The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[mwm1331]

What i find really funny is that in direct opposition to the "all whites in the US are either blatently or subtly racist?, its whites who are supporting Obama, and blacks who aren't.
Most black politicans have been pledging thier support to hillary.

[terry78]

^Some people see him as a token that they're using just to say, "we got a blackie in there." Hillary they know something about, and basically because her husband is deemed as cool.

[bored]

I can say right now..that Obama will not be President of the USA within the next five days..


Fixed it for you.

[raybia]

Fixed it for you.

I agree with that statement! :woot:

[Colossal Spoons]

I actually will vote for him just out of spite, now.

Good idea

[raybia]

Good idea

I probably will too. Hell why not, somebody voted for Bush so a vote for Obama is a no-brainer compared to that.

[ShadowBoxing]

Obama is a possible 'Lincoln' in this race...which bodes very well for him. Even his "lack of chances" can actually play to his advantage.

[mwm1331]

Obama is a possible 'Lincoln' in this race...which bodes very well for him. Even his "lack of chances" can actually play to his advantage.

Maybe, personally I see him losing the primaries and comming in as hillary's VP.

[raybia]

Maybe, personally I see him losing the primaries and comming in as hillary's VP.

Ebony and Ivory

http://www.rarebeatles.com/sleeves/solops/spsebon.jpg

[jaguarr]

Maybe, personally I see him losing the primaries and comming in as hillary's VP.

Then all someone would have to do is pop Hillary and he'd become President. I'm alright with this line of thinking, actually.

jag

[raybia]

Then all someone would have to do is pop Hillary and he'd become President. I'm alright with this line of thinking, actually.

jag

You're too cool.

[Tangled Web]

Actually I see Obama as Edwards VP. Then Obama can launch a campaign in '16 and win.

[mwm1331]

Actually I see Obama as Edwards VP. Then Obama can launch a campaign in '16 and win.

Edwards has no chance.

[SoulManX]

Media titan Oprah Winfrey (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001856/) is throwing her considerable weight behind Barack Obama (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1682433/)'s bid to become America's first black president after dismissing public opinion suggesting she should make a run for office. Winfrey admits she's a huge fan of Obama's opponent and fellow Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0166921/), but Obama has her vote. Speaking on Ellen DeGeneres (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001122/)' chat show yesterday, Winfrey admits, "I'm feeling Barack." She continues, "I don't just love him. I respect him. I think he's a fresh new voice in politics. I think what he can do for this country would be amazing." Winfrey has spent the past four years dismissing reports she's planning a political charge for the White House.

[Future Prez]

Well, this is good news. As much as I think he faces an uphill climb in the South, I think Barack has a good chance at the nomination. I've watched him over the last couple years, and think he can re-invigorate the Democratic party, giving it a more youthful image; this is not to that I think he should be elected for this purpose solely, no. Rather, I also agree with several of his policies.

[Dangerous]

I hate oprah for backing terrorism. She has too much money for her own good.

[AllThingsComic]

I am not surprised by this at all.

[Dangerous]

Oprah should have her show taken off tv for backing Osama.

[Philly Phanboy]

Can you imagine the negative backlash she'd face if she DIDN'T back Obama?

[Erzengel]

That's it people....keep making it easier for another 4 years of Republican control.

[Prognosticator]

This isn't surprising in the least bit. In fact, it's borderline predictable.

[raybia]

I hate oprah for backing terrorism. She has too much money for her own good.

Yeah, lets keep the Republicans in office. I'm sure the new Prez will need to reinstate the draft and you should still be within the age range help fight the war against terror.

[Dorian Gray]

Yeah, lets keep the Republicans in office. I'm sure the new Prez will need to reinstate the draft and you should still be within the age range help fight the war against terror.

Wasn't the proposal to reinstate the draft made my a handful of democrats? I think Charle B. Rangel was one of them

[StorminNorman]

If a Democrats wins, I want it to be Obama. His style and spirit actually makes him an appealing candidate to me - he is just so damn liberal :(

[Erzengel]

And that's why he won't win. Seriously the Democrats wants to win the next election, they should really choose more of a moderate.

[raybia]

Wasn't the proposal to reinstate the draft made my a handful of democrats? I think Charle B. Rangel was one of them

I don't know about any other democrats but Rangel has pushed for the draft as a means prompting political leaders to think twice before starting wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," said Rangel, a Korean War veteran. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft."

[raybia]

And that's why he won't win. Seriously the Democrats wants to win the next election, they should really choose more of a moderate.

What is it exactly that makes Obama a liberal?

[Wilhelm-Scream]

No matter who wins the world will continue to be a fluctuating mix of prosperity/poverty, peace/war, justice/injustice...so I'm sad that he'll never win, just because it would be so interesting to watch.

I'd love to go to stormfront under a Black president. Lol, intense.
If there was a car accident or a blizzard they'd blame his melanin.

[raybia]

No matter who wins the world will continue to be a fluctuating mix of prosperity/poverty, peace/war, justice/injustice...so I'm sad that he'll never win, just because it would be so interesting to watch.

I'd love to go to stormfront under a Black president. Lol, intense.
If there was a car accident or a blizzard they'd blame his melanin.

Heaven forbid that anything terrible was to happen under his watch as President (you know, things that have taken place under almost every President since FDR.)

They'lll never let another black person near the White House again.

[jaguarr]

If Oprah's backing him, he'll win the election. Her legion of soccer mom's will see to it.

jag

[enterthemadness]

:dry: this topic remind me when Anakin fall into the control of the Sith in the Star Wars movies.

[raybia]

:dry: this topic remind me when Anakin fall into the control of the Sith in the Star Wars movies.

Please don't tell me you are comparing Oprah and Obama to Anakin and the Sith with an Adminstation in power that has done things that would make Palpatine envious.

[Erzengel]

What is it exactly that makes Obama a liberal?
I've seen how he tries to come off as a moderate, but correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't he have a very liberal voting style when it came to legislation such as abortion?

My issues with Obama is that I feel he's a "novelty" presidential candiadate like Hillary being a woman. Obama is charismatic, and well spoken but is a "Junior" member of the Senate, he hasn't even fnished his first term yet. I find that both Hillary and Obama are almost sideshow picks and inexperienced more than "qualified" candidates. Maybe in a few years but not right now. Also I think that Hillary has like zero of the charisma that her husband has and is very unlikable.

Secondly as liberal as the big cities are, the other parts of the country are not and I just find it hard that they will vote for a woman or half/black candidate at this time.

[jaguarr]

:dry: this topic remind me when Anakin fall into the control of the Sith in the Star Wars movies.

Worst...analogy...ever. :dry:

jag

[jaguarr]

I've seen how he tries to come off as a moderate, but correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't he have a very liberal voting style when it came to legislation such as abortion?

My issues with Obama is that I feel he's a "novelty" presidential candiadate like Hillary being a woman. Obama is charismatic, and well spoken but is a "Junior" member of the Senate, he hasn't even fnished his first term yet. I find that both Hillary and Obama are almost sideshow picks and inexperienced more than "qualified" candidates. Maybe in a few years but not right now.

Secondly as liberal as the big cities are, the other parts of the country are not and I just find it hard that they will vote for a woman or half/black candidate at this time.

Errr...Bush was a novelty candidate. He was a C-average student who had tanked every single business he'd ever touched in his career and had done a very mediocre job as a governor. He was elected on the strength of his surname and nothing else. THAT is a novelty candidate and it turned out alright for the neo-con's controlling the Republican party these days.

jag

[enterthemadness]

Please don't tell me you are comparing Oprah and Obama to Anakin and the Sith with an Adminstation in power that has done things that would make Palpatine envious.

Worst...analogy...ever. :dry:

jag

:yay::dry::o it was the first thought that came to my mind. Seriously.

[jaguarr]

:yay::dry::o it was the first thought that came to my mind. Seriously.

The "Sith" are in the White House right NOW. :trans:

jag

[Erzengel]

Errr...Bush was a novelty candidate. He was a C-average student who had tanked every single business he'd ever touched in his career and had done a very mediocre job as a governor. He was elected on the strength of his surname and nothing else. THAT is a novelty candidate and it turned out alright for the neo-con's controlling the Republican party these days.

jag
Pretty much. He used his family name but he was white, a republican and seen as a good old boy. He came off more likable in the elections I felt, than Gore or Kerry even with his mediocre history which goes to show you that personality can go a long way.

[X-Chick]

My issues with Obama is that I feel he's a "novelty" presidential candiadate like Hillary being a woman. Obama is charismatic, and well spoken but is a "Junior" member of the Senate, he hasn't even fnished his first term yet. I find that both Hillary and Obama are almost sideshow picks and inexperienced more than "qualified" candidates. Maybe in a few years but not right now. Also I think that Hillary has like zero of the charisma that her husband has and is very unlikable.

I agree, he's almost too charismatic and too manipulative. I feel like he focuses more on how he delivers a speech rather than the content. He reminds me of Hitler.

[jaguarr]

Pretty much. He used his family name but he was white, a republican and seen as a good old boy. He came off more likable in the elections I felt, than Gore or Kerry even with his mediocre history which goes to show you that personality can go a long way.

I thought he came off as a condescending, elitist prick with a low IQ who was being duplicitous and trying to pander to the masses even though he had nothing at all in common with them as he was pretending in both of those elections. I was not wrong. :)

jag

[StorminNorman]

Errr...Bush was a novelty candidate. He was a C-average student who had tanked every single business he'd ever touched in his career and had done a very mediocre job as a governor. He was elected on the strength of his surname and nothing else. THAT is a novelty candidate and it turned out alright for the neo-con's controlling the Republican party these days.

jag


A novelty candidate? A Mediocre Governor? As the Texas Governor he was a success and was the first person to be elected to back to back 4 year terms. If Bush's term as Governor was Mediocre, than the number of "decent" or "good" Governors is a very very elite club.

As far as him being a C Average student, so were many politicans - including John Kerry and Al Gore.

[jaguarr]

A novelty candidate? A Mediocre Governor? As the Texas Governor he was a success and was the first person to be elected to back to back 4 year terms. If Bush's term as Governor was Mediocre, than the number of "decent" or "good" Governors is a very very elite club.

As far as him being a C Average student, so were many politicans - including John Kerry and Al Gore.

He was and is a crap politician.

jag

[Erzengel]

I thought he came off as a condescending, elitist prick with a low IQ who was being duplicitous and trying to pander to the masses even though he had nothing at all in common with them as he was pretending in both of those elections. I was not wrong. :)

jag
Don't know how I can respond to this? I can see where you are coming from? Kinda agree? Regardless, I believe that's what cost the Democrats in the election. I don't think either Kerry or Gore were personalble enough. *shrug*

[jaguarr]

I agree, he's almost too charismatic and too manipulative. I feel like he focuses more on how he delivers a speech rather than the content. He reminds me of Hitler.

Many would say the same thing about our current President. ;)

jag

[StorminNorman]

He was and is a crap politician.

jag

That is incorrect. As a politician, he is great. You can not be an average politician and be elected President. You can argue how he is as a leader, but a politician and candidate he is quite good.

[jaguarr]

Don't know how I can respond to this? I can see where you are coming from? Kinda agree? Regardless, I believe that's what cost the Democrats in the election. I don't think either Kerry or Gore were personalble enough. *shrug*

I don't disagree that the Dem's made the mistake of trying to focus on the business end of politics while the Republicans were smearing them and pretending to be America's "buddy". It was their downfall, for sure. I dislike Hillary for many of the same reasons I dislike Bush, funny enough. I think she alienates people even while pretending to be "one of them" when she is clearly not and has led a very privileged life in comparison to most people. Bush was actually better at it than her, though it's really come back around to bite him on the ass these days. It's interesting to watch the Dem's this time around because all of the people running in the primaries seem to be making a concerted effort to be more personable this time out. They've got some strong candidates for this election where they really had nobody the last time out. It's going to be interesting to watch.

jag

[Cinemaman]

Nice, soon White House will turn into Black "In Da" House :D

But honestly, I support Obama as candidat, he's the one, who will chnage USA future in good meaning.

And finally, race war (rapers vs. skins) will end :up:

[jaguarr]

That is incorrect. As a politician, he is great. You can not be an average politician and be elected President. You can argue how he is as a leader, but a politician and candidate he is quite good.

I totally disagree. I think he has a fantastic propaganda machine behind him and that's about it. His foreign policy sucks. His domestic policy sucks. His economic policies suck. His energy policies suck. His fiscal policies suck. He pisses a lot of people off both in this country and abroad and doesn't listen to his advisers. He's condescending to the press and has zero diplomatic skills. His primary interest seems to be all of his other rich white friends and their business success. He's a crap politician.

jag

[Erzengel]

Besides the whole carpetbagger issue I have with Hillary, it's just so apparent that she's can't relate to people. Example, as a NYer, you pretty much usually pick a team, geez even Bloomberg did but she stated she liked both team. That just turned me off as a former NYer. As trivial as that may sound, it just realized how hard she was trying to get into the good graces of everyone.

Bottom line, if she got 1/8th of the charisma of her husband, she be more of a threat but you're right she alienates people by trying to identify with them. She has no personality and comes off very unlikeable.

[Dangerous]

Yeah, lets keep the Republicans in office. I'm sure the new Prez will need to reinstate the draft and you should still be within the age range help fight the war against terror.

I was making a gag, Obama/ Osama (as in bin laden) heh.
Also I'm english so Il be avoiding that draft.

[raybia]

Pretty much. He used his family name but he was white, a republican and seen as a good old boy. He came off more likable in the elections I felt, than Gore or Kerry even with his mediocre history which goes to show you that personality can go a long way.

Which is why many people think that Obama has a legitimate chance at President as he is three times as personable as Bush and more credentials than Bush had when he ran for the first time.

[raybia]

I was making a gag, Obama/ Osama (as in bin laden) heh.
Also I'm english so Il be avoiding that draft.

Ok, its time that the Hype add some type of marker so we know who is American and who is not. :cmad: :cwink:

[raybia]

I totally disagree. I think he has a fantastic propaganda machine behind him and that's about it. His foreign policy sucks. His domestic policy sucks. His economic policies suck. His energy policies suck. His fiscal policies suck. He pisses a lot of people off both in this country and abroad and doesn't listen to his advisers. He's condescending to the press and has zero diplomatic skills. His primary interest seems to be all of his other rich white friends and their business success. He's a crap politician.

jag

That is best straight to the point assessment I have ever heard about Bush.

Seriously.

[jaguarr]

Besides the whole carpetbagger issue I have with Hillary, it's just so apparent that she's can't relate to people. Example, as a NYer, you pretty much usually pick a team, geez even Bloomberg did but she stated she liked both team. That just turned me off as a former NYer. As trivial as that may sound, it just realized how hard she was trying to get into the good graces of everyone.

Bottom line, if she got 1/8th of the charisma of her husband, she be more of a threat but you're right she alienates people by trying to identify with them. She has no personality and comes off very unlikeable.

Yeah, my wife is from NYC and she and her whole family dislike Hillary over her waffling over the teams. Heh! That example really illustrates that Hillary seems to be always trying to figure out what to say that will make everyone like her and not offend someone who could be a potential vote. I'm tired of that brand of politician.

jag

[Dangerous]

Ok, its time that the Hype add some type of marker so we know who is American and who is not. :cmad: :cwink:

That would be a pretty cool idea actually.
You could keep your location hidden if you like, but you could also have your flag
by your location.

