See other War, War, War Articles
Title: General William Odom Tells Senate Rapid Withdrawal Is Only Solution: TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQ
Source:
ICH
URL Source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19671.htm
Published: Apr 3, 2008
Author: William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret.
Post Date: 2008-04-03 21:05:35 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 401
Comments: 27
2 April 2008 Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success. I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims. Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant in several other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province. More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic. No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities. Also disturbing is Turkey’s military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey. Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight. Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq. The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime. As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran. Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment. At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from the government’s troops and police, hardly a sign of political reconciliation. Now let us consider the implications of the proliferating deals with the Sunni strongmen. They are far from unified among themselves. Some remain with al Qaeda. Many who break and join our forces are beholden to no one. Thus the decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who distrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves. Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses. This can hardly be called greater military stability, much less progress toward political consolidation, and to call it fragility that needs more time to become success is to ignore its implications. At the same time, Prime Minister Maliki’s military actions in Basra and Baghdad, indicate even wider political and military fragmentation. We are witnessing is more accurately described as the road to the Balkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation. We are being asked by the president to believe that this shift of so much power and finance to so many local chieftains is the road to political centralization. He describes the process as building the state from the bottom up. I challenge you to press the administration’s witnesses this week to explain this absurdity. Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator. That is the history of feudal Europe’s transformation to the age of absolute monarchy. It is the story of the American colonization of the west and our Civil War. It took England 800 years to subdue clan rule on what is now the English-Scottish border. And it is the source of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo. How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power as effective state building? More accurately described, it has placed the United States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense. To sum up, we face a deteriorating political situation with an over extended army. When the administration’s witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy. The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force, that could prompt Iran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Iran detests the Taliban and supports them only because they will kill more Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attack on Iran. Iran’s policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits. No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president’s policy has reinforced Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent. Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from the region. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forces and diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim. A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don’t make sense. First, it is insisted that we must leave behind military training element with no combat forces to secure them. This makes no sense at all. The idea that US military trainers left alone in Iraq can be safe and effective is flatly rejected by several NCOs and junior officers I have heard describe their personal experiences. Moreover, training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills. Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. We heard that argument as the “domino theory” in Vietnam. Even so, the path to political stability will be bloody regardless of whether we withdraw or not. The idea that the United States has a moral responsibility to prevent this ignores that reality. We are certainly to blame for it, but we do not have the physical means to prevent it. American leaders who insist that it is in our power to do so are misleading both the public and themselves if they believe it. The real moral question is whether to risk the lives of more Americans. Unlike preventing chaos, we have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume. Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran’s regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies’ interest. I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq. Thanks for this opportunity to testify today. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ We are witnessing is more accurately described as the road to the Balkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation. The original and still in opporation plan for Iraq, ala help for Israel.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: richard9151 (#0)
A realist. The Bush and Lukid party have a hell of a lot to answer for in this misguided hubristic adventure and I have two nephews injured for their misbegotten crusade, one whose life is changed forever. Not to mention the economic pain millions of Americans will needlessly suffer for the elites grasp for power and control. They are really sick. And so are we for allowing it to happen on our watch.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq. bump
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
ping
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
what's the latest with Adam, tom?
A struggle, some good days some setbacks. He will be in physical therapy and corrective surguries for as long as I can see. Is gaining weight and getting stronger, so the trend is up. The cost of Bush's adventure is staggering.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" This news about Gen. Odom is posted on the Obama '08 Web site: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/navyweatherguesser/gGBvzx.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I remember back in '04, when Gen. Odom was criticizing the Iraq war and already saying then that it was lost and we should withdraw, Limbaugh made the idiotic comment on his show that major wars every 20 years or so are a good thing for this country.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I'll bet it's not on Hillary's or McCain's website!
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Why don't the neo-cons get it?
I think they still hope the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq will eventually serve to embroil this country with Iran. I suspect Israel wants an attack on Iran just out of general bloody- mindedness. They wanted Saddam toppled because he had had the nerve to launch Scuds against Israel. They want Iran attacked because it has had the nerve to fund Hamas and Hezbollah.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
If John "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain is elected they just might get what they wish for.
