 am Link to this comment

cyrena and Louise are the same person.  She wants to make it look like there is more than one Obama supporter here who hasn’t jumped ship.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, July 5, 2008 at 5:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

niloroth:

“There are those who believe a world at peace is not possible.”

Sure peace is possible:

“When the dust is Glowing in the night, and there’s not a living thing in sight….”

“Peace”  may not be, all it’s cracked up to be…

Another “peace” the lack of vigorous disagreement or the ability of folks to risk all, including life, for an idea… is the way we arrived at our current position..

This “let’s all get along and compromise” attitude is killing us…

Time to end this “peace” once and for all!

“You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything!”

Report this

By jersey girl, July 5, 2008 at 5:25 am Link to this comment

Maani:  Bravo !  You are really fighting the good fight. I never supported either Hillary or Obama. Neither one stood for what I do.  My dem nominee of choice was Kucinich. He’s the only one who ever intended to do the bidding of “we the people” and not the global elites.  But of course, “they” can’t allow that to happen.. No no no, we must have a fascist or fascist sympathizer in office to serve the warlords. 

I am voting for Nader or McKinney.  I’m not wasting another vote on the one party system. As was well stated, if we get McCain instead of Obama, there is no one to blame but Obama himself.

Obama and his whole “yes we can” and “change” campaign sounded phoney right from the get go to me… kinda like one of the old movie satires on political campaigns.  His supporters act and sound like cultists. I find it creepy, personally.  So here hes is lying again, backtracking on every issue and trying to sound like a republican.  Why don’t these obamabots get it?!  There will be NO CHANGE if obama is elected. Supreme court? ha !  Count on a right leaning moderate at the very best from Obama.  Gimme a break, people !

PS:  Is Louise Cyrena’s surrogate?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 4, 2008 at 11:11 pm Link to this comment

At this point Obama’s top priority is obviously to win in November. I am not paying too much attention to what he says at this point. It remains to be seen hat he will actually do in the Middle East, energy policy, medical care, budget priorities and constitutional law when he is president. November is not far away.

Report this

By Maani, July 4, 2008 at 10:06 pm Link to this comment

Louise:

You really are ignorant, aren’t you?  You say, “[T]he editorial very markedly called Obama ‘Mr.’ as apposed to calling McCain ‘Senator.’ That simple, subtle use of words tends to detract from Obama…”

No, they did not.  The proper “style” is to use the honorific (“Senator”) the first time, and thereafter use Mr., Ms. or Mrs.  And the editorial refers to him as “Senator Barack Obama” at the very beginning.

And you were on an editorial board?  Of what?  A high school newspaper?

As for my politics, I voted for Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry.  I worked actively against the elections of Reagan (twice).  I think these are adequate bona fides for my political views.

Yes, I supported Hillary over Obama, and was very vocal about it.  And yes, I criticized Obama very strongly.  What matters is, I WAS RIGHT ABOUT HIM. And THAT is why I supported Hillary over him; because despite their positions and policies being virtually identical on every major issue, at least Hillary didn’t pretend to be something she is not. She is a politician, and she acted like a politician.  Obama is a politican, but he acted like - and claimed to be - “something else.”  Now that he is showing his “true colors,” I have every right to criticize him.

What you are suggesting is similar to those who claim that being a dissenter re Iraq and the war on terror “emboldens the terrorists,” even “gives succor” to them.  You are suggesting that my DARING to criticize Obama is going to cause McCain to become president.  Sorry, honey.  If McCain becomes president, Obama will have no one to blame but HIMSELF!!

I hate McCain as much as the next Democrat.  But that doesn’t mean I have to be happy about the candidate we have - ESPECIALLY when he proves to be EXACTLY the kind of liar I suspected him of being.

I am not actively campaigning against Obama the way I am against McCain.  But that doesn’t mean I have to actively campaign FOR Obama.  And I will not.

And if I choose not to vote, or to vote for a third party candidate - and Obama loses - blame Obama, not me.

Peace.

Report this

By troublesum, July 4, 2008 at 8:37 pm Link to this comment

Mr Obama we want change but not everyday, please.

Report this

By Bobadi, July 4, 2008 at 7:34 pm Link to this comment

I sent money to Obama.
I never sent money to anyone before.
I sent as much as I could.

Now I find I want to vote for Nader.
At least he has never backtracked anything, has he?

He has been on message forever.

Nothing changes with him, no matter how much he is demonized.

Who is the real demon here?

Report this

By Louise, July 4, 2008 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

A life-long democrat? Well then you above all should recognize the damage that you do to your party by focusing with apparent passion on every bit of back stabbing, petty and basically irrelevant trivia you seem to have committed to memory and proudly repeat almost verbatim, to anyone foolish enough to take you seriously.

