See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Democrat Barack Obama spells out his foreign policy: “I will not hesitate to use force”
Source:
World Socialist Web Site
URL Source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/obam-j28.shtml
Published: Apr 29, 2008
Author: Andre Damon
Post Date: 2008-04-29 21:00:09 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 820
Comments: 75
28 July 2007 This month’s issue of Foreign Affairs carries an essay by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama outlining his foreign policy. Obama gets to the point early on. Noting the catastrophe in Iraq, he writes: “After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make.” The senator’s words must be seen in context. The foreign policy establishment that constitutes the key audience of Foreign Affairs generally recognizes that the debacle in Iraq represents a disaster for American military and geopolitical hegemony. In evaluating presidential candidates, these elements are looking for leaders who will not equivocate in the assertion of US primacy. Obama certainly gives them no cause for disappointment. To this end, he writes: “To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America’s great promise and historic purpose in the world.” How is this dominance to be preserved? Obama does not leave us in suspense: “We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.” In concrete terms, Obama recommends adding 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines to the standing military. As demonstrated by the above passages, Obama’s quarrels with the Bush administration foreign policy are of a tactical nature; both Obama and the current resident of the White House share the overall strategic goal of preserving American hegemony by force of arms. The senator’s main dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, however, is the deleterious effect the occupation of Iraq has had on the United States’ ability to project force abroad. As Obama would have it, the United States “must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power—political, economic, and military—could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria.” The principal obstacle to a “tough-minded” diplomatic strategy, however, is the fact that American troops are mired in a long-term counterinsurgency operation in Iraq. In this regard, Obama notes: “The Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq; 88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas.” By this logic, the continuing occupation of Iraq not only subverts US ability to invade sovereign nations at will, but takes the teeth out of American diplomacy, which, as Obama makes clear, is to be based upon on the constant threat of violence. Obama’s solution to the Iraq question constitutes a rehash of the Baker-Hamilton commission’s findings, combined with an attempt to shift the blame for the debacle onto the shoulders of the Iraqi government. After calling for a removal of “all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008,” Obama goes on to write: “We must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out Al Qaeda.” At the very least, Obama’s policy would entail keeping tens of thousands of troops just across the border in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, ready to engage in combat operations at short notice. This would imply letting the various factions in Iraq fight it out, while American troops defend only key US installations (such as oil refineries and pipelines). In practice, the policy means indefinite engagement in Iraq, despite a nominal “pullout.” Obama justifies such a “withdrawal” not because the war is a moral abomination, or because the United States government has committed innumerable crimes against the people of Iraq. Rather, his essay implies that the Iraqi people have proven incapable of creating a viable, peaceful state and do not deserve the kindness bestowed upon them in the form of the US occupation. Thus, he writes: “It is time for our civilian leaders to acknowledge a painful truth: we cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of US forces.” The article continues: “This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed.” The idea that the Iraqi people have proven unable to govern themselves has become something of the standard Democratic rationale for withdrawal from Iraq. Such an assertion is patently ridiculous; the Iraqi government is unable to function largely because it is despised as an instrument of the occupation, and the sectarian violence gripping the country—not to mention the insurgency—is a direct product of the American intervention in the country. Obama goes on to recommend that the military capability economized in his “pullout” from Iraq be used elsewhere in the region, including in support of Israel: “Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That commitment is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region—a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of Al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah. Now more than ever, we must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. To do so, we must help the Israelis identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability.” As is obvious from the above passages, Obama is not an “antiwar” candidate by any stretch of the word. What is most striking about the article is the degree of similarity between the theoretical, political and even rhetorical