Obama 101

[nowhereman 1]

mmmmmmmmmmmm. I'm thirsty!

Yup the same BS tactic the Republicans use over & over. Iraq is a perfect example... invade a country based on trumped up intel, screw up the execution of the war for 3-4 years & then when the Dems point out these facts call them unpatriotic and soft on terrorism. It's denial, hypocrisy & not taking responsibility for your actions all rolled up into one. The fact that nearly 50% of Americans still support these clowns just astounds me.

Nowhere posts the same message over and over again. He gets his KoolAid wholesale.

KoolAid guy and Obama have something in common. They both are cool and refreshing but if you drink in too much of what they're selling it will make you sick. In addition, like KoolAid guy, Obama bursts through a wall everytime is name is mentioned. I now have a restraining order against both of those creepy smiling weirdos.

Yup same ole ####### from a Neo-con... no actual facts to support his position & an absolute refusal to find the truth. It has been proven (by independent sources) that the intel was #######... it is generally accepted (even amongst many Republicans) that Bush & Dumsfeld failed miserably with the execution of the war from 2003-2007 (regardless of whether you agree it was a good idea to invade Iraq or not)... finally Bush & Cheney have on numerous occasions questioned the Dems loyalty because they didn't support his failed policies. As a 21 year military veteran with tours in Bosnia & Iraq I can tell you that patriotism is loving your country & doing something positive to make it better.... it is NOT blindly accepting the current administration's policies and going along with the status quo.

So everything I said was 100% true... you offered no rebuttal all. All I can say is

Of course they'll just label you a traitor you know that, right?

A lot of people in the military agree with me (and the military is predominantly Republican). Look at all of the ex-generals that have slammed Bush & his execution of the war. Bush supporters would argue that they should have spoken up while they were on active duty, but look at General Shinseki... he stood up to them & was forced to retire. Powell (a former general) disagreed with the Bush administration & he ended up being used (his famous briefing on WMDs) and then marginalized.

I also joined the military way before Bush came in office... I was here first damn it!

[HAL 9000 96]

mmmmmmmmmmmm. I'm thirsty!

Yup the same BS tactic the Republicans use over & over. Iraq is a perfect example... invade a country based on trumped up intel, screw up the execution of the war for 3-4 years & then when the Dems point out these facts call them unpatriotic and soft on terrorism. It's denial, hypocrisy & not taking responsibility for your actions all rolled up into one. The fact that nearly 50% of Americans still support these clowns just astounds me.

Nowhere posts the same message over and over again. He gets his KoolAid wholesale.

KoolAid guy and Obama have something in common. They both are cool and refreshing but if you drink in too much of what they're selling it will make you sick. In addition, like KoolAid guy, Obama bursts through a wall everytime is name is mentioned. I now have a restraining order against both of those creepy smiling weirdos.

Yup same ole ####### from a Neo-con... no actual facts to support his position & an absolute refusal to find the truth. It has been proven (by independent sources) that the intel was #######... it is generally accepted (even amongst many Republicans) that Bush & Dumsfeld failed miserably with the execution of the war from 2003-2007 (regardless of whether you agree it was a good idea to invade Iraq or not)... finally Bush & Cheney have on numerous occasions questioned the Dems loyalty because they didn't support his failed policies. As a 21 year military veteran with tours in Bosnia & Iraq I can tell you that patriotism is loving your country & doing something positive to make it better.... it is NOT blindly accepting the current administration's policies and going along with the status quo.

So everything I said was 100% true... you offered no rebuttal all. All I can say is

Of course they'll just label you a traitor you know that, right?

A lot of people in the military agree with me (and the military is predominantly Republican). Look at all of the ex-generals that have slammed Bush & his execution of the war. Bush supporters would argue that they should have spoken up while they were on active duty, but look at General Shinseki... he stood up to them & was forced to retire. Powell (a former general) disagreed with the Bush administration & he ended up being used (his famous briefing on WMDs) and then marginalized.

I also joined the military way before Bush came in office... I was here first damn it!

You are 100% correct, sir.