A life-long democrat? With members like you, the party needs no detractors.

You said, “Opinions are always relevant.  As well, “negative” truths and “positive” truths are not mutually exclusive: stating BOTH is called “balance.” It is also called “honest.”

Love your choice of the word “honest,” because the editorial very markedly called Obama “Mr.” as apposed to calling McCain “Senator.” That simple, subtle use of words tends to detract from Obama, thus pointing out how people like you [and them, and FOX] get away with calling themselves honest and balanced. It is neither. Just another bit of right-wing propaganda. Something few pick up on. Something you are equally good at.

And my dear I suspect I am much older than you. Not that it matters other than I have had far more years to recognize and identify classic “eat their own” republican policy. I have been on an editorial board and I do know that unless an editorial reflects the view of the board, the writer is identified and since this is not the case here, then the only conclusion left to draw is the New York Times most definitely is not a liberal press, and in fact like most other publications is just a tool of right-wing corporate America, and the republican party, which is probably why you went hunting there to find your reference in the first place. And I repeat, to call something which obviously denigrates, “lamenting” is a misnomer, and just one more little subtlety that clearly defines what you really are all about.

By the way, just to clarify, when I said, “Sadly many would far rather create enough confusion and dissemblance to put the worst possible candidate in office. Which not only makes their true intentions suspect, but also will provide them with an endless supply of corruption and destruction to continue using as fodder for attack. What they fail to realize is if this continues unchecked, at some point in time, probably sooner than later their opinions will be totally irrelevant. Because the democratic republic they claim to love will no longer exist. And of course when that happens, they will be the first to stand and scream, and waggle their fingers at someone else. Completely incapable of seeing their place in the cause of the collapse.”

I wasn’t talking about the media ... just to clarify.

What/whoever you are or are not really doesn’t matter in the larger world. Anymore than what/who I am does. But for the sake of simple decency, if you want to be seen as a democrat ... where is that united to gain back the White House thing? It seems to be missing from your position, which calls your position into question.

You do after all call on the divide and conquer method that so characterizes the right-wing fold. I remember with clarity when you attacked Obama in the past, you simply grew silent when challenged to present something positive about the candidate you claimed to support. I dare say I said more positive things about Hillary than you ever did. You were always to busy attacking Obama to be bothered with elevating Hillary, and Lord knows she needed it!

I’m not questioning your politics. You have a perfect right to be a right-winger. And you have a perfect right to come across loud and clear as such. So don’t get mad if I point out, you do.

You say, “I refuse to engage in such opportunism and cynicism.” Oh I love that Maani! Really great sense of humor there, because were you not intent on doing just exactly that, you never would have posted on this thread in the first place!

A life-long democrat?
Right ... you and McCain.

Report this

By dihey, July 4, 2008 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

More than one year ago I stated on this website that Obama is really a dangerous and old-fashioned imperialist when it comes to the Middle East, Iran, and Southeast Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan). My conclusion was based on published interviews he gave to the Chicago Tribune and his earlier speeches at AIPAC. I was roundly vilified for my view, eventually also by an “idiot-shouting” regular on this website named Cyrena who now seems to be transiently in a paralyzing “Obama-shock.”
I was then not alone in analyzing Obama’s pronunciamentos and coming to “he is an imperialist” conclusion. I am not a newcomer to warn you of Obama’s “foreign adventure” proclivity. He once stated in a speech to his adulating but blind supporters: “we will change America and then we will change the world.” I suspect that he means it.
Obama knows of course that withdrawing all combat troops and leaving behind non-combat troops and US civilians among an armed population in Iraq that hates us is likely to result in additional Fallujahs. Note carefully that one of his conditions for withdrawal is “a stable Iraq” which implies: no Fallujahs. Because he knows that this is a pipe dream he can always fall back on “an instable Iraq” to slow down withdrawal or even send combat troops back in, both of which he has promised to do as president if needed. No wonder that he wants to add 65,000 more soldiers to our armed forces with better weapons! He will need them for his ill-conceived adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and possibly Iran. His first budget for the Department of Defense will make Bush look like a piker and Obma’s remaining supporters look like the real patsies they are.
Note carefully that Obama has opposed drilling for oil and gas in US territorial waters and ANWR because that “sends the wrong message” but has said nothing against drilling in Iraq which apparently “sends the right message.” When I was young that was called hypocrisy.
Obama demands that the Iraqi government spend one dollar for every dollar we pretend to spend on the country’s reconstruction and that after we destroyed its infrastructure and build “Berlin-like walls” in Baghdad. Thus speaks a colonial Vice-Roy.
Remember JFK to whom Obama is often compared? JFK increased the number of non-combat troops in South Vietnam and soon his successor had to send in hundreds of thousands of real troops. 
Obama is not a triangulator but, as I have said before, an octangulator who has a zillion excuses and “forks in the road” in his quiver for Iraq. You believe this modern Pied Piper at your own risk because the proverbial river will be wet and cold.
During his recent press conference Obama apparently said: “let me make it clear” which reminds me of a politician who once said repeatedly “let me make it abundantly clear”, vowed to end the war in Vietnam “honorably” and, once elected president went on to bomb Laos and Cambodia. I seem to remember that he was impeached albeit because he lied about a burglary.
I am sure that I will be called an “idiot” for comparing Obama and Nixon but when you look carefully at Nixon’s record as president, that comparison is not all that crazy. On social issues Nixon was occasionally fairly liberal and he began talking to a bad, bad enemy, China, something not even JFK had dared to do. And then there was Vietnam, a war he did not end.
Obama does not have to be different from a run-of-the-mill politician like Nixon. That is not why I oppose him for the presidency. I oppose him because he sails under the false flag of a peace-candidate which he is not. To those of you who believe that the recent moves by Obama are the end of his “prevarications” I say: you have only witnessed the early squalls of a perfect storm.