underpinnings of Obama’s foreign policy and that of the Bush administration. While in some ways the continuation of trends that have been developing for decades, the Bush administration’s foreign policy is sharply delineated from previous precedents by a several key features. First, the Bush presidency saw fit to justify all military operations on the basis of a fabricated “global war on terror.” The chief strategy of this war was to be preemptive strike—that is, unilateral military action, illegal under international law—against any nation targeted by the president in his capacity as “commander in chief.” Barack Obama accepts this formulation lock, stock and barrel. If we are to believe his essay, the entire foreign policy of the United States revolves around the goal of defending the American people against terrorism. In fact, “Al Qaeda” and “terrorist” are together mentioned in the essay more often than “Iraq.” Within this framework, Obama explicitly affirms the doctrine of preemptive strike. He writes: “I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.” While Obama implicitly chides the Bush administration for failing to “objectively evaluate intelligence,” he categorically insists that the presidency should retain the right to attack a nation believed to “threaten” US interests. What such a doctrine implies in practice was demonstrated in the invasion of Iraq. Obama even goes so far as to borrow the Bush administration’s thuggish terminology: in dealing with Iran, North Korea, and other countries whose interests conflict with those of the United States, Obama says unequivocally, “I will not take the military option off the table.” i>In fact, the essay is remarkable only for its shallowness and complete lack of originality or insight. Obama cobbles together ideas from various sources with little concern for their truth or internal consistency. He starts with a watered-down version of the Bush administration’s lunatic Manichaeism, adds the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton commission, blames the Iraqis for the daily slaughter in their country, and calls it a day. In the final tally, Obama’s criticisms of the Bush administration are rooted not in any opposition to war and imperialism, but in the conclusion—compelled by obvious and unavoidable facts—that Bush’s methods undermine the ability of the United States to dominate the world. But even from the perspective of preserving American hegemony, Obama’s proposals are scarcely less estranged from reality than the policies of the Bush administration. There is an objective reason for the United States’ loss of political clout; namely, the decline in its economic power relative to its strategic competitors (the “global economy” appears once in a nine-page essay on US foreign policy, “globalization” not at all). Obama seems oblivious to the consequences of this decline, calculating “leadership in world affairs” as the sum total of diplomatic bullying and military violence, differing with Bush only on the relative proportions of the two. As George W. Bush has made clear repeatedly, Iraq must be understood within the framework of the global war on terror, a military conflict that will rage on foreseeably for decades. Obama wholly accepts the larger perspective, while offering an alternative policy in Iraq that would leave tens of thousands of troops in the country. Those troops withdrawn by a President Obama would be used to further escalate America’s drive to dominate the globe through violence. He writes: “To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by America’s civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place.” The words “responsible end” give the game away. To those genuinely appalled and horrified by the war in Iraq, a “responsible end” would be one in which those guilty of the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands of Americans, would be held accountable. This means war crimes trials for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their political, corporate and media accomplices. For Obama, however, a “responsible end” means extricating the US from the Iraq quagmire with as little damage as possible to longer-term imperialist interests in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East as a whole. It means, in other words, avoiding any genuine accountability in order to continue the struggle for US hegemony, presumably under a more competent and cautious leader. In the final analysis, this is a formula for violence throughout the Middle East no less bloody than that seen in Iraq. If the 2008 elections put Barack Obama in the White House, the American people will be saddled with a new president who continues the war in Iraq and whose foreign policy does not significantly differ from that of his reviled predecessor.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: richard9151 (#0)
So....exactly how long has it been that I've been saying there is no difference between the Three Stooges and none of them should be elected?
Elect anyone but Obama, Clinton, or McCain.
From the beginning, as I recall, justa lika me. But there are still those who think that to choose the lessor of two evils is the smart thing to do. Overall, this piece is the best explanation about Obama that I have found. And he ain't grand. In fact, it would be a disservice to compare him to dog poop, cause he is lower than dog poop. (I had to be polite -- just had to!)
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.