[rebeccajo 14]

A non-issue.

There were some backroom discussions in which Obama asked for a delay in any long-term agreement over the disposition of US forces in Iraq.

Its not hard to see why... if agreements are made now, it gives the next administration zero control over the Iraq War policy.

Backroom? It's not back room when Obama has no political reason for being there - no official govt business other than to boost his campaignm, which, ironically, it hurt him.

It's not back room when the Iraqi PM is told by a visiting one term senator that he doesn't trust the US govt & nor should Zebari.

No, it's not backroom at all.

Obama has at least 50% odds of becoming the next person to run the most powerful government on earth. He and McCain should BOTH be talking to world leaders. If they aren't, it's irresponsible.

[alienlovechild 75]

Yup same ole ####### from a Neo-con... no actual facts to support his position & an absolute refusal to find the truth. It has been proven (by independent sources) that the intel was #######... it is generally accepted (even amongst many Republicans) that Bush & Dumsfeld failed miserably with the execution of the war from 2003-2007 (regardless of whether you agree it was a good idea to invade Iraq or not)... finally Bush & Cheney have on numerous occasions questioned the Dems loyalty because they didn't support his failed policies. As a 21 year military veteran with tours in Bosnia & Iraq I can tell you that patriotism is loving your country & doing something positive to make it better.... it is NOT blindly accepting the current administration's policies and going along with the status quo.

So everything I said was 100% true... you offered no rebuttal all. All I can say is

We already went over this issue before and YOU chose to ignore my posts. I didn't feel like repeating myself but that seems to be your speciality.

Thanks for patriotism lesson but you clearly don't know me or my views. Your service record may be longer than mine but it doesn't mean you have a lock on the truth. You can wave your flag and swagger about with "love" of country and doing something "positive" but you should take an honest look at how we got into Iraq and where we need to go in the future.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...008&hl=iraq

Edited September 19, 2008 by alienlovechild

[nowhereman 1]

Yup same ole ####### from a Neo-con... no actual facts to support his position & an absolute refusal to find the truth. It has been proven (by independent sources) that the intel was #######... it is generally accepted (even amongst many Republicans) that Bush & Dumsfeld failed miserably with the execution of the war from 2003-2007 (regardless of whether you agree it was a good idea to invade Iraq or not)... finally Bush & Cheney have on numerous occasions questioned the Dems loyalty because they didn't support his failed policies. As a 21 year military veteran with tours in Bosnia & Iraq I can tell you that patriotism is loving your country & doing something positive to make it better.... it is NOT blindly accepting the current administration's policies and going along with the status quo.

So everything I said was 100% true... you offered no rebuttal all. All I can say is

We already went over this issue before and YOU chose to ignore my posts. I didn't feel like repeating myself but that seems to be your speciality.

Thanks for patriotism lesson but you clearly don't know me or my views. Your service record may be longer than mine but it doesn't mean you have a lock on the truth. You can wave your flag and swagger about with "love" of country and doing something "positive" but you should take an honest look at how we got into Iraq and where we need to go in the future.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...008&hl=iraq

OK I took a look at your link and you really didn't say anything substantive. Basically all you said is that Iraq had WMD's at one point & we both agree on that, so it's a mute point. It's blatantly obvious to me that Bush had an agenda & wanted to start a war in Iraq... the intel was weak at best but he went in anyways. Patriotism was high due to 9/11 so Bush cooked up a reason to invade Iraq (why didn't he go in before 9/11)? After they didn't find any WMD's Bush then said we went in to fight terrorists. The thing is there weren't very many terrorists in Iraq until after we went in! Disgruntled Iraqis who weren't terrorists prior to the invasion, joined by foreign terrorists from Syria and Iran, popped up after the invasion (this isn't some liberal conspiracy theory, the CIA said this).

As I stated above the Bush adminstration (led by Dumsfeld) then didn't listen to anyone who had other opinions (Powell, General Shinseki, later the Baker commission, etc) & they horribly mismanaged the war for over 3 years. So not only did they go in based on bad intel, they screwed the pooch from 2003-2007.