[StorminNorman]

I totally disagree. I think he has a fantastic propaganda machine behind him and that's about it. His foreign policy sucks. His domestic policy sucks. His economic policies suck. His energy policies suck. His fiscal policies suck. He pisses a lot of people off both in this country and abroad and doesn't listen to his advisers. He's condescending to the press and has zero diplomatic skills. His primary interest seems to be all of his other rich white friends and their business success. He's a crap politician.

jag

His foreign policy is controversial - Iraq is a mess and was a horrible move in hindsite. He can claim success in Afghanistan and North Korea however.

Domestic Policy is almost completely based on your political ideology. If you are liberal, of course you are going to be against many of the policies Bush supports. Of course that means it has little to do with Bush himself, and more with a conservative.

His fiscal policies have strengthened the economy, there is no other way to put it. You can claim "they suck" but they have proven results.

He does piss off a lot of people in country and internationally - however so did FDR, so did Truman etc. We are not in a position to tell how much he listens to his advisors or not. Because one steps forward *****ing about how Bush didn't follow his/her advice doesn't mean that he didn't have 2,3 or 4 more people in his ear advising opposing the disgruntled advisor's plan.

The hate-hate relationship between Bush and the Press seems to be neutral.

He just proved his diplomatic skills with North Korea.

[raybia]

That would be a pretty cool idea actually.
You could keep your location hidden if you like, but you could also have your flag
by your location.

Hey, you should submit that idea to Dew.

[StorminNorman]

Besides the whole carpetbagger issue I have with Hillary, it's just so apparent that she's can't relate to people. Example, as a NYer, you pretty much usually pick a team, geez even Bloomberg did but she stated she liked both team. That just turned me off as a former NYer. As trivial as that may sound, it just realized how hard she was trying to get into the good graces of everyone.

Bottom line, if she got 1/8th of the charisma of her husband, she be more of a threat but you're right she alienates people by trying to identify with them. She has no personality and comes off very unlikeable.

How do you feel about Rudy?

[Erzengel]

As a NYer, I can't but help have respect for Guilliani and everything he's done for the City. He's made it one of the safest big cities in the US.

But as a friend of a NYPD cop, I know he did that at the expense of paying the cops jack sh't.

Would I vote for him over Obama and Hillary? Probably.

[jaguarr]

His foreign policy is controversial - Iraq is a mess and was a horrible move in hindsite. He can claim success in Afghanistan and North Korea however.

N. Korea hasn't blown up because other countries have smoothed things, not Bush. And Iran is threatening to make him look even worse.


Domestic Policy is almost completely based on your political ideology. If you are liberal, of course you are going to be against many of the policies Bush supports. Of course that means it has little to do with Bush himself, and more with a conservative.

No, it's not really a political ideology thing that makes me think his domestic policy sucks, though I'll readily admit to being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. It's the implementation of his policies, when he actually pays attention to domestic affairs anyway, that I find piss poor.


His fiscal policies have strengthened the economy, there is no other way to put it. You can claim "they suck" but they have proven results.

Errrr....when he entered office he had a multi-trillion dollar surplus. Now he has a multi-trillion dollar deficit. Not a success. And Greenspan can take credit for strengthening the economy, not Bush.


He does piss off a lot of people in country and internationally - however so did FDR, so did Truman etc. We are not in a position to tell how much he listens to his advisors or not. Because one steps forward *****ing about how Bush didn't follow his/her advice doesn't mean that he didn't have 2,3 or 4 more people in his ear advising opposing the disgruntled advisor's plan.

There have been enough high ranking military officials complaining about Bush's unwillingness to listen to their input that I'm convinced.


The hate-hate relationship between Bush and the Press seems to be neutral.

"See that guy? He's an *******." Yeah, that's real neutral Mr. President.


He just proved his diplomatic skills with North Korea.

He wasn't even really involved. It was other members of his cabinet working in cooperation with other countries to help bring Korea under control. He doesn't deserve any credit for that. And, like I said, he's about "this close" to really effing things up with Iran.

He's a crap politician.

jag

[jaguarr]

As a NYer, I can't but help have respect for Guilliani and everything he's done for the City. He's made it one of the safest big cities in the US.

But as a friend of a NYPD cop, I know he did that at the expense of paying the cops jack sh't.

Would I vote for him over Obama and Hillary? Probably.

I like Rudy's social bent quite a lot, but he has a willingness to infringe on civil rights that really bothers me. The neo-con's do love a fascist, so that may be enough for them to consider putting him in office.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

Pretty much. He used his family name but he was white, a republican and seen as a good old boy. He came off more likable in the elections I felt, than Gore or Kerry even with his mediocre history which goes to show you that personality can go a long way.

or that people are really stupid.
"sure, he's run every business he's ever managed into the ground...but, would I have a beer with him?"

:dry:

[StorminNorman]

N. Korea hasn't blown up because other countries have smoothed things, not Bush. And Iran is threatening to make him look even worse.

It's not that simply N. Korea hasn't blown up - but the fact that the Six Party Talks have reached a treaty with North Korea. THAT is a Bush victory, period. His critics bashed him constantly for not going into unilateral talks with North Korea - if Bush had caved to that pressure, this deal would NOT of been reached, since NK's major pressure came from China.

No, it's not really a political ideology thing that makes me think his domestic policy sucks, though I'll readily admit to being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. It's the implementation of his policies, when he actually pays attention to domestic affairs anyway, that I find piss poor.

How so?

Errrr....when he entered office he had a multi-trillion dollar surplus. Now he has a multi-trillion dollar deficit. Not a success. And Greenspan can take credit for strengthening the economy, not Bush.

I hate Bush's spending problem, though he is not the only cause of the deficit, he is a major factor.

Do you consider Clinton to be the cause of the economic prosperity in the 90's? If you don't, then fine I fully understand your POV here. If you do, however, give Clinton credit for the economy, or FDR credit for getting us out of the Depression and NOT give Bush the same courtesy - then you are simply being bias against a single person.

There have been enough high ranking military officials complaining about Bush's unwillingness to listen to their input that I'm convinced.

There have also been many military officials who have said otherwise. Sean Gates, the new leader of Military Forces in Iraq, was the one who called for the Troop Increase for example.

Though even in the case of not listening to military officials, the blame can be placed more at the feet of Rummy than Bush. I believe a President has to take credit for the failing of his administration (even when he has little involvement in the outcome) though I also believe they should be able to take credit for the victories as well.

"See that guy? He's an *******." Yeah, that's real neutral Mr. President.

If the guy acts like an ******* to you, isn't it natural to think he is an *******? I doubt Bush just spontaneously gathered this hate for this one, innocent individual.

He wasn't even really involved. It was other members of his cabinet working in cooperation with other countries to help bring Korea under control. He doesn't deserve any credit for that. And, like I said, he's about "this close" to really effing things up with Iran.

It was Bush's decision NOT to leave the Six Party Talks. And while yes, Bush had little hands on involvement in this matter, his cabinet members WORK for him. They were going on his order. Yes, the other countries help force Korea to sign the treaty, however the only reason they were involved is because of BUSH's decision to force NK to work within the confines of the Six Party Talks. I don't see how you can discredit this treaty as anything BUT a victory (even if a small one) for Bush.[/quote]

[kainedamo]

And that's why he won't win. Seriously the Democrats wants to win the next election, they should really choose more of a moderate.

But would that be right?

The problem with that guy Kerry is that he wasn't liberal enough! The more liberal, the better! To a certain extent.

[StorminNorman]

But would that be right?

The problem with that guy Kerry is that he wasn't liberal enough! The more liberal, the better! To a certain extent.

:dry:

[jaguarr]

It's not that simply N. Korea hasn't blown up - but the fact that the Six Party Talks have reached a treaty with North Korea. THAT is a Bush victory, period. His critics bashed him constantly for not going into unilateral talks with North Korea - if Bush had caved to that pressure, this deal would NOT of been reached, since NK's major pressure came from China.

So, I should applaud him for doing something that he SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE BY COOPERATING WITH OTHER NATIONS TO RESOLVE AN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT? I don't think so. He was a jackass about the whole thing from day one and the fact that he even had to be pressured at all is very telling. He doesn't deserve credit for that.


How so?

Are you serious? :huh:


I hate Bush's spending problem, though he is not the only cause of the deficit, he is a major factor.

Do you consider Clinton to be the cause of the economic prosperity in the 90's? If you don't, then fine I fully understand your POV here. If you do, however, give Clinton credit for the economy, or FDR credit for getting us out of the Depression and NOT give Bush the same courtesy - then you are simply being bias against a single person.

Ummm...did you see where I said Greenspan deserves credit for nurturing our economic climate? I do think some of Clinton's policies made it EASIER for Greenspan to do that, but in the end, he's the one who's made things work and I'm sorry to see him retire.


There have also been many military officials who have said otherwise. Sean Gates, the new leader of Military Forces in Iraq, was the one who called for the Troop Increase for example.

There's been enough of it going on, and enough blunders in Iraq to support it, that I'm convinced.


Though even in the case of not listening to military officials, the blame can be placed more at the feet of Rummy than Bush. I believe a President has to take credit for the failing of his administration (even when he has little involvement in the outcome) though I also believe they should be able to take credit for the victories as well.

But he hasn't taken any credit/blame for the failings of his administration. :huh: He's either said there wasn't a failing or disowned them completely and made it sound like they were a rogue member of the cabinet.


If the guy acts like an ******* to you, isn't it natural to think he is an *******? I doubt Bush just spontaneously gathered this hate for this one, innocent individual.

If I'm the President of the United States I'm going to exercise a bit more caution about what I say about people. Particularly if I'm wearing a MICROPHONE. :dry:


It was Bush's decision NOT to leave the Six Party Talks. And while yes, Bush had little hands on involvement in this matter, his cabinet members WORK for him. They were going on his order. Yes, the other countries help force Korea to sign the treaty, however the only reason they were involved is because of BUSH's decision to force NK to work within the confines of the Six Party Talks. I don't see how you can discredit this treaty as anything BUT a victory (even if a small one) for Bush.

He should have done this with N. Korea in the first place. And I think it's a discredit to the other nations involved to give Bush the credit for it. Besides, he should have been handling this mess with such an approach to begin with. I hope that he'll keep a cap on his cowboy act where Iran is concerned and work with the international community. If he does, I'll give him props for that.

jag

[jaguarr]

:dry:

Haha! :D You and I agree on something.

jag

[Venom'sDad]

Media titan Oprah Winfrey (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001856/) is throwing her considerable weight behind Barack Obama (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1682433/)'s bid to become America's first black president after dismissing public opinion suggesting she should make a run for office. Winfrey admits she's a huge fan of Obama's opponent and fellow Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0166921/), but Obama has her vote. Speaking on Ellen DeGeneres (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001122/)' chat show yesterday, Winfrey admits, "I'm feeling Barack." She continues, "I don't just love him. I respect him. I think he's a fresh new voice in politics. I think what he can do for this country would be amazing." Winfrey has spent the past four years dismissing reports she's planning a political charge for the White House.

Is anyone really surprise.....

[kainedamo]

So we're all agreed... the more liberal the better. Good, good.

[jaguarr]

So we're all agreed... the more liberal the better. Good, good.

Yeah, no. I'm definitely not a "big government" kind of guy and, as an artist, I'm one of the staunchest defenders of the First Amendment. I don't like the government interfering in much of anything, really. But there does need to be some modicum of sensibility here because at least a little bit of government is a necessity and extremists of any kind are not a good thing for our country. Far left and far right enthusiasts really only serve to polarize this country and cause strain on society because they, for the most part, really aren't very reasonable. There has to be a bit of compromise in order to come to a consensus that everyone can live with. The lack of that is something I've had a problem with where it comes to our current administration, actually.

jag

[StorminNorman]

So, I should applaud him for doing something that he SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE BY COOPERATING WITH OTHER NATIONS TO RESOLVE AN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT? I don't think so. He was a jackass about the whole thing from day one and the fact that he even had to be pressured at all is very telling. He doesn't deserve credit for that.

If he was as bad as you said he was he wouldn't of bothered with Diplomacy in the first place. Add to the fact that again, he was under major outside pressure to give up the 6 Party Talks (which were not easy to arrange by themselves) and try one on one diplomacy with NK alone.

America should of been in WWII before they did, yet FDR is given credit with getting us into WWII at the right time. Its the same sort of deal.

Are you serious? :huh:

I am interested in examples of your disagreement with Bush's policy. So far you have made vague remarks and I want to see if your disagreements have to deal with Bush himself or simple staples of Conservative minded politicians.

Ummm...did you see where I said Greenspan deserves credit for nurturing our economic climate? I do think some of Clinton's policies made it EASIER for Greenspan to do that, but in the end, he's the one who's made things work and I'm sorry to see him retire.

Yes, but I was wondering if you were trying to claim the RECENT economic success was based on Greenspan's policies. If not then I think we are both in agreement here.

There's been enough of it going on, and enough blunders in Iraq to support it, that I'm convinced.

I agree too, Iraq's current situation is a mess. However I do not believe that Bush and Co. made the decisions he did without being advised with military officials that told him to do exactly what he did. Did he have many advisers tell him many different plans? Yes. Did he listen to all of them? No. Would things be different if he had taken different plans of action? Yes - though for the better or for worse we do not know.

But he hasn't taken any credit/blame for the failings of his administration. :huh: He's either said there wasn't a failing or disowned them completely and made it sound like they were a rogue member of the cabinet.

He took fault for the way things were in Iraq in the last State of the Union address.

While I don't think Rummy was a "rogue" member of his cabinet, I do think some of the decisions he made were his alone and have led to the problems in Iraq.

If I'm the President of the United States I'm going to exercise a bit more caution about what I say about people. Particularly if I'm wearing a MICROPHONE.

He wasn't President at the time, and I am sure he thought his microphone was off - I doubt he really wanted that heard world-wide.

He should have done this with N. Korea in the first place. And I think it's a discredit to the other nations involved to give Bush the credit for it. Besides, he should have been handling this mess with such an approach to begin with. I hope that he'll keep a cap on his cowboy act where Iran is concerned and work with the international community. If he does, I'll give him props for that.

jag

He has been working within these Six Party Talks for years. John Kerry criticized him for continuing with the talks in the 2004 election - that shows how long it has been a major issue in Washington.

He should not be able to take full credit for the treaty with Korea - though partial credit should be given to the United States for arranging the talks. What he does deserve complete credit for is KEEPING WITH the Six Party Talks.

[StorminNorman]

So we're all agreed... the more liberal the better. Good, good.

Hey, it worked in Soviet Russia :up:

[Cinemaman]

Hey, it worked in Soviet Russia :up:

Not exactly :rolleyes:

[StorminNorman]

Not exactly :rolleyes:

Cine, my main man, you ruined my attempt at Irony and Sarcasm :csad:

[raybia]

So we're all agreed... the more liberal the better. Good, good.

Kainedamo! Welcome back! :yay:

[Mr Sparkle]

Hey, it worked in Soviet Russia :up:

In Soviet Russia , Dakota Fanning fantasizes about raping Kainedamo :o

[Wilhelm-Scream]

So we're all agreed... the more liberal the better. Good, good.Who left the door to the shed unlocked! :cmad:

[Cinemaman]

Cine, my main man, you ruined my attempt at Irony and Sarcasm :csad:

Oh sorry buddy.

*went to Putin for vodka as a present*

:D ;)

[StorminNorman]

In Soviet Russia , Dakota Fanning fantasizes about raping Kainedamo :o

LOL :up:

[Erzengel]

Who left the door to the shed unlocked! :cmad:

Someone call Vicki and warn her.

[jaguarr]

If he was as bad as you said he was he wouldn't of bothered with Diplomacy in the first place. Add to the fact that again, he was under major outside pressure to give up the 6 Party Talks (which were not easy to arrange by themselves) and try one on one diplomacy with NK alone.

Personally, I expect our country to work in conjunction with other members of the international community to resolve issues, not try and do it all by ourselves. Good for Bush for sticking to that, but I would have expected that policy approach from the beginning.


America should of been in WWII before they did, yet FDR is given credit with getting us into WWII at the right time. Its the same sort of deal.

Well, depending on your leanings, we are involved in military action in places we have no business being involved in. Iraq specifically.


I am interested in examples of your disagreement with Bush's policy. So far you have made vague remarks and I want to see if your disagreements have to deal with Bush himself or simple staples of Conservative minded politicians.

No Child Left Behind is a complete mess, for starters. It's poorly conceived and horribly implemented and turned our schools into a wreck of bureaucracy. His policies on social security and healthcare scare me in much the same way. And we don't even want to talk about the disaster relief program problems with FEMA. Those aren't politically ideological differences I have with Bush and his cabinet, but with how they even implement and execute against their own policies.


Yes, but I was wondering if you were trying to claim the RECENT economic success was based on Greenspan's policies. If not then I think we are both in agreement here.

I attribute ALL economic prosperity of the last 20 years to Greenspan, to be honest. He's kept things going regardless of who has been in office.


I agree too, Iraq's current situation is a mess. However I do not believe that Bush and Co. made the decisions he did without being advised with military officials that told him to do exactly what he did. Did he have many advisers tell him many different plans? Yes. Did he listen to all of them? No. Would things be different if he had taken different plans of action? Yes - though for the better or for worse we do not know.

We're stuck in Iraq (many would argue that we're there for no really good reason), and we're stuck in Afghanistan. We have no concrete exit strategy, the logistics in both those countries when it comes to supplies and safety of our troops have been abysmal, we went in without really understanding the culture of the region and how it would impact our ability to be successful there, and we're strapped so badly when it comes to troops, money and resources that we couldn't possibly fight any more battles without reinstating a draft. SOMETHING has gone very, very wrong and guess what? I blame the man in charge. And, no, I don't think we should have ever been in Iraq to begin with.


He took fault for the way things were in Iraq in the last State of the Union address.

Sort of. Nothing's changed though, has it? Things have not improved over there at all.


While I don't think Rummy was a "rogue" member of his cabinet, I do think some of the decisions he made were his alone and have led to the problems in Iraq.

I don't care. He's Bush's boy. Bush owns the problems Rummy may have created, authorized or not. Same with all the Valerie Plame crap. If he's the man in charge, he's responsible. I've seen CEO's burned at the stake for things the people did underneath them because they weren't keeping their people in line or keeping tabs on what they were doing. He either condoned the actions of people like Rummy and Libby, or he was comletely negligent of what they were doing. Neither is acceptable.


He wasn't President at the time, and I am sure he thought his microphone was off - I doubt he really wanted that heard world-wide.

Oh, I'm sure he didn't want that heard world-wide. He's had other incidents of animosity with the press, but that one sort of sums up how he regards people for the most part.


He has been working within these Six Party Talks for years. John Kerry criticized him for continuing with the talks in the 2004 election - that shows how long it has been a major issue in Washington.

I never said I was a Kerry fan, either. ;)


He should not be able to take full credit for the treaty with Korea - though partial credit should be given to the United States for arranging the talks. What he does deserve complete credit for is KEEPING WITH the Six Party Talks.

I'll give him props for working with the international community. But, like I said, that is something I EXPECT from the leaders of my country. We are not the world's police force and we shouldn't decide who deserves to have military action against them and who doesn't without some proper cooperation and input from the international community, particularly our allies (or whatever is left of them).

jag

[jaguarr]

In Soviet Russia , Dakota Fanning fantasizes about raping Kainedamo :o

:D

jag

[Cinemaman]

In Soviet Russia , Dakota Fanning fantasizes about raping Kainedamo :o

Ох, какой удар между ног! :D

[batman44]

I guess that's good for Obama, but I can't stand Oprah.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Oprah backing Obama will have little impact on black voters methinks. Many African Americans consider her a "sell-out", and he's struggling to get a footing for respect in the African American community. So I'm not sure if he'll accomplish that with her supporting him. But I agree with some of you, her fanbase is gigantic and extremely malleable to her philosophies...and that will impact things tremendously.

Although I respect his idealogies, in all truthfulness, I hope he doesn't win. Why? Because I seriously believe he'd be assasinated during his run. This country just isn't ready for this yet in my opinion.

[StorminNorman]

Personally, I expect our country to work in conjunction with other members of the international community to resolve issues, not try and do it all by ourselves. Good for Bush for sticking to that, but I would have expected that policy approach from the beginning.

I agree, and though I am not certain, I believe this was Bush's policy with NK for a while, or atleast since before the 2004 election.

Well, depending on your leanings, we are involved in military action in places we have no business being involved in. Iraq specifically.

I agree.

No Child Left Behind is a complete mess, for starters. It's poorly conceived and horribly implemented and turned our schools into a wreck of bureaucracy. His policies on social security and healthcare scare me in much the same way. And we don't even want to talk about the disaster relief program problems with FEMA. Those aren't politically ideological differences I have with Bush and his cabinet, but with how they even implement and execute against their own policies.

I agree about No Child Left Behind - though many forget that it was a bipartisan piece of legislation. Bush wanted to include School Vouchers for under performing schools to give their students a way out, but the Democrats refused to budge on that issue. Any form of Nationalized Education is going to be racked with bureaucracy, which is why I fully support Commercialized Education.

I fully understand your criticisms, though I fear Nationalized Health Care will ruin the innovations that are made in that field in America.

I attribute ALL economic prosperity of the last 20 years to Greenspan, to be honest. He's kept things going regardless of who has been in office.

I fully agree.

We're stuck in Iraq (many would argue that we're there for no really good reason), and we're stuck in Afghanistan. We have no concrete exit strategy, the logistics in both those countries when it comes to supplies and safety of our troops have been abysmal, we went in without really understanding the culture of the region and how it would impact our ability to be successful there, and we're strapped so badly when it comes to troops, money and resources that we couldn't possibly fight any more battles without reinstating a draft. SOMETHING has gone very, very wrong and guess what? I blame the man in charge. And, no, I don't think we should have ever been in Iraq to begin with.

We were also stuck in Japan and Europe for a while after WWII. New governments do need the support of a strong military to retain control in a chaotic situation. The problems with us being in Iraq and us being in Afghanistan are fully different beasts. In Afghanistan our troops are not openly fired upon daily and are seen as a major source of the problems. We do need to find a way out of Iraq, where we can survive being in Afghanistan for a while. If the Iraqi's continue to refuse to take responsibility for their own security, then America will eventually have to retreat and allow the bloodshed to occur.

In hinesite I fully agree that Iraq was the wrong place to go and that it does put us in risk with Iran. That being said though, IF the Iraqi's can start to take control of their situation and change things (we can not do it) , and if a democracy is put in place, and IF the democracy supports American interest, then Iraq can become a major plus for American foreign policy in the region. I just don't see that happening now.

Sort of. Nothing's changed though, has it? Things have not improved over there at all.

Nothing has really changed, though it was remarkable that he actually conceded he was wrong.

[qupte]I don't care. He's Bush's boy. Bush owns the problems Rummy may have created, authorized or not. Same with all the Valerie Plame crap. If he's the man in charge, he's responsible. I've seen CEO's burned at the stake for things the people did underneath them because they weren't keeping their people in line or keeping tabs on what they were doing. He either condoned the actions of people like Rummy and Libby, or he was comletely negligent of what they were doing. Neither is acceptable.[/quote]

I agree, as President Bush must take responsibility for the actions of the men he put in his cabinet. The only reason I brought up Rummy and how he probably is to blame is the fact that I saw you were trying to take away any credit Bush deserved for the NK treaty and giving it to his cabinet members. I don't think you can blame Bush for the actions of a cabinet member and then NOT give him credit for the actions of another.

As far as Libby goes, that is another story since he was not under Bush. He was under Cheney.

Oh, I'm sure he didn't want that heard world-wide. He's had other incidents of animosity with the press, but that one sort of sums up how he regards people for the most part.

I don't think that is how he regards people, but I do think that he is a normal guy underneath. Sure, he has had a privileged life - however I think he is much more grounded (perhaps because of his troubled past with drugs and his forced to find Christ to get over those demons) than most Washington politicians. I think that common-guy mentality showed in his comment about the reporter actually.

I never said I was a Kerry fan, either. ;)

lol, I wasn't trying to paint you as one. The only reason I brought up Kerry was to show how long the debate has been waged over the issue of Six Party Talks.

I'll give him props for working with the international community. But, like I said, that is something I EXPECT from the leaders of my country. We are not the world's police force and we shouldn't decide who deserves to have military action against them and who doesn't without some proper cooperation and input from the international community, particularly our allies (or whatever is left of them).

jag


I agree with everything you said.

[chamber-music]

Errr...Bush was a novelty candidate. He was a C-average student who had tanked every single business he'd ever touched in his career and had done a very mediocre job as a governor. He was elected on the strength of his surname and nothing else. THAT is a novelty candidate and it turned out alright for the neo-con's controlling the Republican party these days.

jag

Best Bush Description Ever!!!!

[Mr Sparkle]

Nothing has really changed, though it was remarkable that he actually conceded he was wrong.

how is that remarkable?

[Mr. Credible]

it's not a big shocker that oprah would back aboma... considering that he's a legitamately good choice. i really like what he has to say, and sure, maybe he's not terribly experienced, but, maybe that's a good thing? i really like what he has to say, and, maybe he won't actually do those things once ellected, but, we'll never know unless.

and i know this isn't the right thread, but since i'm already in here, and everyone seems to be pretty off subject anyway:

why doesn't everyone just pay the same % of taxes? why not just take 'blank%' (15-20, or whatever) out of everyone's paycheck for state and federal taxes? last time i did taxes, i'd made 40-something thousand that year, and ended up owing nearly $1,000, this time, i made just about $20,000 (lay-off) and got $600 back... even though i payed much, much less taxes... does that seem right to you? that alone is evidence to me that there are a lot of policies that need revising.

[jaguarr]

Oprah backing Obama will have little impact on black voters methinks. Many African Americans consider her a "sell-out", and he's struggling to get a footing for respect in the African American community. So I'm not sure if he'll accomplish that with her supporting him. But I agree with some of you, her fanbase is gigantic and extremely malleable to her philosophies...and that will impact things tremendously.

Although I respect his idealogies, in all truthfulness, I hope he doesn't win. Why? Because I seriously believe he'd be assasinated during his run. This country just isn't ready for this yet in my opinion.

Oprah's big base is Soccer Mom's everywhere, though, not necessarily black folks. I don't think it's as much a play for the black vote as it is the Soccer Mom vote, which is severely overlooked by most political candidates.

jag

[raybia]

Oprah backing Obama will have little impact on black voters methinks. Many African Americans consider her a "sell-out", and he's struggling to get a footing for respect in the African American community. So I'm not sure if he'll accomplish that with her supporting him. But I agree with some of you, her fanbase is gigantic and extremely malleable to her philosophies...and that will impact things tremendously.

Although I respect his idealogies, in all truthfulness, I hope he doesn't win. Why? Because I seriously believe he'd be assasinated during his run. This country just isn't ready for this yet in my opinion.

Black people don't vote any so I think he's safe. Its the Hispanic vote he needs to go after.

[jaguarr]

I agree


I agree.


I agree...


I fully agree.




In hinesite I fully agree ...


I agree



I agree with everything you said.

:D LOL! Sorry. I couldn't resist that. The main problem I see with Iraq is that I don't think we have any intention of leaving that country. Ever. We're building what I believe is either the largest or second largest military base in the world there. We're not going to be leaving Iraq in our lifetime.

jag

[batman44]

Black people don't vote any so I think he's safe. Its the Hispanic vote he needs to go after.

I vote:o

[Caliber]

Media titan Oprah Winfrey (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001856/) is throwing her considerable weight behind Barack Obama (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1682433/)'s bid to become America's first black president after dismissing public opinion suggesting she should make a run for office. Winfrey admits she's a huge fan of Obama's opponent and fellow Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0166921/), but Obama has her vote. Speaking on Ellen DeGeneres (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001122/)' chat show yesterday, Winfrey admits, "I'm feeling Barack." She continues, "I don't just love him. I respect him. I think he's a fresh new voice in politics. I think what he can do for this country would be amazing." Winfrey has spent the past four years dismissing reports she's planning a political charge for the White House.

Good news, Barack seems like the best choice for the dems. I just the next election isn't rigged or the usual "complications" like recounts for some reason.

[StorminNorman]

:D LOL! Sorry. I couldn't resist that. The main problem I see with Iraq is that I don't think we have any intention of leaving that country. Ever. We're building what I believe is either the largest or second largest military base in the world there. We're not going to be leaving Iraq in our lifetime.

jag

LOL, well you are clearly an intelligent guy, and I like to pretend to be one, so it is only natural that we would see some situations similarly, even if we disagree in others :)

As far as leaving Iraq, I think base case scenario we wouldn't have to, that we would have a base there to help stabilize our presence in the Middle East. As long as we do not meddle in Iraqi Government affairs (when and if the Government finally becomes strong and stable), I have no problems with a base in Iraq. If Iraq continues to be a huge hotspot that leads to constant death of American's serving their country, and we still don't leave - THATS when we have a problem.

[jaguarr]

LOL, well you are clearly an intelligent guy, and I like to pretend to be one, so it is only natural that we would see some situations similarly, even if we disagree in others :)

As far as leaving Iraq, I think base case scenario we wouldn't have to, that we would have a base there to help stabilize our presence in the Middle East. As long as we do not meddle in Iraqi Government affairs (when and if the Government finally becomes strong and stable), I have no problems with a base in Iraq. If Iraq continues to be a huge hotspot that leads to constant death of American's serving their country, and we still don't leave - THATS when we have a problem.

It's sort of a chicken and the egg problem, though. Would our soldiers be killed over there if they weren't there to begin with? :o The problem is that we're not keeping our fingers out of the Iraqi government as it develops, and the situation is far more complex than anyone in our administration has given consideration to what with the different religious factions going at each other's throats like they have been for eons. Middle Eastern culture can't be handled like we handle our own culture and I think that's something that's sorely missing from our strategy over there. And, we sort of turned Iraq into a hotspot by going in there guns blazing without a solid plan in place around how to best handle the culture or a strong plan for what we would do when we achieved occupation in terms of stabilizing the region and how we would exit there once we did. It's like we just figured out how to get in there and take over and then sort of made up the rest as we went along. :(

jag

[The Chairman]

This isn't surprising. Heck, Oprah probably wants to be his running mate.

[PhotoJones]

the fact that anyone (oprah or otherwise) can publicly say things like, "i respect and trust this politician," makes me question their intelligence.

that said, he's the best of bunch, but that really isn't saying much.

[The Chairman]

the fact that anyone (oprah or otherwise) can publicly say things like, "i respect and trust this politician," makes me question their intelligence.

that said, he's the best of bunch, but that really isn't saying much.

For the Dems, yes. He's still a bit too far left, though.