Source: World Socialist Web Site Obvious GOP front. Owned lock, stock, and barrel by the RNC; I bet. Obama certainly gives them no cause for disappointment. To this end, he writes: “To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America’s great promise and historic purpose in the world.” Vote Obama: He'll make the Soviet International committee look like a bunch of isolationist pussies! Rather, his essay implies that the Iraqi people have proven incapable of creating a viable, peaceful state and do not deserve the kindness bestowed upon them in the form of the US occupation. Oh, those bitter Arabs. Clinging to their AK-47s and Allah. Don't they know Saint Obama loves them? Obama says unequivocally, “I will not take the military option off the table.” Now, that could mean that the use of force is on the table to keep it out of reach so therefore he means that military might will not be used and...man, this spinning is making me thirsty. Pass some koolaid over!. In concrete terms, Obama recommends adding 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines to the standing military. More glorious warriors to spread the "O" revolution to the 4 corners of the earth. In the name of peace, of course. Okay, okay, I'm done with the snarky comments. Sorry, but I just can't take this theater serious anymore. Why do people have to dig up news from places like WSWS to find concrete complaints with Obama? Why do threads about Obama's pastor garner 100+ posts but this thread (or the one on his 2007 AIPAC speech) which contain lots of useful and very telling information only get 3 posts?
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
Excellent excellent question! I have wondered the same myself. Could it be that people are looking for excuses to like Obama??????????? And can't stand the TRUTH? Naw, couldn't be..... well, wait, we are talking about sheeple after all.....
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.
Eh, its not necessary to go that far. It is sufficient to just note that he is no different from the others in the race if politeness is a requirement.
Elect anyone but Obama, Clinton, or McCain.
Someone needs to pound that little statement of fact into the brains of all the stinking war whoopers. As an Army veteran, I think it’s important to remind the sheeple that we might be facing a real, non-Zionist, war in the near future and WE ARE NOT READY!
The answer I come away with is that the Os have no desire to read/learn
the truth about his political positions. The information in this article has
all been brought forward before and either ignored, dismissed or spun.
Articles like this are read (look at the number of views) but lack comment
because there Os simply cannot defend his position, which happenes to be
equally as bad as that of the other two candidates. Also the bozo filter is a
friend of theirs and that eliminates other POV altogether. The Os are becoming
a small club choosing to filter out valid material and discussion in favor of
denying reality.
you've nailed it.
They are stinkin' up the forum and discussion of issues of import are relegated to non existence. Driving posters away. Case in point - Cyni.
It's a dirty job but somebody better do it.
About as long as the rest of us?
It's a dirty job but somebody better do it.
yes, i know.
Exactly.
Personally I think the Rev Wright thing will be Obamas undoing it is clear to anyone paying attention that he did know of Wrights many comments that would cause him problems if it came to light....from a article today over at CBS Some of Wright’s remarks that sparked this mess were made over five years ago, specifically his oft-played comment that the nation’s “chickens” were “coming home to roost,” which he made shortly after 9/11. Obama has indicated Wright was instrumental in attracting him to the church he joined and has said he titled his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after one of Wright’s sermons. That 20-year relationship will not be easily broken as a result of one afternoon press conference. “What I think particularly angered me,” Obama said of Wright on Monday, “was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing." In a New York Times profile of the Obama-Wright relationship in April 2007, Wright himself predicted such a split based on the controversial remarks that were already under some scrutiny. “If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Wright told the paper over a year ago. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” Whether Obama’s strong words of denunciation today were sincere or “political posturing” will be decided by the remaining Democratic primary voters, the party’s superdelegates...AKA the Jewish Lobby...I added that!