The neo-cons (and sadly McCain) gloss over all of these facts and criticize the Dems for pointing them out (truth hurts) & for wanting to withdraw from Iraq. Do you not see the hypocrisy in this? The Bush administration started a war based on bad intel, screwed it up & then criticize the Dems for wanting to get out?

I like to keep an open mind, I really do, but I see a slam dunk case vs the Bush administration here & I will not back down from my position because it's based on facts and at least some very strong assumptions. I welcome other perspectives (as long as they are defendable) but the neo-con rhetoric, half-truths and lies do not fool or impress me.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

OK I took a look at your link and you really didn't say anything substantive. Basically all you said is that Iraq had WMD's at one point & we both agree on that, so it's a mute point. It's blatantly obvious to me that Bush had an agenda & wanted to start a war in Iraq... the intel was weak at best but he went in anyways. Patriotism was high due to 9/11 so Bush cooked up a reason to invade Iraq (why didn't he go in before 9/11)? After they didn't find any WMD's Bush then said we went in to fight terrorists. The thing is there weren't very many terrorists in Iraq until after we went in! Disgruntled Iraqis who weren't terrorists prior to the invasion, joined by foreign terrorists from Syria and Iran, popped up after the invasion (this isn't some liberal conspiracy theory, the CIA said this).

As I stated above the Bush adminstration (led by Dumsfeld) then didn't listen to anyone who had other opinions (Powell, General Shinseki, later the Baker commission, etc) & they horribly mismanaged the war for over 3 years. So not only did they go in based on bad intel, they screwed the pooch from 2003-2007.

The neo-cons (and sadly McCain) gloss over all of these facts and criticize the Dems for pointing them out (truth hurts) & for wanting to withdraw from Iraq. Do you not see the hypocrisy in this? The Bush administration started a war based on bad intel, screwed it up & then criticize the Dems for wanting to get out?

I like to keep an open mind, I really do, but I see a slam dunk case vs the Bush administration here & I will not back down from my position because it's based on facts and at least some very strong assumptions. I welcome other perspectives (as long as they are defendable) but the neo-con rhetoric, half-truths and lies do not fool or impress me.

so you agree that iraq had wmd's, but they were not there when we went in. where did they go?

and while you cite the intel as being weak, it was corroborated by the intel services of other countries.

[IAMX 3,055]

Patriotism was high due to 9/11 so Bush cooked up a reason to invade Iraq (why didn't he go in before 9/11)?

Er, the administration tried to. Congress said no.

Even though at the same time they (the administration -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Bush, etc.) also said Saddam had no capabilities to do any damage as his forces were in complete disarray and had no weapons capability, and just wanted to invade Iraq for no good reason anyways. 9/11 brought upon us many patriotic idiots who wouldn't dare question King George, and thus the problem we're in with 4,000+ soldiers dying, and many more innocent Iraqis, for no good reason whatsoever.

After they didn't find any WMD's Bush then said we went in to fight terrorists. The thing is there weren't very many terrorists in Iraq until after we went in! Disgruntled Iraqis who weren't terrorists prior to the invasion, joined by foreign terrorists from Syria and Iran, popped up after the invasion (this isn't some liberal conspiracy theory, the CIA said this).

As I stated above the Bush adminstration (led by Dumsfeld) then didn't listen to anyone who had other opinions (Powell, General Shinseki, later the Baker commission, etc) & they horribly mismanaged the war for over 3 years. So not only did they go in based on bad intel, they screwed the pooch from 2003-2007.

Bush had already planned on going to Iraq if he was President. His own autobiographer/ghost writer got it from his own mouth.

The neo-cons (and sadly McCain) gloss over all of these facts and criticize the Dems for pointing them out (truth hurts) & for wanting to withdraw from Iraq. Do you not see the hypocrisy in this? The Bush administration started a war based on bad intel, screwed it up & then criticize the Dems for wanting to get out?

It's not about hypocrisy. It's about dumb political party cheerleading. People think political parties are like your local football team to root for, except these teams can actually put you on the field and run you over.