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, July 4, 2008 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

I don’t care how carefully nuanced his withdrawal statement was, he cannot back out of this one without endangering his lead and ensuring McCain.

I smell something that is making him recraft his statements.  I wonder how much Israel is in this game? 

It doesn’t matter.  He can’t backtrack because he can’t win if he does.  He can’t count on his being the last hope of progressives, the supreme court if he backtracks on issues.

Report this

By John, July 4, 2008 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I was a strong Clinton supporter but when Obama won I had no problem adjusting to the new reality. I don’t have any problem either with some of his reversals on obviously silly positions like renegotiating Nafta, but reversal on FISA concern me and if he’s wobbling on an Iraq withdrawal one might as well vote for McCain. If his acolytes think they can justify waffling on Iraq to a large segment of the Dem party I think they have a rude awakening coming. He doesn’t need this when his polls numbers are relatively bad in the context of the overall political landscape.

Report this

By Maani, July 4, 2008 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

Louise:

You seem to be under a misunderstanding.  Editorials are not written by “a writer” with “an email address.”  They are written by editorial “boards,” and represent the “official position” of a publication.  Responses are made via letters to the editor.

In noting that “I find it interesting how editorialists always end their rant against Obama with a bit of a disclaimer, in this case, ‘There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain,’” you say, “Some people will never miss an opportunity to destroy their one best option in an effort to make their opinions relevant.”

Opinions are always relevant.  As well, “negative” truths and “positive” truths are not mutually exclusive: stating BOTH is called “balance.”  It is also called “honest.”

You then say, “What they fail to realize is…at some point in time…their opinions will be totally irrelevant…ecause the democratic republic they claim to love will no longer exist…And…when that happens, they will be the first to stand and scream, and waggle their fingers at someone else…[c]ompletely incapable of seeing their place in the cause of the collapse.”

Garbage.  Although the media certainly has a role here, it is not nearly to the degree you are suggesting.  Rather, the people we will have to blame for any damage to our republic is the candidates themselves (and politicians in general), and the “shadow government” that tries to (and often does) control them.

Re Rezko, you say, “This story (Obama bought a house at fair market value, it’s not like he used political connections to exercise eminent domain and steal someone’s farm for a baseball park is it?) is a creation of the Atwater/Rove school of politics.”

You have obviously forgotten the whole story.  During the debate, Obama claimed that his “only connection” with “that man” (he would not even use his name) was “5 hours” spent “as a junior attorney” on “one case.”  Yet at the time he said this, the TRUTH was that (i) Rezko was one of his earliest patrons and bundlers, and a member of the inner circle of his first two State senate campaigns (and thus, “that man” was a BLATANT spin to dissociate himself from Rezko), (ii) he and Rezko had purchased contiguous lots in a real estate deal, during which they worked closely together for over five months, even visiting the property together, and (iii) Rezko had bundled money for Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign - the amount of which Obama CONTINUED to lie about, first claiming it was “only $80,000” (and making a high-profile donation to charity in that amount), then admitting it was “closer to $100,000” (with no additional donation to charity), and finally admitting that it was “actually about $250,000” (again, with no additional charitable donation).  One does not need to be Rovian to tell the truth about such a blatant lie.

Finally, you ask, “Could it be that by your company you identify yourself?”

And what company would THAT be?  I am a lifelong Democrat who has spent more years fighting the GOP, neocons and the Religious Right than you have probably been alive.  How dare you question my politics just because I choose to tell the truth - no matter how painful it may be to some - instead of appeasing people.  Apparently, you are one of those who believes that ANY lie, dissembling, spin, obfuscation, etc. is okay as long as your candidate wins.  I refuse to engage in such opportunism and cynicism.