I must say, Richard, that this is a very disappointing post, coming from you. Third party, year-old, "hearsay" commentary from the World Socialist Web Site for heaven's sake? What next? The original essay cannot even be obtained on the Foreign Affairs web site for first hand analysis, but they do present this summary: Summary: After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America. This position reflects the approach of decades of foreign policy philosophy pursued prior to Bush/Cheney, i.e., formation of coalitions and emphasis on diplomacy. Perhaps not nearly as close to non-involvement as all would wish, but certainly a far cry from the bellicose, imperialistic Bush administration, the 100 years of war from McCain, or the shrill, jingoistic recent comments from Hillary. This "they're all the same nonsense" grow tiresome.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
I have noticed that bringing out his AIPAC speech or his "Israel is priority #1!" statements prove to be quite effective thread killers. His own web page provides more than enough ammunition to sink him. Unless of course Rove and Hillary employed a team of "l33t hAx0rz" to put all that stuff on his home page. Honestly, I didn't care about him either way till I sat down and read all of his platforms. It's either stuff that would make Marx proud or flip flopping mish-mush with a dash of "compassionate imperilism" thrown in. I just don't get why more people aren't hammering him with that instead of some rumor they heard 2nd hand about him maybe wearing a Che Guava shirt in his youth or something as equally meaningless.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
I still find some comments that Obama said yesterday curious. Specifically, that Wright was not the man he knew 20 years ago. But yet he stayed with the church. Obama did address a few of the specifics from Wrights speech at the NAACP, but, unless I missed it, stayed clear of comments on race. Obama is in a way, side stepping his own words: (From BO's speech on race: www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race- speech-read-t_n_92077.html) And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love. Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias. But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality. The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American. Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. Obama did know this man. And this man knew Obama. Very well. What seems to be rolling out here, is that perhaps Obama is not the man Wright thought he was. Wright, was in effect, betrayed. And Wright wanted to shine a light on that. It was fine when gramma was tossed under the bus, but not so much with Wright and by extention, Trinity Church. I wonder if Wright felt it necessary to speak, in order to keep the flock on message. Going back and re-reading the Race Speech, has me wondering what he was really trying to pull off. And is this latest denunciation convincing? Man, I bet Michelle is ticked.
Then take a nap. You sound like a retard...
Well, I guess this is because I simply did not state it correctly; it would be a disservice to compare There, that should clear up any lingering doubts about what I mean. All of it goes back to the simple equation of permitting yourself to be put in the position where the only choice that you have/accept is to choose the lessor of two evils. Obama -- Clinton, and then later, Clinton -- McCain. Evil is ALWAYS lower than dog poop.
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.
It's not the 20 years of Wright's Liberation Theology, it was the offense of what was said recently, blah blah blah, etc, yayaya...(/eyes rolling)
Just wondering, ping.
The illegal shadow government sure has it down pat though, don't they? I mean, look around...
I think you are correct, but it really does not matter what undos Obama; he was only in this thing from the beginning to let people think/believe that they actually had a choice in who was going to be the next queen. Obama, as I have said from the beginning, is not electable to a national office within the United States. Neither is McCain, and, given a reasonable opposition, neither is the queen, BUT, nothing about this so/called election (farce is a much better and descriptive word to use here) has been reasonable or truthful; it has all been a set-up from the get-go. 8 years ago, with the election of Son-of-a-Bush, I said, in other groups, Hillary is next after the Son-of-a-Bush. I hate being right some times.
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.
You know, you want him to just tackle it honestly, and let the chips fall where they may. Really. Just come out swinging. I know that's risky, and he has come so far.. but, this is not going to go away.
The Big O was set up for the fall back in 2004...at the RAT convention.
And why would you suppose that is so? Would you care to have me find it for you? And besdies which, as I have posted before in a number of 4um posts, EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE HOOVER ARE MASS MURDERERS. There is not a single exception to that. And to follow it up, would you care to engage in a discussion of the School of the Americas, where the CIA taught all of South & Central America about how to terrorize and torture? Or perhaps we should just limit the discussion to the importation of drugs, legal and illegal, under the protection of the DEA, CIA, and the FBI. There are only something on the order of 50 books been written on the subject. Then, of course, we can discuss Major General Smedley Butler and what he revealed about what his carreer consisted of; making the world safe for the multi-nationals. So this part here; to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. Is just as clear to me as can be. Unless, of course, you can specifically point out to me when was the last time that foreign troops, not including those who are here today at the invitation of the US government, invaded America?
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.
This "they're all the same nonsense" grow tiresome. Then take a nap. You sound like a retard... LOL! Sound advice!
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.
Someone around here called it 'kabuki theater'. I have to concur...