I like to keep an open mind, I really do, but I see a slam dunk case vs the Bush administration here & I will not back down from my position because it's based on facts and at least some very strong assumptions. I welcome other perspectives (as long as they are defendable) but the neo-con rhetoric, half-truths and lies do not fool or impress me.

Rhetoric from both sides haven't impressed me. Which is why I switched away from the mainstream parties and decided to go with people who aren't so owned by corporate/religious interests. I prefer those who want to serve the people, not themselves or a small group of elite. Which is.. neither Obama or McCain's tickets.

Edited September 20, 2008 by SRVT

[Pooky 3,781]

It seems the subject of this post has been somewhat subverted into a diatribe that Bush invaded Iraq under a false pretext (likely) and screwed it up royally once the ground war was done (definitely), and a counter-arguments defending the incumbent president.

Don't care really, he's gone in a little over 4 months.

The OP was questioning Barack Obama and his admitted interference in the current administration's negotiations to bring US troops home. Here, I have 2 things to say:

1. I never thought I'd agree with Senator Edward Kennedy, but he was right when in what he said. You never talk openly about an administration's negotiations and try to influence the other side. His actions most certainly contravene the Logan Act, undermine the position of the current administration and place American servicemen's live in further jeopardy.

2. I don't give a ####### whether the Logan Act is a b/s piece of legislation, or whether there is a 50/50 chance Obama is trying to delay any agreement for a McCain presidency. Both opinions are utter bollocks. The fact that he flaunts his meddling with the Logan Act shows his complete contempt for both the law and the current administration. And saying he's doing this for a McCain presidency to benefit? You have GOT to be kidding me. To an outsider like me, it is glaringly obvious that Obama's motive is to thwart any agreement the Bush administration might make, to prevent GW getting any credit for drawing down troop numbers. Nothing more. History will damn him anyway, why not take away any small amelioration of the situation.

John McCain doesn't deserve the presidency. He has shown no outstanding qualities, or policies, to make him worthy of the position. But at least he hasn't shown contempt for the political system, as Obama has done.

The whole electoral process this time around leaves me cold. There isn't a candidate in the race fit for the job.

[nowhereman 1]

so you agree that iraq had wmd's, but they were not there when we went in. where did they go?

and while you cite the intel as being weak, it was corroborated by the intel services of other countries.

********************************************************************************

****

Iraq destroyed the WMD's when the inspectors were snooping around. I don't remember the exact details, but they were gone long before the war started in 2003. Now please don't misunderstand me, Saddam was an evil man & many people were killed by his regime (like the Kurds) but Bush didn't give a rats ### about this (there are many evil leaders throughout the world whose actions we ignore because doing something about it is not in our national interest). As for the intel community they simply didn't have the balls to stand up to what was essentially group think. Some of them were part of the problem, but most of them just went along with the flow.

Check out SRVT's post, I agree with most of what he said (and I'm too tired right now to type anymore, lol).

Edit: Pooky I don't agree with a lot of what you said but you make some good points. One thing that made me laugh though is "but at least he (McCain) hasn't shown contempt for the political system, as Obama has done". McCain hasn't shown contempt for the system because he's one of the good old boys of the system!

Edited September 20, 2008 by nowhereman

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

so you agree that iraq had wmd's, but they were not there when we went in. where did they go?

and while you cite the intel as being weak, it was corroborated by the intel services of other countries.

********************************************************************************

****

Iraq destroyed the WMD's when the inspectors were snooping around. I don't remember the exact details, but they were gone long before the war started in 2003. Now please don't misunderstand me, Saddam was an evil man & many people were killed by his regime (like the Kurds) but Bush didn't give a rats ### about this (there are many evil leaders throughout the world whose actions we ignore because doing something about it is not in our national interest). As for the intel community they simply didn't have the balls to stand up to what was essentially group think. Some of them were part of the problem, but most of them just went along with the flow.

