Obama needs a quick refresher course in Cold War history

[eekee 182]

he had nine months in office to send out intelligence and get information on what Osama was planning. He did not. 40% of his first year in office was spent on vacation. We should all have such jobs where we can spend that much time vacationing.

so bush was supposed to instantly identify the threat upon taking the oath of office, perhaps via some omnipotent power that comes with being the president, direct intelligence gathering systems and operatives in osama's direction and in just 9 months from the ground up have enough hard intelligence listing the date, time, and methods osama was planning?

oh please!

methinks eekee has never been in the military.

and thank god for that. there is no way i would ever join it. i was raised in a quaker environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Testimony

Edited May 27, 2008 by eekee

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

We all must consider the anger issues with Dems based on the 2000 and 2004 elections. That said, for anyone to accept the promises of a stranger is pure foolishness and we all know it.

Take Oblah blah blahma, put a white wig on him and beard, throw a sack O goodies over his shoulder, give him a sleigh and ho ho ho there ya go. Make your lists of what you want and send them to the north pole

[ready4ONE 5,400]

We all must consider the anger issues with Dems based on the 2000 and 2004 elections. That said, for anyone to accept the promises of a stranger is pure foolishness and we all know it.

Take Oblah blah blahma, put a white wig on him and beard, throw a sack O goodies over his shoulder, give him a sleigh and ho ho ho there ya go. Make your lists of what you want and send them to the north pole

That is indeed the knock on Obama, even for me, who generally votes Democrat for President. Although that aspect of Obama bothers me considerably, I will reluctantly vote that way, again primarily because of the 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices which the next President will nominate. The current crop of Justices has been picked by Republican's with the exception of just two!

Chief Justice of the United States JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. [bush, GW]

Associate Justices JOHN PAUL STEVENS [Ford}

ANTONIN SCALIA [Reagan]

ANTHONY M. KENNEDY [Reagan]

DAVID H. SOUTER [bush, GHW]

CLARENCE THOMAS [bush, GHW]

RUTH BADER GINSBURG [Clinton]

STEPHEN G. BREYER [Clinton]

SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR. [bush, GW]

Retired Justice SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR [Reagan]

I don't even begin to comprehend the Cult of Obama, but we really need to put some balance back in to the Supreme Court.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

We all must consider the anger issues with Dems based on the 2000 and 2004 elections. That said, for anyone to accept the promises of a stranger is pure foolishness and we all know it.

Take Oblah blah blahma, put a white wig on him and beard, throw a sack O goodies over his shoulder, give him a sleigh and ho ho ho there ya go. Make your lists of what you want and send them to the north pole

That is indeed the knock on Obama, even for me, who generally votes Democrat for President. Although that aspect of Obama bothers me considerably, I will reluctantly vote that way, again primarily because of the 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices which the next President will nominate. The current crop of Justices has been picked by Republican's with the exception of just two!

Chief Justice of the United States JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. [bush, GW]

Associate Justices JOHN PAUL STEVENS [Ford}

ANTONIN SCALIA [Reagan]

ANTHONY M. KENNEDY [Reagan]

DAVID H. SOUTER [bush, GHW]

CLARENCE THOMAS [bush, GHW]

RUTH BADER GINSBURG [Clinton]

STEPHEN G. BREYER [Clinton]

SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR. [bush, GW]

Retired Justice SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR [Reagan]

I don't even begin to comprehend the Cult of Obama, but we really need to put some balance back in to the Supreme Court.

I understand it totally! Libs dont care about who they nominate, they just want a "win"! I dont even wanna think who Obama would put forward for the court.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Harriet Myers

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Harriet Myers

With just a slight imagination you could imagine who Obama would put up. Maybe Whoopee G.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

CarolsMarc it is not about winning at any cost, it is about getting back to balance. While he is in a lot of ways an admirable man, McCain is not the man to get us there.

Just go here ---> http://www.rnc.org/ to see winning at any cost. The Republican candidates name and image is nowhere to be found! Only flashing images of Obama and links to articles taking shots at him. So don't give a line about winning at any cost. Obviously both parties would like to win.

Our governmental system was founded on the idea of checks and balances. Getting balance back to the Supreme Court is a very important consideration for this election. Hence I may well vote for Obama despite the legitimate concerns raised by his essentially having little or no record. McCain has a record, and it is similar to George Bush's.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

CarolsMarc it is not about winning at any cost, it is about getting back to balance. While he is in a lot of ways an admirable man, McCain is not the man to get us there.

Just go here ---> http://www.rnc.org/ to see winning at any cost. The Republican candidates name and image is nowhere to be found! Only flashing images of Obama and links to articles taking shots at him. So don't give a line about winning at any cost. Obviously both parties would like to win.

Our governmental system was founded on the idea of checks and balances. Getting balance back to the Supreme Court is a very important consideration for this election. Hence I may well vote for Obama despite the legitimate concerns raised by his essentially having little or no record. McCain has a record, and it is similar to George Bush's.

I really dont know how you can come to the conclusion that Obama will "balance" the court in advance.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

CarolsMarc it is not about winning at any cost, it is about getting back to balance. While he is in a lot of ways an admirable man, McCain is not the man to get us there.