Then take a nap. You sound like a retard... LOL! Sound advice! HEHEHEH
You know, I really hope Obama wins. I do. So when Iraq is the same old slaughter house, cruise missles are blasting Tehran, Obama is preaching about how the bombs and sanctions mean we love them, and oil reaches $300 a barrel; they'll crawl into the same hole all the Bushbots have and we'll have some peace and quiet for a while. Until the next media creation "little guy from no where" comes along. Then this whole mess will begin again.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
I can only say I pray you are wrong. Obama may never get the chance to disprove your forecast; even the Bible codes are against it.
“President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years,” “Maybe a hundred ... ... that’d be fine with me,” McCain responds Knock yourself out. It is only 7 pages long!! http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p0/barack-obama/renewing- american-leadership.html Oh, Pissed Off Janitor found it for me, but not to worry, I could have!! Oh, and since this is on the Foreign Affairs site, why is it that you chose to ignore it? Is the truth really that painful?
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.
LOL! You got that right! I opened it and sent him the URL. Bet no more is said. By the way, want to post the entire thing to 4um? You really should. And then link it to this post!! Just for laughs and giggles, of course.
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.
Wow, you're first post in MONTHS that I find remotely interesting !!
Council on Foreign Relations, an anti-American terrorist organization based on American soil.
Many could not understand why Michelle said "for the first time I'm proud to be a American" that had Black nationalism written all over it...
THANKS BUNCHES!!! LOL!!!
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.
YW. What do you make of Bible Code stuff?
I didn't recognize that at all, at the time. I checked out a number of her speeches on YouTube, and she does come across angry at times. Sometimes in word, sometimes in tone... could be suit a particular audience.. In doing a little search this morning on how other religious blogs might be viewing these events, I bumped into this one.. Pretty interesting: Wright stuff: His black church tradition [snip]The question is whether Wright’s voice represents the past, the present or the future. Or, is his voice only one voice that is part of a debate that will continue into the future? The experts agree that “black liberation” theology is important. But that is not the only issue, now. The prevalence of the theology today can’t be easily measured, but traces of the movement can be seen in the style and ministry of many black churches across denominations. Some black church leaders, however, say its relevance is waning. [snip] I don't quite agree with the conclusion of the piece, but it really didn't seem finished anyway. Obama's own words about race is what people want to feel comfortable with. At this point, it feels like he is hiding his true feelings and another agenda. I see he is trying to be as careful as possible so as not to lose supporters hoping he would usher in age of reconciliation. Now, it all seems to be in limbo. I can see how his church may also be questioning who he really is, and what he really believes.
Can't say I'm very motivated. JT posted the entire AIPAC speech twice after I put a link to it in a few of my posts.. The best 4um could do was 3 posts the 2nd time around. The 1st time not a single person posted their thoughts. Besides, it's "old news" and "no longer relevant." Who knew that political writings had experation dates like milk?
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
I don't know. It seems to be totally under the control of the Jews, and that makes it suspect from the get-go. As I understand it, most of it started in work financed by the Rochechilds. That pretty much seals the deal for me. Bascially, I do not pay attention past that point; Rothechilds.
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.
Comments (42 - 75) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIf the 2008 elections put Barack Obama in the White House, the American people will be saddled with a new president who continues the war in Iraq and whose foreign policy does not significantly differ from that of his reviled predecessor.
#2. To: mirage (#1)
So....exactly how long has it been that I've been saying there is no difference between the Three Stooges and none of them should be elected?
#3. To: richard9151 (#0)
#4. To: mirage, richard9151 (#1)
So....exactly how long has it been that I've been saying there is no difference between the Three Stooges and none of them should be elected?
#5. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#3)
Why do threads about Obama's pastor garner 100+ posts but this thread (or the one on his 2007 AIPAC speech) which contain lots of useful and very telling information only get 3 posts?
#6. To: richard9151 (#2)
it would be a disservice to compare him to dog poop, cause he is lower than dog poop
#7. To: richard9151 (#0)
The Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq.
#8. To: Pissed Off Janitor, all (#3)
Why do threads about Obama's pastor garner 100+ posts but this
thread (or the one on his 2007 AIPAC speech) which contain lots of useful and
very telling information only get 3 posts?