They do, but have bigger plans: www.federaljack.com/modul...News&file=article&si d=659 and...... Emerging technologies that ‘locate’ and ‘trace’ present a world where ‘every object and human is tagged with information specifications including history and position – a world of information overlays that is no longer virtual but wedded to objects, places, and positions’ (Crandall, 2005). Such meshing of the physical and the digital through the medium of sentient communicators is what is foreseen here as steering towards a digitally-rendered global system vulnerable to control via a technical-military elite. This scenario is exactly that as envisioned by ex-US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski, in his ‘Between Two Ages : America's Role in the Technetronic Era’ (1970), put forward the concept of a future ‘technotronic era’ whereby a more controlled society would gradually emerge, dominated by an elite unrestrained by traditional values. "Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control." (Brzezinski, 1970: 252) Also important to consider is that many military technologies become appropriated and absorbed into civil technologies. For example, by 2003 a quarter of all rental vehicles at US agencies used some form of GPS tracking: not only for driver-location but also for the rental agency to know where the car has travelled, and its speed. Also, cars with speakerphones can be enabled from remote devices in order to listen in and eavesdrop on occupants in a car under surveillance, as has been utilized by police forces in the US (Brzezinski, 2004). This type of digitalised surveillance at-a-distance can have serious implications upon increasingly surveyed, tracked, and mapped social practices. It also suggests that technically-based northern ‘societies’ are being manoeuvred towards a surveyed and sensored, or synchronic society [snip]
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
So now you've gone from quoting Brzezinski in 1997 to quoting Brzezinski in 1970? You may not have gotten the message that the Cold War is over, but I assure you that Brzezinski has. If you ever bother to follow my advice and read his 2004 book The Choice, that message would come through loud and clear.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I don't think Cheney will wait for McCain.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
That's more like it, Brzezinski in 2004. But you may not have noticed that that passage hardly expresses approval of the developments described.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Obama himself on the extent of his contacts with Brzezinski. As I've told you before in citing this statement, personally I wish Obama did share Brzezinski's views with respect to Israel. But one can at least hope that he is playing down any disagreements he may have with Israel for political reasons. With Hillary and McCain, there isn't much hope that they would not be down-the-line supporters of Israel.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
No, I think Obama is on board with RFID. Also, I don't believe he took any options off the table in dealing with Iran. Zbig's plan is behind schedule... the dally with troop withdrawal is a dupes game. Further, it's dishonest to leave people believing that he is somehow a peace or antiwar candidate... I wonder if the Trinity Church supports chipping its congregation? I believe most Christian Churches might think it the mark of the beast, but I don't know. "The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
If you're interested in Trinity Church, there's a long and informative article about it in the current New Yorker. No mention of chipping there: Project Trinity: The perilous mission of Obama’s church. Don't you think chipping is the sort of thing that somebody with Rev. Wright's views of the federal government would be the last to approve?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Thanks for the link, but Obama also said he had never heard the type if incindiary remarks by Wright, though later we see he had wrote about a couple of them namely Hiroshima, Nagasaki, in one of his books. So, I don't take the man at his word. But one can at least hope that he is playing down any disagreements he may have with Israel for political reasons. With Hillary and McCain, there isn't much hope that they would not be down-the-line supporters of Israel. If he spoke of cutting off all funding to Israel and her enemies, that would a difference with distinction. He's not about to stand in the way of the profiteers.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
I'll check it out. Don't you think chipping is the sort of thing that somebody with Rev. Wright's views of the federal government would be the last to approve? I have no idea. Would Obama's supporters reject him if they understood that he supports it? I've asked from the beginning, when Wright was removed as an Obama advisor, I read that many felt Pastor Wright and the church had been used as a political stepping stone.. My question, what did they expect to advance through Obama's campaign? Apparently, 'something' through the government.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
You sure engage in a lot of pretty fanciful speculations about Obama, while I can't say I remember seeing a word of criticism from you about either Hillary or McCain, who can easily be condemned on the basis of firm facts, not speculation.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The cost of Bush's adventure is staggering. Thanks for the hopeful update.