[PhotoJones]

For the Dems, yes. He's still a bit too far left, though.

as far left as you can go is still better than what we got right now.

[The Chairman]

as far left as you can go is still better than what we got right now.

No, it really isn't. The country is divided enough with a far right president. Electing someone too far left will only further the political and social representation that's slowly tearing America apart.

[PhotoJones]

No, it really isn't. The country is divided enough with a far right president. Electing someone too far left will only further the political and social representation that's slowly tearing America apart.

that's not what i meant. america's already on course for another civil war. the only thing standing in the way of that is our own laziness.

a far left president pissing off the right isn't going to tear america apart any more than king george has.

what i was saying is that a far left president would at least make an attempt to right the wrongs of the present administration.

[raybia]

I vote:o

So you are the culprit!

[ScottyBBadd]

And that's why he won't win. Seriously the Democrats wants to win the next election, they should really choose more of a moderate.

Senator Hillary Rhodam-Clinton is the most moderate candidate running.

[Tobiaswins]

I consider myself a Moderate Voter, between Red and Blue I'm probobly Purple. I could really vote either way, and I have a feeling the majority of Eligible voters feel the same way. With that being said I'm pretty sure that the presidency will be won by a democrat. I think that people in general whatever color they may be, don't like to see a certain group in power for too long, there has to be change. This is why I think Obama will win. He's fresh, he's new, and he's different. I just look at when people like Bill Clinton or JFK won, people were hungry for change, and I think it's that time again.


peace:word:

[StorminNorman]

I consider myself a Moderate Voter, between Red and Blue I'm probobly Purple. I could really vote either way, and I have a feeling the majority of Eligible voters feel the same way. With that being said I'm pretty sure that the presidency will be won by a democrat. I think that people in general whatever color they may be, don't like to see a certain group in power for too long, there has to be change. This is why I think Obama will win. He's fresh, he's new, and he's different. I just look at when people like Bill Clinton or JFK won, people were hungry for change, and I think it's that time again.


peace:word:

and yet he is down in the polls by double digits :(

[comicgirl]

and yet he is down in the polls by double digits :(nah, BHO is doin' fine. Just wait

[jaguarr]

Senator Hillary Rhodam-Clinton is the most moderate candidate running.

If you really listen to how she responds to nearly every question she's asked, she purposefully selects the most generic, moderate answers she can possibly think of. No one REALLY knows what she stands for because her whole bent is trying to appeal to as many people as possible, not necessarily representing how she stands on things.

jag

[WTFimVENOM]

Oprah will be Obama's vice-president :up:

[comicgirl]

If you really listen to how she responds to nearly every question she's asked, she purposefully selects the most generic, moderate answers she can possibly think of. No one REALLY knows what she stands for because her whole bent is trying to appeal to as many people as possible, not necessarily representing how she stands on things.

jagI love that there's a female candidate. I'm suprised the Reps haven't dragged a Neo Con chick out of the woodwork to run.

[comicgirl]

Oprah will be Obama's vice-president :up:
Free cars for everybody!!!!

[jaguarr]

I've been poking through the news this morning and I came across a TON of articles about another major media mogul who's put their weight behind Obama: David Geffen. Geffen's long been a MAJOR supporter and contributor of the Clinton's, helping them raise millions of dollars and even sleeping as a guest of theirs in the Lincoln Bedroom when Bill was in office. He's had a major falling out with Hillary, though (some say over the Leonard Peltier situation) and is now pushing Obama to the moon and back. Interesting development and now Obama has two very powerful backers in Hollywood with more sure to follow. Geffen did make one very interesting point about the Clinton's (and the Bush's), though: Is it REALLY a good idea for America to be controlled for 28 consecutive years by only two major political families?

jag

[Spider-Bite]

Clinton: Obama is ‘naive’ on foreign policy

Chicago senator accuses rival of standing with Bush on rogue nation issue

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c1/Jason141/070724_obama_vmed_10a_widec.jpg

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama’s offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran touched off a war of words, with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/#) calling him naive and Obama linking her to President Bush’s diplomacy.
Older politicians in both parties questioned the wisdom of such a course, while Obama’s supporters characterized it as a repudiation of Bush policies of refusing to engage with certain adversaries.
It triggered a round of competing memos and statements Tuesday between the chief Democratic presidential rivals. Obama’s team portrayed it as a bold stroke; Clinton supporters saw it as a gaffe that underscored the freshman senator’s lack of foreign policy experience.

“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive,” Clinton was quoted in an interview with the Quad-City Times that was posted on the Iowa newspaper’s Web site on Tuesday.
In response, Obama told the newspaper that her stand puts her in line with the Bush administration (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/#).
Both parties were weighing the potential political fallout, especially in Florida, an early primary state, a pivotal general election state — and where Cuban President Fidel Castro (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/#) remains particularly unpopular.
“Anything that looks like pandering to dictators is bad politics in South Florida,” said Republican state Rep. David Rivera of Miami. He predicted Obama’s comments would come back to haunt him, particularly if he becomes the Democratic nominee.
The Republican National Committee on Tuesday circulated stories calling attention to and ridiculing Obama’s remarks.
'Step-by-step process'
In Monday’s debate from Charleston, S.C., Obama was asked by a questioner via YouTube if he would be willing to meet — without precondition — in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
“I would,” he responded.
Clinton said she would not. “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” she said. Clinton said she would first use envoys to test the waters.

The day after the debate, the Clinton campaign made former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a Clinton supporter, available to reporters to further challenge Obama’s response.
“It’s a step-by-step process. It’s not just some event,” Albright said of such head-of-state meetings.
“I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything,” Albright said.
Obama: 'Never fear'
The Obama campaign, meanwhile, circulated a memo by Obama spokesman Bill Burton saying Obama’s response to the question had played well with focus groups and that Clinton had changed her position on the subject — a claim her campaign denied.
Anthony Lake, an Obama foreign policy adviser who was national security adviser early in President Clinton’s administration, defended Obama’s statements.
“A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so — just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union,” Lake said.

He said Obama was not trying to dictate the “shape of specific negotiations” and those would “depend on how best to conduct them” at the time.
Lake said he recognized Obama’s comments had stirred up a political hornet’s nest, particularly in Florida. But, he said, it would subside. “In two years, who knows who’s going to be ruling Cuba,” Lake said.

'A seasoned answer'
In February, Clinton had said: “You don’t refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I’m sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it’s a sign of strength, not weakness.”
Obama’s camp also attempted to shift attention to Clinton’s vote authorizing the Iraq war (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/page/2/#) in October 2002 at a time when Obama, then a state lawmaker, had voiced opposition.
Joe Garcia, chairman of the Miami-Dade County Democrats and former director of the Cuban National Foundation, said he’ll give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

“Obviously, Hillary’s answer was a seasoned answer within the realm of what we’re doing. But I don’t think Obama was intending to say we want to give legitimacy to dictatorships,” said Garcia, who said he was not affiliated with any of the candidates. Obama speaks to the Miami-Dade Democrats at an Aug. 25 dinner.
GOP also draws ire
Other 2008 candidates have stumbled on Cuban-American politics.
In March, Republican Mitt Romney told South Florida Republicans that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/page/2/#), a persistent U.S. critic, “has tried to steal an inspiring phrase — ’Patria o muerte, venceremos.”’ But, added Romney, “It does not belong to him. It belongs to a free Cuba.”
In truth, the phrase does not belong to free Cubans. It has been a trademark speech ending for Castro, their most despised opponent.
Also, prospective GOP candidate Fred Thompson drew unwelcome attention last month when he appeared to suggest that illegal Cuban immigrants posed a terrorist threat. He later said people were trying to twist his words, and that he was referring to Cuban spies, not immigrants.
Thomas Mann, of the Brookings Institution think tank, said he thought Obama’s comments did show “a lack of experience” but were probably not fatal to his prospects. Furthemore, said Mann, “there is a growing group of younger Cuban-Americans and others” who want more engagement with Cuba.
Meanwhile, rival John Edwards tried to steer clear of the Clinton-Obama flap during a campaign stop in South Carolina but did say he fears a presidential-level meeting with rogue leaders could be used to denigrate the United States.
“I would not commit myself on the front end openly to meet with (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il, (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez,” Edwards told reporters in McClellanville, S.C. “I think there’s a real potential that would be used as a propaganda tool.”

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/

[Spider-Bite]

I side with Obama.

[hippie_hunter]

I'd side with Obama on Cuba and Venezuela, mostly because our foreign policy concerning them is just a relic of the Cold War and we're acting more like "Oh noes teh leftist dictator!!@1!" And if we just simply ignored Chavez in the first place, he wouldn't have as much influence as he does today. And despite being an autocrat, he's no Hitler or Kim Jong Il. He's not evil, just an a**hole.

But with North Korea, Syria and Iran, Clinton is right on this one. Their actions, especially their more recent one give us legitimate reasons not to trust them AT ALL. And they don't deserve such respect because of it.

[Memphis Slim]

Clinton is right on this. This dude is naive and foolish. He's got everybody wowed by his voice and looks they're not thinking.

We can't just ignore dictators who keep waving their little sabers at us. We tried that twice in history, and it bit us in the butt! Those little sabers become big ones. Peace is not always the answer!! Talking is not always the answer. Sometimes peace will only come through conflict.......sometimes "prolonged" conflict!

Obama has even been Senator long. He hasn't long been out of Illinois. He is too green!!

[bored]

If Obama said he wants to stab me with a rusty scalpel, and Hillary disagreed, I'd still side with Obama. I cannot express how much I dislike Hillary Clinton, especially compared to one of the few people in the race who really seems trustworthy.

[Kritish]

Guys like Castro and Chavez are no threats to us. Our communist phobia is nothing but a relic of the cold war.

[Memphis Slim]

Guys like Castro and Chavez are no threats to us. Our communist phobia is nothing but a relic of the cold war.



Boy.....one thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history.

You keep dreamin'.

[bored]

Really, Cellslim, what's Castro gonna do to us?

[Addendum]

"Oh noes! A leader of a nation had the gall to criticize the U.S. of A. Off to the corner with you. Now class, make sure you don't pay attention to that nation over there. Let him think about the trouble he caused and realize his mistake."

:whatever:

Guess celldog has visions of the cold war dancing in his head, all snug in his ultimate cap'n 'merica pajamas that have the booties and the ass flap

[Memphis Slim]

Do you people know nothing?? We don't need to get attacked by an invading army these days. A deal done in secret with a nation that gives them a suitcase nuke is all it takes. Do we forget that it was only 1962 when Cuba "tried" put up actual missle sites just 90 miles off our coast??

We must keep an eye on those who openly hate us.....especially in this hemisphere.

[Kritish]

Really, Cellslim, what's Castro gonna do to us?

He's almost dead anyways, odds are that Cuba will go democratic and capitalist after he croaks. Chavez is just a paper tiger, so excuse me if I'm not building a bomb shelter anytime soon.

[Addendum]

Do you people know nothing?? We don't need to get attacked by an invading army these days. A deal done in secret with a nation that gives them a suitcase nuke is all it takes. Do we forget that it was only 1962 when Cuba "tried" put up actual missle sites just 90 miles off our coast??

We must keep an eye on those who openly hate us.....especially in this hemisphere.

Be afwaid of people that are critical of the united states. :dry: Sorry, I'm not a 4 year old kid so fear is silly.

Besides, I've had several people in my life tell me that they hate me. I then respond with "And I should care because..."

[Kritish]

Do you people know nothing?? We don't need to get attacked by an invading army these days. A deal done in secret with a nation that gives them a suitcase nuke is all it takes. Do we forget that it was only 1962 when Cuba "tried" put up actual missle sites just 90 miles off our coast??

We must keep an eye on those who openly hate us.....especially in this hemisphere.

Actually, we know know that America caused the cold war. Besides, you seem to forget that Cuba was working as Russia's lackey back then. Cuba isn't the same country that is was in 1962. They wouldn't dream of attacking the United States without the help of Russia.

[Memphis Slim]

He's almost dead anyways, odds are that Cuba will go democratic and capitalist after he croaks. Chavez is just a paper tiger, so excuse me if I'm not building a bomb shelter anytime soon.


Or maybe it won't go Democratic.....let's hope that it does. Those poor people could sure use it! Paper Tiger or not, he has declared himself an enemy of our country. As such, must be watched.

[Memphis Slim]

Actually, we know know that America caused the cold war. Besides, you seem to forget that Cuba was working as Russia's lackey back then. Cuba isn't the same country that is was in 1962. They wouldn't dream of attacking the United States without the help of Russia.


Does matter. Cuba was all for it. Was Castro innocent in that or something???

How did we start the Cold War?? Russia tried to take Berlin right after the second World War ended.

[Lighthouse]

I side with......Edwards. Seriously, I couldn't be any more cynical in terms of politics. Republicans are corrupt, Democrats are incompetent, and the candidates for both parties are quite pitiful. Edwards is about the only guy I actually respect.

[Kritish]

Or maybe it won't go Democratic.....let's hope that it does. Those poor people could sure use it! Paper Tiger or not, he has declared himself an enemy of our country. As such, must be watched.

He can declare he's an enemy of the country all he wants. But he can't do much of anything to damage America. The most malicious thing that Chavez can do is raise the cost of oil in his country.

Does matter. Cuba was all for it. Was Castro innocent in that or something???

How did we start the Cold War?? Russia tried to take Berlin right after the second World War ended.

We provoked the Russians by flying our bombers right over the Kremlin back in the forties. Look it up sometime.

[unstoppable]

Guys like Castro and Chavez are no threats to us. Our communist phobia is nothing but a relic of the cold war.

US doesn't realise that there's nothing wrong with communist if ya do it right :o

[Addendum]

Paper Tiger or not, he has declared himself an enemy of our country.

This just in: a patient in an insane asylum declared himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte. He claimed god told him.

Following a report of just breaking news: we are receiving word that god has issued a response, and that god is in the room next door to Napoleon in the asylum. With regard to Napoleon's claim, god said "I did not"

[Lighthouse]

US doesn't realise that there's nothing wrong with communist if ya do it right :o

Works in theory but not in execution. It would work great if leaders weren't so damn corruptable.

[Kritish]

Celldog is probably writing his congressman about how we should keep an eye on Britain. They burned down the original white house you know.

[Memphis Slim]

WHO STARTED THE COLD WAR?




The Cold War—we have spent a generation hearing about it, thinking about it, worrying about it. We all know it somehow grew out of World War II, that it involved conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that it led to a series of frightening confrontations: the Berlin airlift; the escalating stages of the nuclear arms race; the Cuban missile crisis; the wars in Korea and Vietnam. But what really caused the Cold War? It is not a simple question, and knowledgeable and honest men can differ considerably in answering it.
On the following pages, Charles L. Mee, Jr., formerly editor of HORIZON magazine and the author of Meeting at Potsdam (1975) and, currently, A Visit to Haldeman and Other States of Mind, presents an unorthodox view of how the Cold War began. He is replied to by W. Averell Harriman, former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union and a distinguished participant in some of the relevant events, writing in collaboration with EHe Abel, dean of the Columbia University School of Journalism; finally Mr. Mee is given space for a brief rebuttal. It all adds up, we think, to a most thoughtful and provocative consideration of an awesome fact of the modern world that has overshadowed our lives and our children’s lives, and will continue to do so.
1. A Good Way to Pick a Fight
by Charles L. Mee, Jr.

On April 12, 1945, Franklin Roosevelt died, and soon afterward Vyascheslav M. Molotov, the Russian foreign minister, stopped by in Washington to pay his respects to Harry Truman, the new President. Truman received Molotov in the Oval Office and, as Truman recalled it, chewed him out “bluntly” for the way the Russians were behaving in Poland. Molotov was stunned. He had never, he told Truman, “been talked to like that in my life.”
“Carry out your agreements,” Truman responded, “and you won’t get talked to like that.”
That’s a good way to talk, if you want to start an argument…
In Europe, Germany surrendered to the Allies on May 8. On May 12, Prime Minister Winston Churchill sent Truman an ominous cable about the Russians: “An iron curtain is drawn down upon their front,” Churchill said, and, moreover, “it would be open to the Russians in a very short time to advance if they chose to the waters of the North Sea and the Atlantic.” On May 17, Churchill ordered his officers not to destroy any German planes. In fact, Churchill kept 700,000 captured German troops in military readiness, prepared to be turned against the Russians.
That, too, is a good way to behave, if you are looking for trouble…
Joseph Stalin said little: he did not advance his troops to the Atlantic, but he planted them firmly throughout eastern Europe and, in violation of previous agreements with the British and Americans, systematically crushed all vestiges of democratic government in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Finland. In truth, not quite: the Finns had managed to salvage a few bits and scraps of democratic usage for themselves. At dinner one night in the Kremlin, Andrei Zhdanov, one of Stalin’s propagandists, complained that the Russians should have occupied Finland. “Akh, Finland,” said Molotov, “that is a peanut.”
And that, too, is a nice way to behave, if you are trying to stir up a fight…
Most people, most of the time, want peace in the world, and they imagine that most politicians, being human, share the same wishes. At the end of a war, presumably, the desire for peace is most intense and most widely shared. Lamentably, that is not always the case. At the end of World War II the Russians, as Churchill remarked, feared “our friendship more than our enmity.”
The Russians had both immediate cause and long-standing historical reasons for anxiety.
“From the beginning of the ninth century,” as Louis Halle, a former State Department historian, has written, “and even today, the prime driving force in Russia has been fear.… The Russians as we know them today have experienced ten centuries of constant, mortal fear. This has not been a disarming experience. It has not been an experience calculated to produce a simple, open, innocent, and guileless society.” Scattered over a vast land with no natural frontiers for protection, as Halle remarks, the Russians have been overrun “generation after generation, by fresh waves of invaders.… Lying defenseless on the plain, they were slaughtered and subjugated and humiliated by the invaders time and again.”
Thus the Russians sought to secure their borders along eastern Europe. The czars attempted this, time and again: to secure a buffer zone, on their European frontier, a zone that would run down along a line that would later be called the Iron Curtain.
Yet, at the end of World War II, Stalin’s fears were not just fears of outsiders. World War II had shown that his dictatorship was not only brutal but also brutally inept; he was neither a great military leader nor a good administrator; and the Russian soldiers returning from the Western Front had seen much evidence of Western prosperity. Stalin needed the Cold War, not to venture out into the world again after an exhausting war, but to discipline his restless people at home. He had need of that ancient stratagem of monarchs—the threat of an implacable external enemy to be used to unite his own people in Russia.
Churchill, on the other hand, emerged from World War II with a ruined empire irretrievably in debt, an empire losing its colonies and headed inevitably toward bankruptcy. Churchill’s scheme for saving Great Britain was suitably inspired and grand: he would, in effect, reinvent the British Empire; he would establish an economic union of Europe (much like what the Common Market actually became); this union would certainly not be led by vanquished Germany or Italy, not by so small a power as the Netherlands, not by devastated France, but by Great Britain. To accomplish this aim, unfortunately, Churchill had almost nothing in the way of genuine economic or military power left; he had only his own force of persuasion and rhetoric. He would try to parlay those gifts into American backing for England’s move into Europe. The way to bring about American backing was for Churchill to arrange to have America and Russia quarrel; while America and Russia quarreled, England would—as American diplomats delicately put it—“lead” Europe.
Truman, for his part, led a nation that was strong and getting stronger. Henry Luce, the publisher of the influential Time and Life magazines, declared that this was to be the beginning of “the American Century”—and such a moment is rarely one in which a national leader wants to maintain a status quo. The United States was securing the Western Hemisphere, moving forcefully into England’s collapsing “sterling bloc,” acquiring military and economic positions over an area of the planet so extensive that the sun could never set on it.
The promise was extraordinary, the threat equally so. The United States did not practice Keynesian economics during the 1930’s. It was not Roosevelt’s New Deal that ran up the enormous federal deficit or built the huge, wheezing federal bureaucracy of today. War ran up the deficit; war licked the depression; war made the big federal government. In 1939, after a decade of depression, after the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Public Works Administration, the Civil Works Administration, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Social Security Act, and all the rest of the New Deal efforts on behalf of social justice, the federal budget was $9 billion. In 1945 it was $100 billion.
American prosperity was built upon deficit spending for war. President Truman knew it, and maintained deficit spending with the Cold War. Eventually, with the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, the encouragement of American multinational companies, and a set of defense treaties that came finally to encompass the world, he institutionalized it. The American people might find this easier to damn if they had not enjoyed the uncommon prosperity it brought them.
In October, 1944, Churchill visited Stalin in Moscow. The need then, clearly, was for cooperation among the Allies in order to win the war—and it appeared at the time that the cooperativeness nurtured during the war could be continued afterward. Each had only to recognize the other’s vital interests. Churchill commenced to outline those interests to be recognized for the sake of the postwar cooperation.
“I said,” Churchill recalled,’“Let us settle about our affairs in the Balkans. Your armies are in Rumania and Bulgaria. We have interests, missions, and agents there. Don’t let us get at crosspurposes in small ways. So far as Britain and Russia are concerned, how would it do for you to have ninety per cent predominance in Rumania, for us to have ninety per cent of the say in Greece, and go fifty-fifty about Yugoslavia?’”
Churchill wrote this out on a piece of paper, noting, too, a split of Bulgaria that gave Russia 75 per cent interest, and a fifty-fifty split of Hungary. He pushed the piece of paper across the table to Stalin, who placed a check mark on it and handed it back. There was a silence. “At length I said, ‘Might it not be thought rather cynical if it seemed we had disposed of these issues, so fateful to millions of people, in such an offhand manner? Let us burn the paper.’ ‘No, you keep it,’ said Stalin.”
Such casual and roughshod “agreements” could hardly be the last word on the matter; yet, they signified a mutual recognition of one another’s essential interests and a willingness to accommodate one another’s needs—while, to be sure, the smaller powers were sold out by all sides. At this same time, in October, 1944, and later on in January, 1945, Roosevelt entered into armistice agreements with Britain and Russia that gave Stalin almost complete control of the internal affairs of the ex-Nazi satellites in eastern Europe. As a briefing paper that the State Department prepared in the spring of 1945 for President Truman said, “spheres of influence do in fact exist,” and “eastern Europe is, in fact, a Soviet sphere of influence.”
In short, the stage was set for postwar peace: spheres of influence had been recognized; a tradition of negotiation had been established. Yet, the European phase of World War II was no sooner ended than symptoms of the Cold War began to appear. The Big Three no longer needed one another to help in the fight against Hitler, and the atomic bomb would soon settle the war against Japan.
Toward the end of May, 1945, Harry Hopkins arrived in Moscow to talk with Stalin, to feel out the Russians now that the war in Europe had ended, and to prepare the agenda for discussion at the Potsdam Conference that would be held in Germany in mid-July. The United States had a problem, Hopkins informed Stalin, a problem so serious that it threatened “to affect adversely the relations between our two countries.” The problem was, Hopkins said, Poland: “our inability to carry into effect the Yalta Agreement on Poland.”
But, what was the problem? Stalin wanted to know. A government had been established there, under the auspices of the occupying Red Army, a government that was, naturally, “friendly” to the Soviet Union. There could be no problem—unless others did not wish to allow the Soviet Union to ensure a friendly government in Poland.
“Mr. Hopkins stated,” according to the notes taken by his interpreter, Charles Bohlen, “that the United States would desire a Poland friendly to the Soviet Union and in fact desired to see friendly countries all along the Soviet borders.
“Marshal Stalin replied if that be so we can easily come to terms in regard to Poland.”
But, said Hopkins, Stalin must remember the Declaration on Liberated Europe (signed at the Yalta Conference in February, 1945) and its guarantees for democratic governments; here was a serious difference between them; Poland had become the issue over which cooperation between Russia and America would flourish or fail.
Evidently Stalin could not understand this demand; apparently he could not believe that Americans were sincerely so idealistic. Did not America, after all, support a manifestly undemocratic dictatorship in Franco’s Spain? “I am afraid,” Averell Harriman, the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, cabled home to Truman, “Stalin does not and never will fully understand our interest in a free Poland as a matter of principle. He is a realist in all of his actions, and it is hard for him to appreciate our faith in abstract principles. It is difficult for him to understand why we should want to interfere with Soviet policy in a country like Poland, which he considers so important to Russia’s security, unless we have some ulterior motive.”
And indeed, Russia’s sphere of influence was recognized, it seemed, only so that it might serve as a bone of contention. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, all became bones of contention. It is not clear that any one of the Big Three deeply cared what happened to these eastern European countries so long as the countries served as useful pawns. Hopkins insisted that Stalin must recognize freedom of speech, assembly, movement, and religious worship in Poland and that all political parties (except fascists) must be “permitted the free use, without distinction, of the press, radio, meetings and other facilities of political expression.” Furthermore, all citizens must have “the right of public trial, defense by counsel of their own choosing, and the right of habeas corpus.”
Of course, Stalin said, of course, “these principles of democracy are well known and would find no objection on the part of the Soviet Government.” To be sure, he said, “in regard to the specific [italics added] freedoms mentioned by Mr. Hopkins, they could only be applied in full in peace time, and even then with certain limitations.”
In the latter two weeks of July, 1945, the Big Three gathered at Potsdam, just outside of Berlin, for the last of the wartime conferences. They discussed the issues with which the war in Europe had left them, and with which the war in the Far East would leave them when it came to an end. They discussed spheres of influence, the disposition of Germany, the spoils of war, reparations, and, of course, eastern Europe.
At one of the plenary sessions of the Potsdam Conference, they outlined the spheres of influence precisely, clearly, and in detail during a discussion of the issue of “German shares, gold, and assets abroad.” To whom did these items belong? What, for instance, did Stalin mean when he said “abroad”?
STALIN:”…the Soviet delegation … will regard the whole of Western Germany as falling within your sphere, and Eastern Germany, within ours.”
Truman asked whether Stalin meant to establish “a line running from the Baltic to the Adriatic.” Stalin replied that he did.
STALIN: “As to the German investments, I should put the question this way: as to the German investments in Eastern Europe, they remain with us, and the rest, with you.…”
TRUMAN: “Does this apply only to German investments in Europe or in other countries as well?”
STALIN: “Let me put it more specifically: the German investments in Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland go to us, and all the rest to you.”
FOREIGN MINISTER ERNEST BEVIN: “The German investments in other countries go to us?”
STALIN: “In all other countries, in South America, in Canada, etc., all this is yours.…”
SECRETARY OF STATE JAMES BYRNES: “If an enterprise is not in Eastern Europe but in Western Europe or in other parts of the world, that enterprise remains ours?”
STALIN: “In the United States, in Norway, in Switzerland, in Sweden, in Argentina [general laughter], etc.—all that is yours.”

[Kritish]

You know you could have just provided a link to your neo-con propaganda Cellslim?

[unstoppable]

Works in theory but not in execution. It would work great if leaders weren't so damn corruptable.

agreed

[Addendum]

You know you could have just provided a link to your neo-con propaganda Cellslim?

But if he just posted the link he can't have fun with the bold

[hippie_hunter]

Actually, we know know that America caused the cold war. Besides, you seem to forget that Cuba was working as Russia's lackey back then. Cuba isn't the same country that is was in 1962. They wouldn't dream of attacking the United States without the help of Russia.

To say that America solely caused the Cold War is just idiotic. Same goes for saying that Russia started it. It was the paranoia of both the Americans and Soviets and fear of each other that caused it.

[Kritish]

To say that America solely caused the Cold War is just idiotic. Same goes for saying that Russia started it. It was the paranoia of both the Americans and Soviets and fear of each other that caused it.

Solely caused it? No. But we did our damnedest to make it worse.

[hippie_hunter]

Do you people know nothing?? We don't need to get attacked by an invading army these days. A deal done in secret with a nation that gives them a suitcase nuke is all it takes. Do we forget that it was only 1962 when Cuba "tried" put up actual missle sites just 90 miles off our coast??

We must keep an eye on those who openly hate us.....especially in this hemisphere.

Cuba didn't try to build the missile sites. It was the Soviet Union and they turned to the Soviet Union solely because the United States imposed an embargo after Castro took power, overthrew the unpopular pro-American regime and turned Cuba communist.

The Cold War is over dude. A tiny country like Cuba can't do anything to us. Our embargo on them is just a relic of the Cold War and when something is a relic, it should be gotten rid of because it has outlived its usefullness. Ending the embargo can only benefit both the United States and Cuba.

[Kritish]

Somehow I don't think that the cash from Cuban cigars are going to fund Castro's doomsday machine...

[hippie_hunter]

Solely caused it? No. But we did our damnedest to make it worse.

And the Soviets made it worse by illegally occuping Eastern Europe, building missile sites in Cuba, promoting communist revolutions throughout the world, etc.

Both sides were equally guilty for making the Cold War worse.

[Excel]

Clinton is right on this. This dude is naive and foolish. He's got everybody wowed by his voice and looks they're not thinking.


Obama has even been Senator long. He hasn't long been out of Illinois. He is too green!!

People said the exact same **** bout JFK in 1960.....

[Kritish]

And the Soviets made it worse by illegally occuping Eastern Europe, building missile sites in Cuba, promoting communist revolutions throughout the world, etc.

Both sides were equally guilty for making the Cold War worse.

I hate to be the devil's advocate but what's wrong with funding communist revolutions? We seem to do the same thing with democratic revolutions. :cwink:
Russia was hardly an innocent victim but we did a lot to provoke them, we flew bombers at low altitude over the Kremlin just to show how tough we were. How do you think the United States would have acted if the same had happened to Washington DC?

[hippie_hunter]

People said the exact same **** bout JFK in 1960.....

And JFK was a horrible President.

The only reason why he is so highly remembered and his programs went through is because he did a successful job with the Cuban Missile Crisis (though credit should go to the incredibly simple common sense of the American and Russian leaders of what would happen if a nuclear war occured) and his head got blown off.

JFK brought us the disastarous Bay of Pigs invasion, increased our presence in Vietnam, approved of actions that led to Saddam Hussein in power (and look at us now), and could do very little because a Republican controlled Congress didn't like his domestic program. The only reason why his program got through was because Johnson was an excellent politician and milked Kennedy's death to pass it.

[Kritish]

And JFK was a horrible President.

The only reason why he is so highly remembered and his programs went through is because he did a successful job with the Cuban Missile Crisis (though credit should go to the incredibly simple common sense of the American and Russian leaders of what would happen if a nuclear war occured) and his head got blown off.

JFK brought us the disastarous Bay of Pigs invasion, increased our presence in Vietnam, approved of actions that led to Saddam Hussein in power (and look at us now), and could do very little because a Republican controlled Congress didn't like his domestic program. The only reason why his program got through was because Johnson was an excellent politician and milked Kennedy's death to pass it.