Check out SRVT's post, I agree with most of what he said (and I'm too tired right now to type anymore, lol).

surely you know that just because they are allegedly destroyed, they still have the knowledge and facilities to make more. and that's if all were destroyed and not spirited off to other countries.

and you do know that intel was from other countries, like france and the uk?

[nowhereman 1]

surely you know that just because they are allegedly destroyed, they still have the knowledge and facilities to make more. and that's if all were destroyed and not spirited off to other countries.

and you do know that intel was from other countries, like france and the uk?

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

OK even if you buy this argument (I don't but lets say I did) Iraq didn't have the capability to strike the USA (Skud missles are from like the 1950's and have a limited range). Yea he could be a factor in the Middle East, but he's been a thorn in our side since 1991. What changed between 1991 and 2003? 9/11 is what changed everything & like I've said over & over Bush saw this as an opportunity to invade Iraq (which is much different than an actual, legitimate reason to invade).

It was the perfect storm for Bush & he seized the moment. Had he executed the war with any competence at all nobody would care at this point that he went in based on faulty (trumped up?) intel. As for the intel community it doesn't really matter who dropped the ball, the fact is that they dropped it.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

surely you know that just because they are allegedly destroyed, they still have the knowledge and facilities to make more. and that's if all were destroyed and not spirited off to other countries.

and you do know that intel was from other countries, like france and the uk?

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

OK even if you buy this argument (I don't but lets say I did) Iraq didn't have the capability to strike the USA (Skud missles are from like the 1950's and have a limited range). Yea he could be a factor in the Middle East, but he's been a thorn in our side since 1991. What changed between 1991 and 2003? 9/11 is what changed everything & like I've said over & over Bush saw this as an opportunity to invade Iraq (which is much different than an actual, legitimate reason to invade).

It was the perfect storm for Bush & he seized the moment. Had he executed the war with any competence at all nobody would care at this point that he went in based on faulty (trumped up?) intel. As for the intel community it doesn't really matter who dropped the ball, the fact is that they dropped it.

i'm not saying they could strike the usa from there. and i'm quite aware of what a scud is.

however, saddam's little foray into kuwait sure did affect our national interests, as depicted in his forcible ejection from there during desert storm.

while hindsight is 20/20 regarding this or that 6 years later, with more information readily available now that was not then, it's not a total surprise (at least to me) how it was believed saddam still posed a threat to the usa. in fact, many members of congress often called for removing saddam too. funny how criticism of those individuals is quite muted nowadays.

[nowhereman 1]

surely you know that just because they are allegedly destroyed, they still have the knowledge and facilities to make more. and that's if all were destroyed and not spirited off to other countries.

and you do know that intel was from other countries, like france and the uk?

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

OK even if you buy this argument (I don't but lets say I did) Iraq didn't have the capability to strike the USA (Skud missles are from like the 1950's and have a limited range). Yea he could be a factor in the Middle East, but he's been a thorn in our side since 1991. What changed between 1991 and 2003? 9/11 is what changed everything & like I've said over & over Bush saw this as an opportunity to invade Iraq (which is much different than an actual, legitimate reason to invade).

It was the perfect storm for Bush & he seized the moment. Had he executed the war with any competence at all nobody would care at this point that he went in based on faulty (trumped up?) intel. As for the intel community it doesn't really matter who dropped the ball, the fact is that they dropped it.

i'm not saying they could strike the usa from there. and i'm quite aware of what a scud is.

however, saddam's little foray into kuwait sure did affect our national interests, as depicted in his forcible ejection from there during desert storm.

while hindsight is 20/20 regarding this or that 6 years later, with more information readily available now that was not then, it's not a total surprise (at least to me) how it was believed saddam still posed a threat to the usa. in fact, many members of congress often called for removing saddam too. funny how criticism of those individuals is quite muted nowadays.

Charles I think we are at the point where we agree to disagree. We agree more or less on what happened, we just disagree about the validity of the reasons to invade Iraq. I do appreciate the fact that you made some intelligent points (unlike so many posters on here that can't back up what they say or just post obvious dribble... Kaydee is a perfect example of this).