Peace.  (And yes, I do know what it means).

Report this

By troublesum, July 4, 2008 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment

As long as the DLC is managing the campaign we may as well have had Hillary as the candidate.

Report this

By troublesum, July 4, 2008 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

It may not be the Clintons personally who are giving
Obama advice but the speeches and public talks he’s been giving since securing the nomination have DLC written all over them.  The ex-Clinton campaign manager hired recently by Obama had been chosen for Hillary by Terry Mcauliffe.  Also Obama has chosen several former Clinton administration officials as senior advisors.  “Change” was never anything more than a slogan.

Report this

By Louise, July 4, 2008 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

Maani:

“Here is The New York Times’ editorial lamenting Obama’s rightward drift:”

~~~

That is a misnomer Maani, because the editorial was obviously written by someone who not only drifts right but is firmly planted right. The simple fact that the Times does not identify the writer, with an email contact pretty well proves that. While presented by you as lamenting, it is in reality defaming.

I find it interesting how Editorialist always end their rant against Obama with a bit of a disclaimer, in this case ...
“There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain”

Yes there are. But the underlying reality ... the one that has always been there. Some people will never miss an opportunity to destroy their one best option in an effort to make their opinions relevant.

Sadly many would far rather create enough confusion and dissemblance to put the worst possible candidate in office. Which not only makes their true intentions suspect, but also will provide them with an endless supply of corruption and destruction to continue using as fodder for attack.

What they fail to realize is if this continues unchecked, at some point in time, probably sooner than later their opinions will be totally irrelevant. Because the democratic republic they claim to love will no longer exist.

And of course when that happens, they will be the first to stand and scream, and waggle their fingers at someone else. Completely incapable of seeing their place in the cause of the collapse.

“Does anyone here or elsewhere on this planet, believe the problems we have with NAFTA and what is known as “free trade” is a problem with the Canadian government? This story like the Resko connection, (Obama bought a house at fair market value, it’s not like he used political connections to exercise eminent domain and steal someone’s farm for a baseball park is it?), is a creation of the Atwater/Rove school of politics.”

Could it be that by your company you identify yourself?

Were we all to live under threat of being charged with criminal behavior because we happened to know someone who was, there wouldn’t be enough prisons to hold us all. I suspect that would include you. I doubt there is a single living adult who hasn’t at one time or another crossed paths with a crook. Fortunately the smart person does not judge all men, by the men they may have known.

Oh for a poster with an original idea. How refreshing would that be? And no, I will not excuse you. Anymore than I will accept just because you know how to spell “peace” you have any clue what the word means.

Most republicans don’t.

Report this

By ElkoJohn, July 4, 2008 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

is this double-speak ??

‘‘withdrawal is on schedule’‘
‘‘but I may leave more troops behind’‘
...... ??

more of the same…
the NeoCons & Military Industrial Complex
calling the shots

OIL, OIL, OIL

Obama, ‘‘Nuts to You’’

Report this

By Maani, July 4, 2008 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

All:

Here is The New York Times’ editorial lamenting Obama’s rightward drift:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, July 4, 2008 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

Louise:

“The very fact that Obama seems to have been sucked into the vortex of spin, lie and control that mainstreammedia feeds us indicates he is listening to a new batch of advisers. Because he managed to avoid that before.”

Excuse me?  Obama lied, spun, dissembled and obfuscated during the entire primary campaign.  He lied about his relationship with Rezko (during a televised debate in front of over 10 million people), he lied about Goolsbee not having visited with the Canadians re NAFTA, he lied about not taking money from “special interests” (when at least 1/5 to 1/4 of his donations were from them), etc.  I could go on.

The problem was that you and other Obamabots found ways to try to justify, rationalize and, yes, spin his lies, dissembling and obfuscation into some form of legitimate decision-making.  Poppycock.

Obama was a fraud from the get-go, and some of us saw it - while many of YOU didn’t.  You were happy to breathe in the fumes of his rhetoric and see him through Barack-colored spectacles.  However, as I noted in some of my previous posts, some of saw that the emperor-to-be had no clothes.

Peace.

Report this

By Rabbit, July 4, 2008 at 9:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s the Clinton touch.
  She’s going to be VP
  We’re going to be in Iraq for four more years.
  More spying.
  The media marginalized Kuch and Edwards.
  Black President was a nice dream. Maybe it should
have stayed a dream this time.

Report this
Political Insurgent's avatar

By Political Insurgent, July 4, 2008 at 9:25 am Link to this comment

You know that strangely shaped shadow that’s hanging over your head? That’s Obama’s other shoe waiting to drop and SQUISH all your delusions—I mean dreams of change and democracy.

And just think, either way we vote, we’re screwed. Nader, ‘bama, McCain…it won’t matter because we are living in a representative “democracy”. We, the people, don’t matter. Power and wealth does, and whatever puppet is in office will have to cater to that fact, unless they are an extremely special sort of person who isn’t afraid to uproot the diseased nature of the political status quo.

So what are WE gonna do about it???

Report this

By RBStanfield, July 4, 2008 at 9:07 am Link to this comment

I am surprised, totally surprised - Barack Obama is a politician! Haven’t any of you been listening?

Thank God, truly thank God we have someone who is nuanced. For you journalist, nuanced indicates someone see thing in shades and tints, better and worse, not black and white, good and evil.We have been saddled with ideologues for the last 28 years (less 8) who listen only to a higher power. Who is going to conquer EVIL. Good grief, the worlds religions have been trying to do this for millenia and look how far they have gotten.

BTW, I remember, John DuPont also listen to a higher power. Charles Manson, maybe?

Report this

By purplewolf, July 4, 2008 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

What I have not seen on TD that was on the web news on July 1st is where Obama plans on expanding President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups, and also supporting some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
I have seen and heard from people how unfairly they were treated when dealing with Bush’s faith based social service programs for assistance in the past and YES they are biased toward their own flock, even though they were not supposed to be run that way.
article can be read at: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080701/D91L2DFO0.html..after the cap F it is Cap.O and then a zero on address.


For those wondering about Cyrena, I recieved word that she may have to evacuate because of the fires close to where she lives, said she could see them from her doorway and the power was out when I recieved her last email and that she had temporary backup battery for her computer. When she is able to get back to TD I am certain she will.

Report this

By Louise, July 4, 2008 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

Dear Maani,

I never at any point said, or even implied I KNOW. What I did was throw out a few thoughts in an effort to try and understand.

From my original post:

“So perhaps what we have here is a case of to many former, almost but not quite right wing, Clinton advisers having access to the ear of Obama. One wants to believe he is smart enough to recognize how dangerous it is to move away from his own common sense, which has served him well up to now. But one has to wonder.

Agreed his second news conference helped allay fears aroused by his first news conference, but what Obama needs to recognize, and apparently he doesn’t, is where mainstreammedia is concerned they really don’t give a rats ass about the war, or the news. [or you and me] But they love to create issues over a selected group of words.

And what he also needs to realize is, the nincompoops who base their political thought process on what the dimbulbs who get paid to spout proof they cant tell the difference between news and gossip, say, are too stupid to count.”