Amen, he doesn't deserve the idealized reputation that he gets. The only reason he got elected was because just about every Catholic in America voted for him. :cwink:

[hippie_hunter]

I hate to be the devil's advocate but what's wrong with funding communist revolutions? We seem to do the same thing with democratic revolutions. :cwink:

Soviet funding of Communist revolutions only increased our fear of the Soviets and the Soviets only did it so they could gain more satelite states under their personal control, not out any good for the people. And what's wrong with funding Communist revolutions, I dunno, maybe funding needless violence that costs thousands of lives!

Yeah, we've done the same thing and it was just as shameful.

Russia was hardly an innocent victim but we did a lot to provoke them, we flew bombers at low altitude over the Kremlin just to show how tough we were. How do you think the United States would have acted if the same had happened to Washington DC?
And Russia did a lot to provoke us. Both sides were equally guilty.

[xwolverine2]

Chicago senator accuses rival of standing with Bush on rogue nation issue

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c1/Jason141/070724_obama_vmed_10a_widec.jpg


why does she look like a complete ***** in every pic?:csad:

[Kritish]

why does she look like a complete ***** in every pic?:csad:

Because she is, Segoury Weaver needs to shove her out of an airlock. :o

[hippie_hunter]

why does she look like a complete ***** in every pic?:csad:

She doesn't look like a complete b***h in every pic

Take a look at this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.jpg/480px-Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.jpg

She looks like a perfectly pleasant lesbian in this one :yay:

[Kritish]

PS: I'm not defending the Soviet Union, but it's fun to irk Cellslim by pointing out that we acted a lot alike. :cwink:

[hippie_hunter]

Meh, I always found him more annoying when he gets irked. It's like he gets more ignorant as the arguement goes on.

[blind_fury]

Yeah, Hillary isn't naive even though she's the one who voted for the Iraq invasion.

lolz.

[Boom]

Take the embargo off Cuba so I can legally enjoy 'dem deeeelish cigars.

[bored]

And JFK was a horrible President.

The only reason why he is so highly remembered and his programs went through is because he did a successful job with the Cuban Missile Crisis (though credit should go to the incredibly simple common sense of the American and Russian leaders of what would happen if a nuclear war occured) and his head got blown off.

JFK brought us the disastarous Bay of Pigs invasion, increased our presence in Vietnam, approved of actions that led to Saddam Hussein in power (and look at us now), and could do very little because a Republican controlled Congress didn't like his domestic program. The only reason why his program got through was because Johnson was an excellent politician and milked Kennedy's death to pass it.


Really? Really?

[blind_fury]

Democrats shouldn't get swept up in neo-con fervor.

When Bush uses terms like Axis of Evil, make your own assessment and determine your own diplomatic solution.

By antagonizing these countries with rhetoric and war games we empower their anti-American leaders.

[hippie_hunter]

Really? Really?

Yes, in 1963, the Kennedy Administration backed a coup that overthrew the Iraqi government led by the Baath Party, the party of Saddam Hussein. The CIA proved arms and information to the new regime to kill numerous suspected commies.

[xwolverine2]

She doesn't look like a complete b***h in every pic

Take a look at this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.jpg/480px-Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.jpg

She looks like a perfectly pleasant lesbian in this one :yay:

my god now thats just creepy... its jack skellington!

[Memphis Slim]

People said the exact same **** bout JFK in 1960.....

No they didn't. No one questioned his experience. The guy in the House or Rep. from '47 to '53. He served in the Senate from '53 to '61. The guy knew what he was doing. Was he young? yes. But not inexperienced.

Obama? Nothing close.

[Memphis Slim]

I notice that none of the Dems get asked about the most serious issue of our time.....radical Islam. What would they do to combat terrorist? It's always health care, and raising taxes. They live in some fantasy world where pulling out of Iraq is going to make them leave us alone........ If one of them wins, they are in for a serious reality check.

[hippie_hunter]

They'll leave us alone if we leave them alone, which is mostly pulling out of not just Iraq, but the entire Middle East.

[Memphis Slim]

Cuba didn't try to build the missile sites. It was the Soviet Union and they turned to the Soviet Union solely because the United States imposed an embargo after Castro took power, overthrew the unpopular pro-American regime and turned Cuba communist.

So poor little Cuba was totally innocent in this??

The Cold War is over dude. A tiny country like Cuba can't do anything to us. Our embargo on them is just a relic of the Cold War and when something is a relic, it should be gotten rid of because it has outlived its usefullness. Ending the embargo can only benefit both the United States and Cuba.


No. They can't invade us. But like I said before, the black market can get you a suitcase nuke if you really want one. You don't need an army in the nuclear age. so never underestimate an enemy.

[Memphis Slim]

Cuba-United States tensions
The United States government became increasingly concerned about the new Fidel Castro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro) administration, which had become a major focus of the new Kennedy administration when it took office in January 1961. In Havana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana), one of the consequences of this was the fear that the U.S. might intervene against the Cuban government. This fear materialized in April 1961 when Cuban exiles, trained by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency), staged an invasion of Cuban territory at the Bay of Pigs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion). Although the invasion was quickly repelled, it intensified a buildup of Cuban forces that was already under way. U.S. armed forces then staged a mock invasion of a Caribbean island in 1962 called Operation Ortsac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ortsac). The purpose of the invasion was to overthrow a fictitious leader named Ortsac ("Castro" spelled backwards). Castro soon became convinced that the U.S. was serious about invading Cuba. Shortly after the Bay of Pigs invasion, Castro declared Cuba to be a socialist republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_state) and entered close ties with the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) leading to a major upgrade of Cuban military defense.

[hippie_hunter]

So poor little Cuba was totally innocent in this??
No "poor little" Cuba wasn't innocent in this. You generalize crap waaaaay too much. They let the Soviet Union build missile bases on their territory. But the fact is that it probably wouldn't have happened if we didn't impose an embargo and support an invasion on them simply because they overthrew an oppressive pro-American government and became a leftist nation that sympathetic to the Soviet ideals.

Chances are that they probably would have been neutral if we didn't do that.

No. They can't invade us. But like I said before, the black market can get you a suitcase nuke if you really want one. You don't need an army in the nuclear age. so never underestimate an enemy.
You're a paranoid idiot if you think Cuba would do something like that :o

[hippie_hunter]

Cuba-United States tensions
The United States government became increasingly concerned about the new Fidel Castro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro) administration, which had become a major focus of the new Kennedy administration when it took office in January 1961. In Havana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana), one of the consequences of this was the fear that the U.S. might intervene against the Cuban government. This fear materialized in April 1961 when Cuban exiles, trained by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency), staged an invasion of Cuban territory at the Bay of Pigs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion). Although the invasion was quickly repelled, it intensified a buildup of Cuban forces that was already under way. U.S. armed forces then staged a mock invasion of a Caribbean island in 1962 called Operation Ortsac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ortsac). The purpose of the invasion was to overthrow a fictitious leader named Ortsac ("Castro" spelled backwards). Castro soon became convinced that the U.S. was serious about invading Cuba. Shortly after the Bay of Pigs invasion, Castro declared Cuba to be a socialist republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_state) and entered close ties with the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) leading to a major upgrade of Cuban military defense.

You should read the crap that you post. Castro became a close Soviet ally because of American actions such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, staging a mock invasion, and the Cuban embargo.

[Memphis Slim]

No "poor little" Cuba wasn't innocent in this. You generalize crap waaaaay too much. They let the Soviet Union build missile bases on their territory. But the fact is that it probably wouldn't have happened if we didn't impose an embargo and support an invasion on them simply because they overthrew an oppressive pro-American government and became a leftist nation that sympathetic to the Soviet ideals.


Oppressive??

Chances are that they probably would have been neutral if we didn't do that.


You're a paranoid idiot if you think Cuba would do something like that :o

Idiot? There goes the dialogue. You people are something. :dry:

[Kritish]

You're a paranoid idiot if you think Cuba would do something like that :o

Correction, you're a paranoid idiot if you think any nation is going to attack a NATO member with nukes.

[blind_fury]

I notice that none of the Dems get asked about the most serious issue of our time.....radical Islam. What would they do to combat terrorist? It's always health care, and raising taxes. They live in some fantasy world where pulling out of Iraq is going to make them leave us alone........ If one of them wins, they are in for a serious reality check.

A reality check?

You mean like invading a country only to realize you bit off more than you can chew, wasting thousands of lives and half a trillion tax payer dollars in the process?

That kind of reality check? :huh:

[Memphis Slim]

You should read the crap that you post. Castro became a close Soviet ally because of American actions such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, staging a mock invasion, and the Cuban embargo.


The issue was whether Cuba had a hand in it. for whatever the reasons, they did.

[bored]

The issue was whether Cuba had a hand in it. for whatever the reasons, they did.

And HH is saying it goes deeper than you seem willing to acknowledge.

[Addendum]

There's plenty of proof that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and also that Al-Qaeda entered Iraq after the U.S. showed up there.

If the Iraqis want democracy, then they need to do their part. So far, they've done jack****. It should be up to them. Besides, I seem to remember Bush criticizing the concept of nation building during the 2000 elections and how his administration wouldn't be in the business of it.

And Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan have Al-Qaeda and the Taliban back. It'd make perfect sense to turn the focus back onto them.

[scifiwolf]

I notice that none of the Dems get asked about the most serious issue of our time.....radical Islam. What would they do to combat terrorist? It's always health care, and raising taxes. They live in some fantasy world where pulling out of Iraq is going to make them leave us alone........ If one of them wins, they are in for a serious reality check.
:up:

I'm so sick of both parties.

[Armand Z Trip]

Rock on Barack Obama. I don't think America has attended a peace talk in six years. We spend 30 times what the next country spends on the military every year and our President tells us to live in constant fear. I'm reading Barack's book and he says he goes against many liberals with his belief in a strong military and that military force is never off the table. Last night he said Reagan talked to the Russians after calling them an evil empire. Not talking to people is just another form of isolationism.

[moraldeficiency]

:up:

I'm so sick of both parties.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


Cuba would never even think about attacking us. Anyone that's ever been to cuba will tell you the same thing. They have no money or income in any form. People there are incredibably poor and their main source of income is relatives from the states sending them money. Seriously. Last time I went to cuba I wore about 12 shirts and four pairs of pants (because there is a cargo limit but not on what you wear onboard, fun but uncomfortable loophole). When I left I had a t-shirt a pair of jeans and my camera, everything else I gave to my friends so they could resell or use. Without america, cuba goes under in about a month. They (gov.) might say they don't like america, but they know they NEED america. So fidel won't be buying nukes or poking us with the lit end of his cigar anytime soon.

Oh, hillary sucks. Go Obama, I like inexperience in my politicians.

[MakeMineMarvel]

Yeah - let's get back on track. Enough arguing about who started the Cold War.

I'm not going to debate whether Cuba or Venezuela would ever attack us because that isn't the point. If we're supposed to be the greatest Nation in the world, we need to be able to have a dialogue with every Nation we can, regardless of political ideology - in fact, especially with those Nations that don't agree with us at all. Communication is the key to ever resolving long-standing issues that we have with other Nations and I think we come off as fearful by not doing so. Potential for propaganda be danged, it's worth the risk.

Maybe if we weren't so busy trying to be World Police and dictating to everyone else what they "better do or else" we'd be less hated in some places. I just think it is incredibly hypocritical to flush all the money we do into regime overthrows and human affairs missions in places we don't belong, while we have plenty of human affairs issues right here in our own borders.

At this point, as far as Iraq is concerned, for any first-term President to pull out without victory would seem unlikely. No President wants to be the one who admits defeat while in office as it would mar their legacy. In addition, pulling the troops out in any way that looks like defeat makes us look even more brittle in a period of time where potential opponents are vast and growing.

[jaguarr]

Cuba is evil! We shouldn't EVER have anything to do with them! Unless it's about using their country as a place for a war criminal prison and naval base. :o

jag

[moraldeficiency]

Cuba is evil! We shouldn't EVER have anything to do with them! Unless it's about using their country as a place for a war criminal prison and naval base. :o

jag

They have great cigars and I believe they also invented the mojito...

Two things which definately don't suck. I'd love to be able to go back to cuba without the hassles.

[jaguarr]

They have great cigars and I believe they also invented the mojito...

Two things which definately don't suck. I'd love to be able to go back to cuba without the hassles.

Please replace the batteries in your Sarcasm Detector 2000 and read my post again. :oldrazz:

jag

[moraldeficiency]

Please replace the batteries in your Sarcasm Detector 2000 and read my post again. :oldrazz:

jag

I got the scarcasm just fine, I was adding on to it.

[moraldeficiency]

Please replace the batteries in your Sarcasm Detector 2000 and read my post again. :oldrazz:

jag

I got the scarcasm just fine, I was adding on to it. Did I seem to be disputing you in any way?

[moraldeficiency]

Damn double posts....

[musclesforsupes]

:wow: Maybe Jessie and the rippers can come and play at the democratic national convention

[jaguarr]

I got the scarcasm just fine, I was adding on to it. Did I seem to be disputing you in any way?

It just seemed as if it had gone over your head is all. My bad. Carry on. :o

jag

[PLAS]

Yeah - let's get back on track. Enough arguing about who started the Cold War.

I'm not going to debate whether Cuba or Venezuela would ever attack us because that isn't the point. If we're supposed to be the greatest Nation in the world, we need to be able to have a dialogue with every Nation we can, regardless of political ideology - in fact, especially with those Nations that don't agree with us at all. Communication is the key to ever resolving long-standing issues that we have with other Nations and I think we come off as fearful by not doing so. Potential for propaganda be danged, it's worth the risk.

Maybe if we weren't so busy trying to be World Police and dictating to everyone else what they "better do or else" we'd be less hated in some places. I just think it is incredibly hypocritical to flush all the money we do into regime overthrows and human affairs missions in places we don't belong, while we have plenty of human affairs issues right here in our own borders.

At this point, as far as Iraq is concerned, for any first-term President to pull out without victory would seem unlikely. No President wants to be the one who admits defeat while in office as it would mar their legacy. In addition, pulling the troops out in any way that looks like defeat makes us look even more brittle in a period of time where potential opponents are vast and growing.
and how many opponents did the US have, say, ten years ago?

[Lightning Strykez!]

Hillary is absolutely terrifying. That is one scary-azz beeyotch.

I totally believe that Obama gave the right response. American snobbery in dealing with other nations is one of the reasons why we're so despised by them.

[Matt]

Clinton is right. We shouldn't meet with our enemies without pre-set conditions. That being said, some of these countries shouldn't be considered our enemies though some should.

[hippie_hunter]

Exactly, there is no reason why Cuba and Venezuela should be considered our enemies. North Korea, Syria, and Iran on the other hand....

[Matt]

Yep, the fact is, our of foreign policy shouldn't have one set in stone process. Each country is different. There is no one way to deal with anyone. Sure, it is a good thought to think we can just sit down and talk out our problems with hostile nations, but that is quite frankly, as Hilary said...naive. At the same time we will get a bad reputation if we just flex our muscles and expect people to respond to that.

That is one reason I really don't feel comfortable with Obama, however. We are in a time where we need to be reaching out to foreign countries. We need to be getting some under control, we need to be repairing bridges with others. Obama is not a diplomat. He has no diplomatic experience. I just don't think he is the right man for the job at the moment. Hilary at least would have one of the finest diplomats in modern history at her side in Bill CLinton.

That being said, I really wish Bill Richardson would kick his campaign into gear. He is probably the best candidate for the job at the moment.

[blind_fury]

North Korea is an isolated rogue state.

Iran is run by hawkish Muslims but doesn't qualify as a rogue state.

and Syria is no were as bad as the previous two.

Treating them like all like evil criminals is counter-productive. Even if we suspect they're up to no good, the negative rhetoric and war games directed toward them only makes things worse.

[jaguarr]

Clinton scares the hell out of me. She's as bad as Bush and nowhere near as dumb. Obama's a little green, but he's right that the U.S. needs some serious work on it's foreign policy. There is no one size fits all approach to any of this, as Matt stated. And, I agree, Richardson's probably the best one for the job out of all of them at this point, which means he's got a snowball's chance in hell of getting it.

jag

[blind_fury]

Yep, the fact is, our of foreign policy shouldn't have one set in stone process. Each country is different. There is no one way to deal with anyone. Sure, it is a good thought to think we can just sit down and talk out our problems with hostile nations, but that is quite frankly, as Hilary said...naive. At the same time we will get a bad reputation if we just flex our muscles and expect people to respond to that.

That is one reason I really don't feel comfortable with Obama, however. We are in a time where we need to be reaching out to foreign countries. We need to be getting some under control, we need to be repairing bridges with others. Obama is not a diplomat. He has no diplomatic experience. I just don't think he is the right man for the job at the moment. Hilary at least would have one of the finest diplomats in modern history at her side in Bill CLinton.

That being said, I really wish Bill Richardson would kick his campaign into gear. He is probably the best candidate for the job at the moment.
Unless Obama becomes a complete prick from now till election there's no way he makes America look as bad as Bush has for the last 6 years.

In fact the world will probably forgive most of his rookie mistakes considering his predecessor's apocalyptic errors.

[Matt]

Clinton scares the hell out of me. She's as bad as Bush and nowhere near as dumb. Obama's a little green, but he's right that the U.S. needs some serious work on it's foreign policy. There is no one size fits all approach to any of this, as Matt stated. And, I agree, Richardson's probably the best one for the job out of all of them at this point, which means he's got a snowball's chance in hell of getting it.

jag

The sad part is, despite the fact that Richardson is an amazing diplomat, the best governor New Mexico has ever had, a four time Nobel Prize nominee, and the all around best candidate...he will never win due to the fact that he is fat, ugly, and Latino (who have been turned into "the enemy" by the media).

That being said, he is smart by keeping a low profile campaign in New Hampshire and Iowa right now. If he can even place second in either of those states, he will sky rocket to the top of the polls and suddenly become a contender. Plus, by keeping the national media off of him at this point, it is less likely he will self destruct or have skeletons come out of his closet.

[Matt]

North Korea is an isolated rogue state.

Iran is run by hawkish Muslims but doesn't qualify as a rogue state.

and Syria is no were as bad as the previous two.

Treating them like all like evil criminals is counter-productive. Even if we suspect they're up to no good, the negative rhetoric and war games directed toward them only makes things worse.


Laying down for them isn't a good move either. The fact is, we do need strong-hand diplomacy with some countries.

Unless Obama becomes a complete prick from now till election there's no way he makes America look as bad as Bush has for the last 6 years.

In fact the world will probably forgive most of his rookie mistakes considering his predecessor's apocalyptic errors.

:whatever: The world isn't going to suddenly forgive us because Bush is out of office.

[hippie_hunter]

I think Richardson would make a great Secretary of State. And Powell for Secretary of Defense. I would really like to see those two involved in the next Presidential administration.

[blind_fury]

:whatever: The world isn't going to suddenly forgive us because Bush is out of office.
Forgive who?

The American people? :huh:

They'll forgive us the moment we elect a president with non-Bush "values". One who doesn't treat them like "the help" or bully them.

[MakeMineMarvel]

and how many opponents did the US have, say, ten years ago?
Not sure how many or what the point is, but I know it's harder to keep people as allies or create allies when you don't speak to them ...

[blind_fury]

Colin Powell lied to the world about WMDs when he wasn't certain the info was valid. That alone should prevent him from ever serving politicial office again.

[hippie_hunter]

Forgive who?

The American people? :huh:

They'll forgive us the moment we elect a president with non-Bush "values". One who doesn't treat them like "the help" or bully them.

It's as if you think that the world just suddenly hated the United States once Bush took office and it will just go away. As long as the United States is a major superpower, people will always find something to be aggrivated at us for.

[jaguarr]

Not sure how many or what the point is, but I know it's harder to keep people as allies or create allies when you don't speak to them ...

You're either with us or you're against us!!! :cmad: :p


jag

[Karea07]

Clinton is going to get the democratic nomination.

She'll most likely win the election as well.

[blind_fury]

It's as if you think that the world just suddenly hated the United States once Bush took office and it will just go away. As long as the United States is a major superpower, people will always find something to be aggrivated at us for.

Yes there are those who will always hate America. We don't need to justify the hate and throw gasoline on it so it spreads uncontrollably. This just hurts American interest globally in the long run.

[blind_fury]

Clinton is going to get the democratic nomination.

She'll most likely win the election as well.

As unlikable as some people claim she's is, she is far more likable than John Kerry ever was.

Her chances of winning are much better than Kerry or even Gore's.

[Abaddon]

That's because we have a better sense of where she stands. She'll never win though.

[hippie_hunter]

Colin Powell lied to the world about WMDs when he wasn't certain the info was valid. That alone should prevent him from ever serving politicial office again.

What do you mean he wasn't certain that info was valid. He was certain that the info was not valid one bit. He simply did it because it was his job to do it. He completely regrets what he did too. Out of everyone in the Bush Administration, Powell is the only one who deserves a second chance

And he'd be much more suited for Secretary of Defense. He was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Powell Doctrine is something that needs to be applied to the military again:

Is a vital national security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security) interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_strategy) to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?
He's the reason why gays are allowed to serve in the military and hopefully someone like him will allow openly gay people can serve.

He opposes torture and supports POW rights.

He regrets for what he did at the United Nations.

The military is in need of a Secretary of Defense like him.

[Karea07]

That's because we have a better sense of where she stands. She'll never win though.

I think she is stronger than the Republican candidates... I haven't been impressed by any of them yet. I don't see anything stopping her from the win, unless some huge scandal or something else that could defame her pops up.

[Abaddon]

A lot of people don't like her. She comes off pretty mechanical and insincere often and that's what hurts her most, especially when she's compared to Obama who is charismatic and more personable. I think it'd be more likely for a black man to be elected President than a woman at this point.

[blind_fury]

What do you mean he wasn't certain that info was valid. He was certain that the info was not valid one bit. He simply did it because it was his job to do it. He completely regrets what he did too. Out of everyone in the Bush Administration, Powell is the only one who deserves a second chance

And he'd be much more suited for Secretary of Defense. He was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Powell Doctrine is something that needs to be applied to the military again:

Is a vital national security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security) interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_strategy) to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?
He's the reason why gays are allowed to serve in the military
Some doctrine. He ignores it completely to help Bush like a spineless crony.


and hopefully someone like him will allow openly gay people can serve.

He opposes torture and supports POW rights.
This is common sense. It takes alot more than this to qualify someone to be Secretary of Defense.

He regrets for what he did at the United Nations.

Yeah, we all do.

[blind_fury]

A lot of people don't like her. She comes off pretty mechanical and insincere often and that's what hurts her most, especially when she's compared to Obama who is charismatic and more personable. I think it'd be more likely for a black man to be elected President than a woman at this point.

Yeah Bush got elected because he was the guy people wanted to have a beer with.

Not the best reasons to elect a president.

The Hilary hate-train was started by right-wing think tanks and has snow balled. It's sad it worked on so many "open-minded" moderates.

The same people who think Dick Cheney is acceptable as vice president. That guy makes Hillary Clinton look as lovable as Meg Ryan in the 80's.

[Karea07]

A lot of people don't like her. She comes off pretty mechanical and insincere often and that's what hurts her most, especially when she's compared to Obama who is charismatic and more personable. I think it'd be more likely for a black man to be elected President than a woman at this point.

I agree that she does come off pretty mechanical and insincere, but I am seeing her change into a more likeable person. She still has a two digit lead over Obama. If anything, her biggest worry imo is the republican candidates. I think she has the democratic nomination in the bag.

[Excel]

why dont we just have the whole world vote to elect our next president if relations with foreighn countries is all that matters.

for real; forget diplomatic skills; we need to go back to the basics and just get someone who is an honest and nice person which we aint had a president in god knows how long.

[Spider-Bite]

I would negotiate with the leaders of countries who oppose us or hate us or whatever.

[hippie_hunter]

The same people who think Dick Cheney is acceptable as vice president. That guy makes Hillary Clinton look as lovable as Meg Ryan in the 80's.

So true

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/cheney.jpg

[blind_fury]

I would negotiate with the leaders of countries who oppose us or hate us or whatever.

You mean war would be the last resort after all genuine attempts at diplomacy fail?

What a novel idea!!! :eek:

[hippie_hunter]

Some doctrine. He ignores it completely to help Bush like a spineless crony.
If you do some research it's pretty easy to find out that Powell hated working for Bush and with people like Rumsfeld. It's why he refused to continue as Secretary of State when Bush started his second term. It's pretty damn easy to tell that Powell opposed invading Iraq from the beginning for those particular reasons stated in the Powell Doctrine.

And seriously, no cabinet member is going to go out and speak against their boss while they're in office. They work for the President. Today, now out of office, Powell has criticized the Bush Administration several times.

This is common sense. It takes alot more than this to qualify someone to be Secretary of Defense.
Yes it is common sense, but it's something that is needed because the Bush Administration has lacked it in their ru of DOD. And Powell has the knowledge necessary for it. He was a high ranking general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and has experience working for the executive branch (even if it was a negative one). He doesn't have the universal hate of the opposing side like the rest of the Bush Adminstration does. He is a moderate Republican. I can seriously see him working in a Democratic administration.

Yeah, we all do.
I hate it when people act as if they're speaking for everyone. Reality check, everyone doesn't have the same opinions. We have people like celldog who blindly follow anything the Bush Administration says. We have people who don't give a damn. And we have people who think that this was one HUGE mistake.

And it's not like you're the one who has damaged their reputation by looking like an ass in front of the international community simply for doing you job. Powell deserves a second chance. He isn't a horrible or incompetent man like the rest of the cronies of the Bush Administration.

[echostation]

screw what these punks say... RON PAUL ALL THE WAY

it's sad this guy won't get the nomination but to me so far he's by far the least of all evils... he makes sense on so many god damn issues and he's the ONLY ONE at ALL to actually come up with sensible direct ways to bring the budget back into order... his solution is almost elegant, it combines fixing foreign policy, healthcare, schools, infrastructure, economy and environment all into one go...

I disagree with him big time on some social issues but by far he's still the best candidate of the lot

[Mr. Socko]

Neither of them really stand a chance.

[hippie_hunter]

I would negotiate with the leaders of countries who oppose us or hate us or whatever.

I'm sorry but with nations like North Korea, Iran, and Syria. They don't deserve the respect to have negotiations with. They aren't Cuba or Venezuela or other nations that have sour relations with the United States. They're fully oppressive nations that don't give a f**k what the rest of the world thinks and will do whatever they want and need to stay in power.

[SalaciousVC]

Clinton: Obama is ‘naive’ on foreign policy

Chicago senator accuses rival of standing with Bush on rogue nation issue

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c1/Jason141/070724_obama_vmed_10a_widec.jpg

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama’s offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran touched off a war of words, with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/#) calling him naive and Obama linking her to President Bush’s diplomacy.
Older politicians in both parties questioned the wisdom of such a course, while Obama’s supporters characterized it as a repudiation of Bush policies of refusing to engage with certain adversaries.
It triggered a round of competing memos and statements Tuesday between the chief Democratic presidential rivals. Obama’s team portrayed it as a bold stroke; Clinton supporters saw it as a gaffe that underscored the freshman senator’s lack of foreign policy experience.

“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive,” Clinton was quoted in an interview with the Quad-City Times that was posted on the Iowa newspaper’s Web site on Tuesday.
In response, Obama told the newspaper that her stand puts her in line with the Bush administration (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/#).
Both parties were weighing the potential political fallout, especially in Florida, an early primary state, a pivotal general election state — and where Cuban President Fidel Castro (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/#) remains particularly unpopular.
“Anything that looks like pandering to dictators is bad politics in South Florida,” said Republican state Rep. David Rivera of Miami. He predicted Obama’s comments would come back to haunt him, particularly if he becomes the Democratic nominee.
The Republican National Committee on Tuesday circulated stories calling attention to and ridiculing Obama’s remarks.
'Step-by-step process'
In Monday’s debate from Charleston, S.C., Obama was asked by a questioner via YouTube if he would be willing to meet — without precondition — in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
“I would,” he responded.
Clinton said she would not. “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” she said. Clinton said she would first use envoys to test the waters.

The day after the debate, the Clinton campaign made former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a Clinton supporter, available to reporters to further challenge Obama’s response.
“It’s a step-by-step process. It’s not just some event,” Albright said of such head-of-state meetings.
“I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything,” Albright said.
Obama: 'Never fear'
The Obama campaign, meanwhile, circulated a memo by Obama spokesman Bill Burton saying Obama’s response to the question had played well with focus groups and that Clinton had changed her position on the subject — a claim her campaign denied.
Anthony Lake, an Obama foreign policy adviser who was national security adviser early in President Clinton’s administration, defended Obama’s statements.
“A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so — just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union,” Lake said.

He said Obama was not trying to dictate the “shape of specific negotiations” and those would “depend on how best to conduct them” at the time.
Lake said he recognized Obama’s comments had stirred up a political hornet’s nest, particularly in Florida. But, he said, it would subside. “In two years, who knows who’s going to be ruling Cuba,” Lake said.

'A seasoned answer'
In February, Clinton had said: “You don’t refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I’m sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it’s a sign of strength, not weakness.”
Obama’s camp also attempted to shift attention to Clinton’s vote authorizing the Iraq war (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/page/2/#) in October 2002 at a time when Obama, then a state lawmaker, had voiced opposition.
Joe Garcia, chairman of the Miami-Dade County Democrats and former director of the Cuban National Foundation, said he’ll give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

“Obviously, Hillary’s answer was a seasoned answer within the realm of what we’re doing. But I don’t think Obama was intending to say we want to give legitimacy to dictatorships,” said Garcia, who said he was not affiliated with any of the candidates. Obama speaks to the Miami-Dade Democrats at an Aug. 25 dinner.
GOP also draws ire
Other 2008 candidates have stumbled on Cuban-American politics.
In March, Republican Mitt Romney told South Florida Republicans that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/page/2/#), a persistent U.S. critic, “has tried to steal an inspiring phrase — ’Patria o muerte, venceremos.”’ But, added Romney, “It does not belong to him. It belongs to a free Cuba.”
In truth, the phrase does not belong to free Cubans. It has been a trademark speech ending for Castro, their most despised opponent.
Also, prospective GOP candidate Fred Thompson drew unwelcome attention last month when he appeared to suggest that illegal Cuban immigrants posed a terrorist threat. He later said people were trying to twist his words, and that he was referring to Cuban spies, not immigrants.
Thomas Mann, of the Brookings Institution think tank, said he thought Obama’s comments did show “a lack of experience” but were probably not fatal to his prospects. Furthemore, said Mann, “there is a growing group of younger Cuban-Americans and others” who want more engagement with Cuba.
Meanwhile, rival John Edwards tried to steer clear of the Clinton-Obama flap during a campaign stop in South Carolina but did say he fears a presidential-level meeting with rogue leaders could be used to denigrate the United States.
“I would not commit myself on the front end openly to meet with (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il, (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez,” Edwards told reporters in McClellanville, S.C. “I think there’s a real potential that would be used as a propaganda tool.”

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/)


wow,the most interesting news ever:hyper:

[blind_fury]

They're fully oppressive nations that don't give a f**k what the rest of the world thinks and will do whatever they want and need to stay in power.

Yes and America is a partially oppressive nation that doesn't give a f**k what the rest of the world thinks and will do whatever we want and need to stay in power.

If you want those counties the be less oppressive the last thing you should do is isolate them even more. It's not the best way to open them up to the world and progressive values.

[blind_fury]

I hate it when people act as if they're speaking for everyone.
Excuse me. I meant 73% of the country and 90% of the world regrets what Colin Powell did.

[Kritish]

I notice that none of the Dems get asked about the most serious issue of our time.....radical Islam. What would they do to combat terrorist? It's always health care, and raising taxes. They live in some fantasy world where pulling out of Iraq is going to make them leave us alone........ If one of them wins, they are in for a serious reality check.

Please tell us what Cellslim the wise and powerful would do to combat terrorism. :whatever:

[hippie_hunter]

Excuse me. I meant 73% of the country and 90% of the world regrets what Colin Powell did.

That's a bit better :oldrazz:

[Spider-Bite]

UPDATE
Exclusive: Obama Hits Clinton -- Harder

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
Sen. Obama has ESCALATED his criticism of Hillary Clinton -- taking it to political defcon three -- in an exclusive on-camera interview with NBC News.
It is a lot tougher than what he said in the debate -- or in the Iowa newspaper interview yesterday.

During a stakeout outside his senate office, Obama said in part:
"I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out -- and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue.
"The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody.
"Now, they may not like what we want to hear -- so if I’m talking to the President of Iran, I’m going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what's necessary to protect them -- that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say that face to face. And obviously, the diplomatic spadework has to be done ahead of time.
"The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous.
"But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on -- and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevents us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies, and I am not interested in continuing that.

"I know that she has said in the past that we have to talk to our enemies -- well that’s what this is about. And if we say that we will not talk to them unless they meet a series of preconditions, then that’s the same position that Bush and Cheney have maintained over the last six years, and it has made us less safe. And that’s what I think is going to be a significant part of this debate in 2008.

"We responded to her in this situation, and I think there is a genuine difference, if there isn’t a difference, then Senator Clinton should explain it. I think that we should talk to everybody.
"That ultimately is what’s going to create the environment in which we can reduce some of the threat levels we are facing. To fail to do that is the same conventional Washington thinking that led many including Senator Clinton to go ahead with the war without having asked adequate questions."
****UPDATE**** Clinton supporters respond to Obama's new criticism by pointing out that Clinton has been very critical of the Bush's Administration policies on diplomacy. Also, her response at the debate -- and in yesterday's skirmish -- was that it doesn't make any sense to pursue vigorous diplomacy without getting the most of it. You just can't promise to meet with world leaders, they say, without conditions.
*** SECOND UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign has now released this statement from Richard Holbrooke, who served as UN ambassador in Bill Clinton's administration: "As she has said many times, Senator Clinton believes we need to engage in vigorous diplomacy after the cowboy approach of the Bush years. She has said she would initiate serious, responsible dialogue with nations with whom we don’t agree in order to further the national security interest of the United States. But she is right not to risk the prestige of the presidency by unconditionally committing to meet with leaders of adversarial nations."

SOURCE: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/25/290301.aspx

--------------------------------------------

I think this whole argument is an example of Obama being straightforward and honest with Hillary being wishy washy trying to look good from both angles. Hillary is totally turning me off with this squabble and Obama is totally turning me on, in a completely heterosexual way of course.

I think I still lean towards Edwards but as the campaign goes on I'm liking Obama more and more.

[Addendum]

Christopher Walken still has my vote

[Matt]

Obama is going to turn people off with this. His supporter like him because he is playing the high horse angle. You can't really do that if you are down in the mud, flinging it around with the ice queen.

[hippie_hunter]

Obama is totally turning me on, in a completely heterosexual way of course.

Riiiiiiiiight :o

[LouFerignoDemon]

To me, they're both idiots.

One wants to meet with people, as a sign of trust, in several countries that care less about trust, and bashes his opponent on the Iraq conflict without a plan of his own.

The other needlessly bashed her opponent simply to look good, which speaks VOLUMES about how she might run a country.

[blind_fury]

Obama is going to turn people off with this. His supporter like him because he is playing the high horse angle. You can't really do that if you are down in the mud, flinging it around with the ice queen.
He plays the maverick outsider. People expect him to stand up for what he believes rather than stay silent while his views are misrepresented and his name slandered. He won't last long in a presidential race being a public doormat for his opponents.

[Matt]

He plays the maverick outsider. People expect him to stand up for what he believes rather than stay silent while his views are misrepresented and his name slandered. He won't last long in a presidential race being a public doormat for his opponents.

He has also been acting like he is somehow above the political aspect of, well, politics. Don't deny for a second he acts that way. Therefore, for him to come out hitting like this does run the risk of turning off supporters. It is one thing in a debate, it is entirely another to seek out a way to slander your opponent (interviews, press conferences, ads, etc). He is risking losing his wholesome image and if that goes, he becomes Hilary with less experience and a smaller penis :cwink:

[Spider-Bite]

To me, they're both idiots.

One wants to meet with people, as a sign of trust, in several countries that care less about trust, and bashes his opponent on the Iraq conflict without a plan of his own.

The other needlessly bashed her opponent simply to look good, which speaks VOLUMES about how she might run a country.

It's not about a sign of blind trust, it's about using every option available to you other than war, before you go to war as a last resort. It's about open dialogue, and not acting like your too good to talk to people, shrugging them off, ignoring them, while they take bigger and bigger steps to get your attention. We shouldn't act like we "hate" Iran. There is already more than enough hatred in the world. We should negotiate and see if we can find common ground.

What good has come out of ignoring Iran so far? Infiltrating Iraq and enriching uranium? More of the same? That's a plan?

They kept saying Obama is new. He's fresh. He doesn't have 20 years experience in ****ing up this country. He refuses money from lobbyists, unlike Hillary, and he's all around new as far as how he operates in politics. And this is definitely a testament to it.

I really feel like I can trust Obama as President, and I don't think Hillary screams trustworthy to the American people.

[blind_fury]

To me, they're both idiots.

One wants to meet with people, as a sign of trust, in several countries that care less about trust, and bashes his opponent on the Iraq conflict without a plan of his own.

The other needlessly bashed her opponent simply to look good, which speaks VOLUMES about how she might run a country.

Positioning yourself by attacking your opponent's stance is expected in these situations. It's not like they're accusing each other of expensive haircuts or illegitimate black children. They're debating the others foreign policy.

[Spider-Bite]

He has also been acting like he is somehow above the political aspect of, well, politics. Don't deny for a second he acts that way. Therefore, for him to come out hitting like this does run the risk of turning off supporters. It is one thing in a debate, it is entirely another to seek out a way to slander your opponent (interviews, press conferences, ads, etc). He is risking losing his wholesome image and if that goes, he becomes Hilary with less experience and a smaller penis :cwink:

He is above politics, and that's what people like about him. Politics is such a dirty muddy ugly illegal business, with so much corruption and lobbying, wishy washing, lying, voting for stupid wars.

That's not Obama, and that's why people call him fresh, new, and above it all.

He is above it all, and I expect him to be proud of it.

[Matt]

It is naive. Everything you just said is entirely naive. Discussion is fine. Open dialogue is fine. However, they are hostile towards Americans (fact) and they are openly trying to develope a nuclear program. Yeah, we should just talk to them for awhile and see where this goes while taking no actions. It is a naive stance. Some countries, Cuba and Venezuela for example do not require sanctions. Others do.

[Matt]

He is above politics, and that's what people like about him. Politics is such a dirty muddy ugly illegal business, with so much corruption and lobbying, wishy washing, lying, voting for stupid wars.

That's not Obama, and that's why people call him fresh, new, and above it all.

He is above it all, and I expect him to be proud of it.

However, he is falling right into it. Hilary baited him and he bit. You hear that? It was the sound of him falling off his high horse :cwink:

[LouFerignoDemon]

It's not about a sign of blind trust, it's about using every option available to you other than war, before you go to war as a last resort. It's about open dialogue, and not acting like your too good to talk to people, shrugging them off, ignoring them, while they take bigger and bigger steps to get your attention. We shouldn't act like we "hate" Iran. There is already more than enough hatred in the world. We should negotiate and see if we can find common ground.

What good has come out of ignoring Iran so far? Infiltrating Iraq and enriching uranium? More of the same? That's a plan?

They kept saying Obama is new. He's fresh. He doesn't have 20 years experience in ****ing up this country. He refuses money from lobbyists, unlike Hillary, and he's all around new as far as how he operates in politics. And this is definitely a testament to it.

I really feel like I can trust Obama as President, and I don't think Hillary screams trustworthy to the American people.

To deal with countries that are filled with groups more than willing to take large risks to kill the American president, and then GIVING them the chance?

The world isn't so filled with flowers. Do you honestly think that someone like the American president (America not internationally viewed as awesome at the moment) could really go to places like those, without a large military escort (which would definitely make the country uncomfortable) and expect there to be no problems to come from it?

While I really wish the world was a nicer place about it, and a showing of bravery is a needed thing, it's not very smart.

While I agree ignoring them isn't a good method, showing up in their countries like that isn't going to fix it overnight either. Things like this require tons of groundwork and time to work, especially since they'd have to break down the view of America pretty much world wide.

[BloodyWolverine]

If i could vote for a president today it would be Obama cause Hilary reminds me of Castro. I think Obama is smarter then people give him credit for. Hilary think she knows buts he has no idea how Arabian countries are about women in power. She be clueless on that.

I'll not lie for ia am a registured republican but i vote independently. This time i will vote on who is the best choice. Be it republican or democrat.

To be Honest Edwards is who i would rather win the nomimation. Not becaus eof race or anything. Becaus ei like him best out of the democrats.

[Excel]

Ugh; thats not what I like about him. He doesnt work with calculated responses.

[Venom'sDad]

UPDATE
Exclusive: Obama Hits Clinton -- Harder

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
Sen. Obama has ESCALATED his criticism of Hillary Clinton -- taking it to political defcon three -- in an exclusive on-camera interview with NBC News.
It is a lot tougher than what he said in the debate -- or in the Iowa newspaper interview yesterday.

During a stakeout outside his senate office, Obama said in part:
"I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out -- and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue.
"The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody.
"Now, they may not like what we want to hear -- so if I’m talking to the President of Iran, I’m going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what's necessary to protect them -- that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say that face to face. And obviously, the diplomatic spadework has to be done ahead of time.
"The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous.
"But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on -- and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevents us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies, and I am not interested in continuing that.

"I know that she has said in the past that we have to talk to our enemies -- well that’s what this is about. And if we say that we will not talk to them unless they meet a series of preconditions, then that’s the same position that Bush and Cheney have maintained over the last six years, and it has made us less safe. And that’s what I think is going to be a significant part of this debate in 2008.

"We responded to her in this situation, and I think there is a genuine difference, if there isn’t a difference, then Senator Clinton should explain it. I think that we should talk to everybody.
"That ultimately is what’s going to create the environment in which we can reduce some of the threat levels we are facing. To fail to do that is the same conventional Washington thinking that led many including Senator Clinton to go ahead with the war without having asked adequate questions."
****UPDATE**** Clinton supporters respond to Obama's new criticism by pointing out that Clinton has been very critical of the Bush's Administration policies on diplomacy. Also, her response at the debate -- and in yesterday's skirmish -- was that it doesn't make any sense to pursue vigorous diplomacy without getting the most of it. You just can't promise to meet with world leaders, they say, without conditions.
*** SECOND UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign has now released this statement from Richard Holbrooke, who served as UN ambassador in Bill Clinton's administration: "As she has said many times, Senator Clinton believes we need to engage in vigorous diplomacy after the cowboy approach of the Bush years. She has said she would initiate serious, responsible dialogue with nations with whom we don’t agree in order to further the national security interest of the United States. But she is right not to risk the prestige of the presidency by unconditionally committing to meet with leaders of adversarial nations."

SOURCE: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/25/290301.aspx

--------------------------------------------

Hillary does not have a clue what she have said just a few days ago; yet alone, the proper way to handle diplomatic issues. She is a hack and many of you know it, including Matt. She blow in the wind just to be President.
Remember she has no experience at all, just the Clinton name, because have the country loves Bill. No one position that give her the experience to be president. She served in the U.S. Senate just two years longer than Obama. If she ran in Arkansa or her native state of Illinois, she would have gotten cremed. She ran in a Liberal state that loves the Clinton name against a Nobody.

I said it before, so i will say it again. Obama and Biden are probably the best candidates on the Democratic side with Richardson probably the most experience. Obama is an outsider and is not part of the inner circle whom is leading the U.S. to a Socialist State and a member of the New World Order. I like Obama, but he will not win the Democratic nomination. This election will be between Rudy and Hillary and true Constitutional abiding Americans has no say in the matter.

Obama did not say Matt, if you read the article that he will talk to unfriendly nations just to be talking to them. He stated he would address American interest to their face, whether they like what he has to say or not. The door to dialoge will be open, until a more aggresive stance is needed.

Hillary quite frankly would say anything and pander to both sides because she knows the media attention span is very short when it come to her and long for everyone else. The Clinton Media Machine(CMM)... don't ever under estimate it.

[Kritish]

Doesn't she realize that by bashing him so rabidly she's showing how big of a ***** she is to the whole country?

[Excel]

Ive been saying it all along...she wont win cause shes a joke; and seriously; Obama was getting attacked by her...I guess he had to say something.

[bored]

Should I just make up a "Hillary Sucks" dance or something? It'd be the only original thing to do at this point, since I've made it clear I don't like her. She has little to no widespread appeal, and the Republicans have been building a smear campaign against her for the last few years. Running her would be walking into a trap.

[MakeMineMarvel]

UPDATE
Exclusive: Obama Hits Clinton -- Harder


All I could think about when I saw this headline was this:
http://i10.tinypic.com/502t3l3.gif

[demento]

Ive been saying it all along...she wont win cause shes a joke; and seriously; Obama was getting attacked by her...I guess he had to say something.
Yeah, and who's a bigger joke than W? He won twice. :o

[Matt]

Do people really still think this guy should be president?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071115/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_records

[Fenrir]

Do people really still think this guy should be president?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071115/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_records

The whole bloody presidential race is little more than pots and kettles calling each other black.

[Hotwire]

Do people really still think this guy should be president?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071115/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_records
I guess we can compare this to W's National Guard records?

[Matt]

I guess we can compare this to W's National Guard records?

Yep. Sadly, thats exactly what it is. How anyone can still support this guy is beyond me.

[Arkady Rossovich]

I doubt he will be President.

[Mr Sparkle]

I doubt he will be President.

wow, really?
gee I guess it's settled guys!

close the thread.

[Mr Sparkle]

plus, I give Matt 17 years to become a Republican.
infact, make it 7.