#9. To: Jethro Tull, Pissed Off Janitor (#8)
The answer I come away with is that the Os have no desire to read/learn the truth about his political positions. The information in this article has all been brought forward before and either ignored, dismissed or spun. Articles like this are read (look at the number of views) but lack comment because there Os simply cannot defend his position, which happenes to be equally as bad as that of the other two candidates. Also the bozo filter is a friend of theirs and that eliminates other POV altogether. The Os are becoming a small club choosing to filter out valid material and discussion in favor of denying reality.
#10. To: christine (#9)
The Os are becoming a small club choosing to filter out valid material and discussion in favor of denying reality.
#11. To: mirage (#1)
So....exactly how long has it been that I've been saying there is no difference between the Three Stooges and none of them should be elected?
#12. To: angle (#10)
#13. To: Jethro Tull (#8)
The answer I come away with is that the Os have no desire to read/learn the truth about his political positions. The information in this article has all been brought forward before and either ignored, dismissed or spun. Articles like this are read (look at the number of views) but lack comment because there Os simply cannot defend his position, which happenes to be equally as bad as that of the other two candidates. Also the bozo filter is a friend of theirs and that eliminates other POV altogether. The Os are becoming a small club choosing to filter out valid material and discussion in favor of denying reality.
#14. To: richard9151 (#0)
#15. To: richard9151 (#0)
Democrat Barack Obama spells out his foreign policy: “I will not hesitate to use force”
#16. To: Jethro Tull (#8)
The answer I come away with is that the Os have no desire to read/learn the truth about his political positions. The information in this article has all been brought forward before and either ignored, dismissed or spun.
#17. To: robnoel (#14)
#18. To: iconoclast (#15)
This "they're all the same nonsense" grow tiresome.
#19. To: mirage (#6)
Eh, its not necessary to go that far. It is sufficient to just note that he is no different from the others in the race if politeness is a requirement.
him all three of the so-called candidates to dog poop, cause he they are all is lower than dog poop
#20. To: Peppa (#17)
#21. To: All, *Obama Reality Check* (#17)
#22. To: richard9151 (#19)
Evil is ALWAYS lower than dog poop.
#23. To: robnoel (#14)
Personally I think the Rev Wright thing will be Obamas undoing
#24. To: FOH (#20)
It's not the 20 years of Wright's Liberation Theology, it was the offense of what was said recently, blah blah blah, etc, yayaya...(/eyes rolling)
#25. To: Peppa (#24)
#26. To: iconoclast (#15)
The original essay cannot even be obtained on the Foreign Affairs web site for first hand analysis, but they do present this summary:
#27. To: FOH (#18)
#28. To: richard9151 (#23)
Well said.
#29. To: richard9151 (#27)
This "they're all the same nonsense" grow tiresome.
#30. To: richard9151 (#26)
And why would you suppose that is so? Would you care to have me find it for you?
#31. To: Pissed Off Janitor, Itisa1mosttoolate (#30)
Hillary: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
#32. To: iconoclast (#15)
The original essay cannot even be obtained on the Foreign Affairs web site for first hand analysis, but they do present this summary:
#33. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#30)
His google-fu is weak.
#34. To: robin (#31)
the Bible codes are against it.
#35. To: richard9151 (#32)
Oh, and since this is on the Foreign Affairs site, why is it that you chose to ignore it? Is the truth really that painful?
#36. To: Peppa (#17)
#37. To: FOH (#34)
Wow, you're first post in MONTHS that I find remotely interesting !!
#38. To: richard9151 (#37)
THANKS BUNCHES!!! LOL!!!
#39. To: robnoel (#36)
Many could not understand why Michelle said "for the first time I'm proud to be a American" that had Black nationalism written all over it...
#40. To: richard9151 (#33)
By the way, want to post the entire thing to 4um? You really should. And then link it to this post!! Just for laughs and giggles, of course.
#41. To: FOH (#38)
What do you make of Bible Code stuff?
.
.
.