~~~

Frankly my dear, this is the only thing that makes sense to me. You see there are even “well informed” political advisers that pay close and careful attention to what “the dimbulbs who get paid to spout proof they cant tell the difference between news and gossip, say.” Not realizing those dimbulbs are NOT guided by a passionate desire to report the truth, rather those dimbulbs are guided by a passionate desire to grab a bigger market share of the equally stupid dimbulbs who swallow every word they hear.

Those stupid enough to hang on every word from the talking heads, indicates, learning any other way than being spoon fed crap is beyond their ability.

The big mistake the politicos and the candidates make is thinking for one single minute they can defeat the gossip mongers by “refining” their message. It cant happen. Every effort to do so simply gives them a new batch of words to spin and further pollute the news they feed their viewers. Which is after all what the cable wonks live for. Not to report news, but to create and report gossip. The nastier the better.

The very fact that Obama seems to have been sucked into the vortex of spin, lie and control that mainstreammedia feeds us indicates he is listening to a new batch of advisers. Because he managed to avoid that before.

He isn’t stupid anymore than any other well meaning person who has managed to avoid the evil with a positive message. He simply appears to have been sucked into the machine before he realized how truly evil it can be. Can happen to the best of us.

Those who comfortably accept the gossip, and spin, ready to dump Obama based on the feeding frenzy at the vile trough of mainstreammedia, point out how great is the number of people who stand in line to get their share of pig-swill.

That the viewers are to stupid and uninformed to be guided by high principle, once again is made abundantly clear. That’s the danger Obama faces when he tries to pacify mainstreammedia. That’s what he needs to understand. That perhaps is the “experience” he lacks. Experience well established in the other camps [Clinton, McCain] who love the pig trough and the pigs who line up to feed.

They don’t go after McCain with the same destructive motive because McCain is already well established as both sides of the same counterfeit coin. Much more satisfying to destroy someone with real integrity. And that real integrity is what has made it so easy for them to catch him on his blind side. Something the so-called conservatives love. Destroying a man with real integrity.

Report this

By Damien, July 4, 2008 at 8:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You had the choice of Gravel and Kucinich if you wanted real change, but there wasn’t a push for real change, so you get Obama, a typical Democrat, only slightly better than a republican.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, July 4, 2008 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

By DuncanIdaho, July 4 at 5:08 am #

“American Empire will defeat itself, Russia and China won’t even have to fire a single bullet…couldn’t happen to a more evil Empire, imo.”
=====================================
Sad as your comment was, it reflected great insight on worst things to come. Sadly, I have to concur with every word you wrote!

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, July 4, 2008 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

He will withdraw!
He will withdraw not!
He will withdraw!
He will withdraw not! (ad infinitum)

HA…HA…HA!

Report this

By Non-Compassionate Liberal, July 3, 2008 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Unlike his reversal on FISA, Obama’s statements on withdrawing from Iraq aren’t inconsistent from his previous statements.

Report this

By Benj Thall, July 3, 2008 at 10:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

He MAY meet with Generals and decide to get out EVEN SOONER…

People are freaking out over nothing.

Report this

By Maani, July 3, 2008 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment

Louise:

You’re really getting desperate, aren’t you?  You keep asking me, “How do you know?”  Needless to say, I could ask the same question back to you, “How do YOU know?,” since neither Obama nor the Clinton consult you either.

However, you are actually hurting your own cause.  Because if the Clintons WERE somehow “responsible” here, it just shows what a spineless, brainless worm Obama really is.  Is THAT what you are trying to prove?  If so, you are doing a REALLY good job!

Peace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 3, 2008 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment

Since I liked what Kucinich and Gravel had to offer in the beginning and the way the Democrats the media and those in power, made them insignificant, seems severyone has been duped again.  Not realy, I supported Obama because he stated some of what we wanted to hear, while Hillary offered little of what I wanted to hear, now we have them both. 

Seeing the light, a light that never gets closer.  I think they may all be in cahoots from the very beginning.  The whole election is planned to provide straw candidates and we feel like we are getting to choose.  Anyway some of us feel that way.

Never thought much of Obama or Hillary’s medical plans, like the idea of hope and change, but we may not be seeing much of either if he is elected. 

Hope may only mean, we hope he keeps some of his promises and change may mean we hope to see some change. 

Looking back and at the time,  I believed it was not in good stead nor did it show integrity, when Obama dumped Wright his long time pastor, I may be the only one seeing it that way though.

Report this

By Louise, July 3, 2008 at 9:27 pm Link to this comment

Maani:

“It was not the Clintons who suggested he opt out of public financing; he did that all on his own,”

How do you know?

“It was not the Clintons who suggested that he do a 180 re the FISA bill, which he stated unequivocally that he would NOT support if it gave telecomms immunity -”

How do you know?

“It was not the Clintons who suggested that he appoint an “old guard” pol - with conflicts of interest - to head up his VP selection committee.”

How do you know?

“It was not the Clintons who suggested that he backtrack from his position on NAFTA.”

How do you know?

“It was not even the Clintons who suggested that he bring on Clintonian economic advisors (Furman et al) - he did that all by himself.”

How DO you know?

Do they consult you?

If so, that would explain a lot. But not the timing.

By the way, I chose a single one ‘cause I thought one was sufficient to prove a point. Apparently not.
Apologies for misspelling your name. Guess you didn’t notice that.

Report this

By ripley, July 3, 2008 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

so much for a change.

Report this

By Maani, July 3, 2008 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment

Louise:

I gave five examples of Obama’s backtracking on campaign promises or policies, saying that his decisions were his own, and that blaming the Clintons was absurd.  You chose a single one - the appointment of Clintonian economic advisors - and remark, “Tell me Manni, how do you know? You cant deny the reality of the timing.”

Interesting that you did not address the other four.

I continue to believe that you are in Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’ first stage of grief: denial (which also includes blaming others).  It’s perfectly natural, though, especially when one feels betrayed.

Peace.

Report this

By ripley, July 3, 2008 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

should have gone with Hillary. She , even if you disagreed , stuck to her guns and told you exactly what she thought , not what you just wanted to hear.

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, July 3, 2008 at 8:34 pm Link to this comment

I was aghast at the idolatry and personality coverage of the primaries.  such silliness diverts from talk about the issues and from forcing the candidates to be very clear about their platforms. 

On the other hand, I appreciated the extended campaign primaries because it forced candidates to go on record repeatedly about what they were promising their voters. 

And everyone is very clear on what Obama has promised to do with regards to this war.  There is absolutely no way he can debate McCain on Iraq and agree with him on its resolution.  Everyone agrees that Iraq was a mistake; we are focusing now on getting the hell out of there.  Obama can’t backtrack and expect to win. Period. Nor can he keep his voters by fearmongering about the supreme court. 

Obama secured his voters by promising changes, big changes, distinct changes.  He will be held to those promises.

One big reason I put down the clintons is because they destroyed the democratic party by taking it center—in other words, by aping republicans.  They abolished welfare without any plan for transitioning people into better lives and more options and dumped their own candidate Lani Guinere for attorney general once the republicans branded her as a quota queen.  Despite all their showy visits to black churches, the clintons had few black spokespeople in their cabinet—always dragging out Vernon Jordan, their official Black Best Friend. 

I’m thinking that McCain & the Right, sensing failure, will play up any and every nuanced change in Obama’s position, hoping to break up the party, shake the trees. 

Before we begin this dangerous streak of panic chat, let’s allow Obama time and space to make himself clear.  I, too, voted for Nader in 2000 and I think he’s spot on the issues—the rise of corporatism, its diseased hold on democracy, should be seen as the real battleground for a war on terror.  Leadership that does not take on the corporateers does Americans no good, and the only candidates spelling that out were Edwards and Nader. 

We have to force these candidates to do what we want them to do; we have to keep the pressure on.  Don’t abandon Obama, tackle him.

Report this

By Louise, July 3, 2008 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment

“It was not even the Clintons who suggested that he bring on Clintonian economic advisors (Furman et al) - he did that all by himself.”

Tell me Manni, how do you know? You cant deny the reality of the timing.

On second thought you probably can.

niloroth:

There are those who believe a world at peace is not possible. And without some sort of world order, peace will never be possible. And there are those who really don’t want world peace, which is why they keep supporting republicans. And there are those who think if they simply spend endless hours framing non-sequential and/or nonsensical bits and pieces, that somehow their attacks on Obama will be seen not as attacks, but as a real wish for peace and order [real world order, courtesy the right wing way] Which is where the evil that engulfs us all began.

Or maybe nobody, who wants to see McCain become president, has read history past last month. Or simply cant remember that far back. Because The World Order is NOT news.

Maybe they just noticed it, but it’s been around as long as the right wing conservatives have been around. The twentieth century version of republican. The ones who believe freedom means giving up the right to negotiate their own wage. Liberty means checking the Stock Market every night. Not because they have stock, but because they think the wealthy getting wealthier will somehow make a positive difference in their life. The ones who faithfully watch the empty headed bobble dolls who populate the evening “news.” The ones who think because they can link three different names of three different non-producers together they are informed.

Chuckling, I watch the wealthy lady driving the Hummer, maneuver into the parking lot of the local grocery store, and then try to find someone -
anyone - who will help her figure out how to shop for the food she needs, cause her just released House keeper always did it. And I’m reminded how long real change will take. And how hopeless it all seems sometimes. And then I’m forced to face the possibility that it may actually take a real honest to goodness DEPRESSION to make it happen. Then ALL the wealthy ladies will be trying to find someone - anyone - who will help them figure out how to get the food they need.

Meanwhile, I remember Cheney is Obama’s cousin [not sure how that happened] and Clinton really is a “right” leaning centrist, and hubby really does want her in the White House. And she never really has conceded. And mainstreammedia, particularly the TV variety is where a lot of folks go for their information - even some here - and I wish Obama would take a break and read McClellan’s book and re-examine those so eager to advise him. And yes I wonder, do they all still work for the Clintons?

Nobody seems to get it. This whole thing could be turned around at the Convention if enough doubt is created in the minds of Obama’s supporters. And is that the real motive behind the former candidates advisers, advising Obama?

Speaking of which, I wish people were honest enough to identify what their real motives are. Because anyone, ANYONE who wants to see McCain in the White House has got to be happy with the bottomless pit they’re falling into. They may believe their eventual hard stop will be cushioned by the pile of money they land on. But other than breaking the fall it won’t be worth anything, if in fact it’s there.

They’re pretty good at putting together videos, but so’s my seven year old grandson. Only his are original, and really neat!

And for all those who support Nader or “whoever” and will cast their useless votes and risk putting McCain in the White House, perhaps the word “responsibility” needs to be mentioned. I suspect they really don’t care whether or not Nadir or anyone else beats Obama. Because if they were honest enough to really want a viable third choice, they would have organized a viable third party YEARS ago. But they didn’t. And they probably never will.

Report this

By troublesum, July 3, 2008 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment

Very clear: breaches of constitutional authority are not “the peoples’ business.”  That should be left to the elitists to deal with.  The riff-raff must be kept out of the decision making process of government.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 3, 2008 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment

Iwanttruth:  thanks for the link… i didn’t remember his exact words about impeachment but this coming from a constitutional lawyer is simply unacceptable:

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 breaches, and intentional breaches 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.”