Just go here ---> http://www.rnc.org/ to see winning at any cost. The Republican candidates name and image is nowhere to be found! Only flashing images of Obama and links to articles taking shots at him. So don't give a line about winning at any cost. Obviously both parties would like to win.

Our governmental system was founded on the idea of checks and balances. Getting balance back to the Supreme Court is a very important consideration for this election. Hence I may well vote for Obama despite the legitimate concerns raised by his essentially having little or no record. McCain has a record, and it is similar to George Bush's.

Well said.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

CarolsMarc it is not about winning at any cost, it is about getting back to balance. While he is in a lot of ways an admirable man, McCain is not the man to get us there.

Just go here ---> http://www.rnc.org/ to see winning at any cost. The Republican candidates name and image is nowhere to be found! Only flashing images of Obama and links to articles taking shots at him. So don't give a line about winning at any cost. Obviously both parties would like to win.

Our governmental system was founded on the idea of checks and balances. Getting balance back to the Supreme Court is a very important consideration for this election. Hence I may well vote for Obama despite the legitimate concerns raised by his essentially having little or no record. McCain has a record, and it is similar to George Bush's.

I really dont know how you can come to the conclusion that Obama will "balance" the court in advance.

That is precisely the problem I have with voting for Obama. I have not come to the conclusion he WILL balance the court. Only to the conclusion that it will stay unbalanced, likely for decades, should McCain win.

Were it not for the Supreme Court issue, I might be a McCain democrat...

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

CarolsMarc it is not about winning at any cost, it is about getting back to balance. While he is in a lot of ways an admirable man, McCain is not the man to get us there.

Just go here ---> http://www.rnc.org/ to see winning at any cost. The Republican candidates name and image is nowhere to be found! Only flashing images of Obama and links to articles taking shots at him. So don't give a line about winning at any cost. Obviously both parties would like to win.

Our governmental system was founded on the idea of checks and balances. Getting balance back to the Supreme Court is a very important consideration for this election. Hence I may well vote for Obama despite the legitimate concerns raised by his essentially having little or no record. McCain has a record, and it is similar to George Bush's.

I really dont know how you can come to the conclusion that Obama will "balance" the court in advance.

That is precisely the problem I have with voting for Obama. I have not come to the conclusion he WILL balance the court. Only to the conclusion that it will stay unbalanced, likely for decades, should McCain win.

Were it not for the Supreme Court issue, I might be a McCain democrat...

McCain is a democrat

[GALAXY 0]

well for a conservative he sure has turned his back to the dark side. maybe the democrats he votes for will let us get hit by terrorists again and then send them a box of chocolates saying that we are sorry for all the trouble we have caused you terrorist. don't worry about us you are more than welcome to attack the US when ever you want.

hey, i thought 9/11 happened when a republican was in power.

Yeah, 9 months after he took office. All the planning for 9/11 was done on Clintons watch. Hell, Clinton was offered OBL on a silver platter and he let him go. But who cares about such minor details?

so bush had nine months to do something and... he didn't.

And Clinton had 8 years to do something and didn't. So what is your point?

that the argument that if a democrat is in the white house it will mean a terrorist attack falls flat. by your logic, if a terrorist attacks during the next president's term, bush had 8 years to do something and didn't.

eeke are you not reading what is being typed? clinton the democrat did nothing. Bush the republican dropped lots of bombs on the terrorist. so how did bush do nothing

he had nine months in office to send out intelligence and get information on what Osama was planning. He did not. 40% of his first year in office was spent on vacation. We should all have such jobs where we can spend that much time vacationing.

eekes you still dont look at the fact that in 1196 the CIA (dont know if you know who that is) had a sniper with bin laden's head in the cross hairs. Clinton told them not to take the shot. it could have all ended back then. but i dont expect you to know the history of that because you are a bush hater. so i rest my case on the al quada with you

[eekee 182]

eekes you still dont look at the fact that in 1196 the CIA (dont know if you know who that is) had a sniper with bin laden's head in the cross hairs. Clinton told them not to take the shot. it could have all ended back then. but i dont expect you to know the history of that because you are a bush hater. so i rest my case on the al quada with you

OK, do you know what? You don't need to insult anybody else's intelligence to make an argument, and if you feel the need to do so, then you need to look at the strength of your position. I know what the CIA is. Please refrain from being condescending, especially when you can't be bothered to check your posts for things such as "1196" vs "1996."

Edited May 27, 2008 by eekee

[GALAXY 0]

eekes you still dont look at the fact that in 1196 the CIA (dont know if you know who that is) had a sniper with bin laden's head in the cross hairs. Clinton told them not to take the shot. it could have all ended back then. but i dont expect you to know the history of that because you are a bush hater. so i rest my case on the al quada with you

OK, do you know what? You don't need to insult anybody else's intelligence to make an argument. I know what the CIA is. Please refrain from being condescending, especially when you can't be bothered to check your posts for things such as "1196" vs "1996."

1996 is what i meant. you blame bush for 911 but it could have been stopped long before. here is a question for you, what country was one of the leading plan makers for 911 from?

[GALAXY 0]

thats a democratic ran page. what else would you expect??????? Look at is this way, do you know the democrats from the south? do you think they will vote in a first either way in history?