What Makes Obama Run

[Heracles 417]

I thought Cheney and Bush went to Iraq for "OIL"? Funny how that shite went by the wayside

Considering the current oil prices that must have been the worst theft, war for oil etc, in history..

Only if you assume that the public would be the beneficiary of such a policy. A lot of money is being made out of high oil prices - no?

Exxon posts biggest annual profit ever

Record oil prices help the world's largest public oil company earn $39.5 billion in 2006.

Are you suggesting we went to war for exxon?

PS It is called supply an demand. Exxon is making money because people are buying their scarce product. As with every other company in the world.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I thought Cheney and Bush went to Iraq for "OIL"? Funny how that shite went by the wayside

Considering the current oil prices that must have been the worst theft, war for oil etc, in history..

Only if you assume that the public would be the beneficiary of such a policy. A lot of money is being made out of high oil prices - no?

Exxon posts biggest annual profit ever

Record oil prices help the world's largest public oil company earn $39.5 billion in 2006.

Are you suggesting we went to war for exxon?

PS It is called supply an demand. Exxon is making money because people are buying their scarce product. As with every other company in the world.

Not directly.

[Heracles 417]

Are you suggesting we went to war for exxon?

PS It is called supply an demand. Exxon is making money because people are buying their scarce product. As with every other company in the world.

Not directly.

So the US government spent $3 trillion so exxon can increase their profit? This is as silly as the clowns who think 9/11 was in inside job.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Are you suggesting we went to war for exxon?

PS It is called supply an demand. Exxon is making money because people are buying their scarce product. As with every other company in the world.

Not directly.

So the US government spent $3 trillion so exxon can increase their profit? This is as silly as the clowns who think 9/11 was in inside job.

I said "not directly'.

[HAL 9000 96]

War?

LOL, wasn't that WMDs we went to war over?? Oh... right...

I wonder who said this:

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight. (Applause.)

Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports three great goals for America: We will win this war; we'll protect our homeland; and we will revive our economy.

September the 11th brought out the best in America, and the best in this Congress. And I join the American people in applauding your unity and resolve. (Applause.) Now Americans deserve to have this same spirit directed toward addressing problems here at home. I'm a proud member of my party -- yet as we act to win the war, protect our people, and create jobs in America, we must act, first and foremost, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans. (Applause.)

Here's a little help.

[Heracles 417]

War?

LOL, wasn't that WMDs we went to war over?? Oh... right...

Sorry it was liberals who seem to change their reasoning with the tide. When you steal something it is always sold for a cheaper price. Not twice the price.

[GaryC 7]

War?

LOL, wasn't that WMDs we went to war over?? Oh... right...

I wonder who said this:

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight. (Applause.)

Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports three great goals for America: We will win this war; we'll protect our homeland; and we will revive our economy.

September the 11th brought out the best in America, and the best in this Congress. And I join the American people in applauding your unity and resolve. (Applause.) Now Americans deserve to have this same spirit directed toward addressing problems here at home. I'm a proud member of my party -- yet as we act to win the war, protect our people, and create jobs in America, we must act, first and foremost, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans. (Applause.)

Here's a little help.

How about this? Don't try and tell me Bush lied to her. She was married to the president and knew full well what the intel said.

[HAL 9000 96]

War?

LOL, wasn't that WMDs we went to war over?? Oh... right...

Sorry it was liberals who seem to change their reasoning with the tide. When you steal something it is always sold for a cheaper price. Not twice the price.

Interesting that you think that way. WMDs are not oil, and their prices have increased over time.

Also, I find it sickening that Bush cites WMD usage in Iraqui populations under Hussein's orders even though a good portion of the delivery system and diplomatic support came from... his ally, Uncle Sam. So you may want to continue pointing out your liberal target, while the rest of us with memories will continue citing reality.

[kaydee457 13]

Ah, so here we are again, reliving the past! Get over it peeps, we're there, in IRAQ, and we'll be there until J Mac says it's time to get out.

Clear?

[Heracles 417]

Interesting that you think that way. WMDs are not oil, and their prices have increased over time.

Also, I find it sickening that Bush cites WMD usage in Iraqui populations under Hussein's orders even though a good portion of the delivery system and diplomatic support came from... his ally, Uncle Sam. So you may want to continue pointing out your liberal target, while the rest of us with memories will continue citing reality.

Gezz I wonder why Uncle Sam once supported Hussein.. Let me think. Maybe just maybe because he was fighting a war with Iran. You know, that same country that held Americans hostage for over a year..

[Peikko 1,575]

Has anyone else noted the incongruousness of this ideal:

his proposal calls for organizing ordinary citizens into bottom-up democracies that create their own strategies, programs, and campaigns and that forge alliances with other disaffected Americans. Obama thinks elected officials--even a state senator--can play a critical catalytic role in this rebuilding.

How laudable you may say, how wonderful and yet during his time as state senator what exactly did he achieve along those lines? Any clues? My reading of his actions as a senator is a 'head down don't do anything controversial' senator. So, maybe he already had the idea that the way to go was achieving his goals from the lofty role of president - excellent! Or, doesn't that present the ultimate irony? Bottom up democracy imposed from the top down? What am I missing that would allow these seemingly contradictory statements to mesh up?

Notwithstanding, even if he does think that in fact he can be the 'critical catalyst' from within the WH, where is the blue print of this proposal that would explain how this new democratic alliance would actually work? Again, a laudable aim to include the currently disaffected but how would one achieve that without producing disaffection from the currently included? Does Barack care about that? I don't know because none of this is explained. These desires are much vaunted in speeches and rallies but without some plan to make it work, and preferably some reference to examples of working grass roots democratic alliances that Barack created during his work in the communities, it is just talk.

[HAL 9000 96]

Ah, so here we are again, reliving the past! Get over it peeps, we're there, in IRAQ, and we'll be there until J Mac says it's time to get out.

Clear?

Yeah, here we go again. Funny that not all of us are still stuck fighting the Cold War.

The speech was Bush, 2002.

[HAL 9000 96]

Interesting that you think that way. WMDs are not oil, and their prices have increased over time.

Also, I find it sickening that Bush cites WMD usage in Iraqui populations under Hussein's orders even though a good portion of the delivery system and diplomatic support came from... his ally, Uncle Sam. So you may want to continue pointing out your liberal target, while the rest of us with memories will continue citing reality.

Gezz I wonder why Uncle Sam once supported Hussein.. Let me think. Maybe just maybe because he was fighting a war with Iran. You know, that same country that held Americans hostage for over a year..

Strange bedfellows indeed. Specially when we make platforms of being in favor of liberty, democracy, and peace all the while supplying a madman with WMDs. That's plainly called hypocrisy, and to leave it to a history of ignorance is relinquishing the right to defend what one preaches.

[HAL 9000 96]

Has anyone else noted the incongruousness of this ideal:

his proposal calls for organizing ordinary citizens into bottom-up democracies that create their own strategies, programs, and campaigns and that forge alliances with other disaffected Americans. Obama thinks elected officials--even a state senator--can play a critical catalytic role in this rebuilding.

How laudable you may say, how wonderful and yet during his time as state senator what exactly did he achieve along those lines? Any clues? My reading of his actions as a senator is a 'head down don't do anything controversial' senator. So, maybe he already had the idea that the way to go was achieving his goals from the lofty role of president - excellent! Or, doesn't that present the ultimate irony? Bottom up democracy imposed from the top down? What am I missing that would allow these seemingly contradictory statements to mesh up?

Notwithstanding, even if he does think that in fact he can be the 'critical catalyst' from within the WH, where is the blue print of this proposal that would explain how this new democratic alliance would actually work? Again, a laudable aim to include the currently disaffected but how would one achieve that without producing disaffection from the currently included? Does Barack care about that? I don't know because none of this is explained. These desires are much vaunted in speeches and rallies but without some plan to make it work, and preferably some reference to examples of working grass roots democratic alliances that Barack created during his work in the communities, it is just talk.

Successful "bottoms-up" approaches all need to either convince the top or force the top to change. Take your pick. He'd rather be a facilitator in effecting change. Perhaps if you were to look beyond your perceived and preconceived notions of attention-whoring you'd see a couple of extra points he's maintaining in simple logic.

[Peikko 1,575]

I make up my own mind about things. I have no preconceived notions, I don't form my opinions from blogs. I look at the facts that are presented and there aren't enough to be sure of anything but that he wants things to be different. That's not enough for me while it may be for you.

Fine, he wants to be a facilitator for change but surely even a facilitator has to have a plan for what he is going to facilitate or at least have someone in the sidelines with a plan lined up. Where is this plan? What is this plan?

Again, I do think as senator and previously as state legislator he should have been able to achieve at least a working model of what he wants this new alliance democracy to look like and yet there is nothing. Why?

What the heck are these points in simple logic? You are beginning to sound like him. "Look I am wearing this new suit, can't you see it?"