Um yea ok Obama, Bush/cheney did NOTHING that was a grave breach of their authority?  Oh my, well if that just doesn’t explain his support of the george w bush FISA compromise….

Report this

By troublesum, July 3, 2008 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment

It’s not too late for the superdelegates to change their minds.

Report this

By iwanttruthiwanttruthiwanttruth, July 3, 2008 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

Just a gentle reminder:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm
I’m voting for Nader (and I have, and I’m proud).
I won’t compromise when it comes to my principals. I’ll vote for the best man or woman I see out there, be they mainstream or fringe (hm, usually fringe in my case, unfortunately).
This next editorial may be a little on the “extreme” side for some on here, but it certainly gave me a good laugh
http://www.rense.com/general80/sosob.htm
Yes, I know, usatoday is a pretty crappy rag and many of the rense folks seem nutty. Who cares.
I really don’t understand why so many “educated” (and indeed intelligent sounding - which is why I am perplexed) types have been SO easily duped by this candidate. I get that people are desperate, searching in vain for a ‘savior,’ if you will,
I guess it’ll simply take a while for so many to gradually wake up from this stupor.

Report this

By Maani, July 3, 2008 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

Louise:

Really, now…blaming Clinton for Obama’s decisions?  That stretches credulity WAY beyond the breaking point.

Obama is a smart man.  He is solely responsible for his own decisions.

It was not the Clintons who suggested he opt out of public financing; he did that all on his own, despite stating that he would accept public financing if his opponent did; which McCain did.

It was not the Clintons who suggested that he do a 180 re the FISA bill, which he stated unequivocally that he would NOT support if it gave telecomms immunity - and then chose to support it.

It was not the Clintons who suggested that he appoint an “old guard” pol - with conflicts of interest - to head up his VP selection committee.

It was not the Clintons who suggested that he backtrack from his position on NAFTA.

It was not even the Clintons who suggested that he bring on Clintonian economic advisors (Furman et al) - he did that all by himself.

Like some others here, you simply cannot accept that you backed a phony and a fraud.  Yet rather than he gracious and admit that some of us were right about Obama all along, you say “sour grapes” and try to blame it on the Clintons.

Nice try.  But your accusation rings hollow.

Peace.

Report this

By troublesum, July 3, 2008 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

Is cyrena he only one left now?  I think she just went to bed with a splitting headache.

Report this

By Louise, July 3, 2008 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment

When exactly did Obama cease to be the candidate of hope and promise and begin sounding more like the candidate of typical political spin?

When?

Hmmm ...

Oh I have it now! It was the same week Madame Mamma Clinton graciously allowed herself to say she would work to help the democrats win the White House. She never did actually concede you know.

So perhaps what we have here is a case of to many former, almost but not quite right wing, Clinton advisers having access to the ear of Obama. One wants to believe he is smart enough to recognize how dangerous it is to move away from his own common sense, which has served him well up to now. But one has to wonder.

Agreed his second news conference helped allay fears aroused by his first news conference, but what Obama needs to recognize, and apparently he doesn’t, is where mainstreammedia is concerned they really don’t give a rats ass about the war, or the news. But they love to create issues over a selected group of words.

And what he also needs to realize is, the nincompoops who base their political thought process on what the dimbulbs who get paid to spout proof they cant tell the difference between news and gossip, say, are too stupid to count.

The more he tries to re-phrase to please those overpaid non-producers and their brain-dead viewers, the worse they will make his every word.

At least I hope that’s the problem. Otherwise I may consider starting an elect Scott McClellan for President campaign, because he seems to be the only breathing body in DC who truly understands the nature of the political beast in that spinning inner circle.

Report this

By Maani, July 3, 2008 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment

No-bama
Keep the “change”

What a shame that he went from someone worth voting for to the lesser of two evils.  And maybe not even that, if he keeps tacking to the center.

Peace.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 3, 2008 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

OH and before C Y R E N A does come in, i wanted to spell her name correctly.  Wouldn’t want to be berated by Mz Crabtree.  And I also know you spell believe B E L I E V E.  Sorry, sometimes my fingers take on a life of their own smile

Report this

By jersey girl, July 3, 2008 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment

Poor Cyrean… I almost feel sorry for her…

almost

Report this

By jersey girl, July 3, 2008 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

Ahhh look.. Mr Pandering Appeaser strikes again !  P.T…that’s great! Changeling we can belive in. LOL

Report this

By niloroth, July 3, 2008 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

cyrena will be in here eventually to try to support obama.  But for any of you wondering, he is a memeber of the CFR, and guided by the trilateral commission.

Source

Source

So how do you explain this away?

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.