I simply ask questions that need to be asked. That others are afraid to ask, I can't help. I can't stand Hillary or McCain, and believe they are known entities here.. though I have seen a couple of posts that say they'll vote for her. Obama doesn't have many achievements to tout, his votes are extremely liberal, so we have to look at his words and inner circles for clues. He's allowed to skate around the issue of 9/11 and the hatred of whites and jews made by his pastor/advisor. I wouldn't tolerate that no matter who the candidate was. But there is a double standard that some are happy to accept for their own personal reasons.. probably for freebies...at the expense of bigger government... which equals more slavery. To give false hopes to those with family deployed in the war zone, is wrong. I have family over there, so, getting the truth out is important. Also, O has a responsibility to acknowledge the agreements Bush has made with respect to our presence there (among a million other things) to inform and prepare the public, and then perhaps, if he wants to offer a change to that, he can battle it out as a Senator on the floor, rather than building false hope. Of the 3, I will not vote for any of them, and no one has given me a reason to. Basically, everyone is dug in to their positions, so, changing minds here isn't an option. The only one supporting a neo-con policy at this point, are voters for any of those three. Obama is just more overtly communist that the others.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
I have no idea why you say that. I have myself said on this forum that, if Barr runs, I might well vote for him. I am open to persuasion on that. And others have expressed an interest in his prospective candidacy. I can't say I've noticed any interest in it on your part. Overtly communist? I've seen several indications that Obama truly believes in Christianity.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Ari, as for Barr, I don't know enough about him yet, and just because he might be running as a Libertarian, or MIGHT have Ron Paul's endorsement, isn't enough for me to even consider casting a vote for him. Then there is the 3rd party obstacle that is another consideration. I have no confidence in the people that claim to support such a run, as they can't even agree where their own butt is. Our problems are that we refuse to unify behind the right thing. And defining the right thing at this point is 'survival'. So, the divide and conquer team wins no matter, which brings us to the last point, of the integrity of the vote. Who can really say that is not a huge factor? So, we play the game expecting to lose big against the machine just getting out of the gate. We have a sick society consumed with revenge voting and committed to the status quo for their check. I can't say I've noticed any interest in it on your part. I thought I could choose what to post about, but if you think it's of interest to me, please give me a ping. Overtly communist? I've seen several indications that Obama truly believes in Christianity. I haven't. But I don't expect him to wear his faith on his sleeve for the goal of pandering either. To say you were brought to Jesus, and then sit in a church that preaches hate, doesn't fly. Sorry.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
They get it just fine; they understand perfectly, and are in the process of getting their wishes fulfilled. We are witnessing is more accurately described as the road to the Balkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ++++++++++ Attention, Shrub; A life of evil is ultimately a life of wretchedness.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
#2. To: richard9151 (#0)
Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran’s regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies’ interest.
#3. To: SCPO Blackshoe Retired, aristeides, Red Jones, Fred Mertz, Sodie Pop, Cynicom (#0)
#4. To: tom007 (#1)
#5. To: christine (#4)
what's the latest with Adam, tom?
#6. To: robin (#3)
#7. To: tom007 (#1)
#8. To: aristeides (#6)
This news about Gen. Odom is posted on the Obama '08 Web site:
#9. To: richard9151 (#0)
Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran’s regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies’ interest.
#10. To: Fred Mertz (#9)
#11. To: aristeides (#10)
#12. To: Fred Mertz (#9)
Why don't the neo-cons get it?
Brzezinski wrote that ‘Power will gravitate into the hands of those who control information’ (Brzezinski, 1970: 1), adding that surveillance and data mining will encourage ‘tendencies through the next several decades toward a technocratic era, a dictatorship leaving even less room for political procedures as we know them’ (Brzezinski, 1970: 12). By gaining control over informational technological communications Brzezinski outlined how this could help achieve control and order over the public:
#13. To: Peppa (#12)
#14. To: Fred Mertz (#11)
If John "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain is elected they just might get what they wish for.
#15. To: Peppa (#12)
Also important to consider is that many military technologies become appropriated and absorbed into civil technologies. For example, by 2003 a quarter of all rental vehicles at US agencies used some form of GPS tracking: not only for driver-location but also for the rental agency to know where the car has travelled, and its speed. Also, cars with speakerphones can be enabled from remote devices in order to listen in and eavesdrop on occupants in a car under surveillance, as has been utilized by police forces in the US (Brzezinski, 2004). This type of digitalised surveillance at-a-distance can have serious implications upon increasingly surveyed, tracked, and mapped social practices. It also suggests that technically-based northern ‘societies’ are being manoeuvred towards a surveyed and sensored, or synchronic society [snip]
#16. To: Peppa (#12)
"I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally," Obama said. "He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. He came to Iowa to introduce ... for a speech on Iraq."
#17. To: aristeides (#15)
But you may not have noticed that that passage hardly expresses approval of the developments described.
#18. To: Peppa (#17)
#19. To: aristeides (#16)
Obama himself on the extent of his contacts with Brzezinski.
#20. To: aristeides (#18)
If you're interested in Trinity Church, there's a long and informative article about it in the current New Yorker. No mention of chipping there: Project Trinity: The perilous mission of Obama’s church.
#21. To: Peppa (#20)
#22. To: tom007 (#5)
Is gaining weight and getting stronger, so the trend is up.
#23. To: aristeides (#21)
You sure engage in a lot of pretty fanciful speculations about Obama, while I can't say I remember seeing a word of criticism from you about either Hillary or McCain, who can easily be condemned on the basis of firm facts, not speculation.
#24. To: Peppa (#23)
Basically, everyone is dug in to their positions, so, changing minds here isn't an option.
#25. To: aristeides (#24)
I have no idea why you say that. I have myself said on this forum that, if Barr runs, I might well vote for him. I am open to persuasion on that. And others have expressed an interest in his prospective candidacy.
#26. To: Fred Mertz (#9)
Why don't the neo-cons get it?
#27. To: (#23)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest