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: 813
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
Comments (1-35) not displayed.
.
.
.
#36. To: Peppa (#17)
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.
Bitter Clinger Marxist Establishment Xenophobic bump
Hey, when stuff turns sour in your mouth....... Which brings up the real problem with people who will not accept that what they 'believe' is really not important, only the truth is. Course, when the truth flys in the face of what they WANT to beleive.... Well, you understand. But go ahead, post it! What the hey; it will be a good resource to kick the Obama crowd with!
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.
He can babble all he wants, he isn't going to be President. People aren't going to vote for some elitist liberal black guy, even if he is half white.
The antiwar movement supports Obama, to Hillary's displeasure. The swiftboating of Obama is testimony to his not being establishment enough. Since he wishes to be Commander in Chief, he must be cognizant of our military capabilities and speak about them.
“President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years,” “Maybe a hundred ... ... that’d be fine with me,” McCain responds It's a risk he needs to take. People are wanting some leadership position. Like I said, let's talk about who "The Oppressors" really are. But Obaba ain't gonna give 'em more than "hope".
It's a dirty job but somebody better do it.
It's not about invasion .... the fear, fear, fear Bush BS notwithstanding. It's all about oil/energy and that's not gonna change for a while. The Iraq debacle could have paid for a lot of fusion research, but oh well. Obama's position on this is not as strong on this as RP's but at least he's on the right side of it. IMHO we should dump NASA and go full speed ahead on fusion. But this critical issue has been submerged along with others during this circus.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Sure does and much thanks!
Elect anyone but Obama, Clinton, or McCain.
If we can't get past bald-faced lies like how can rational dialogue occur?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
They will if they think they are elitist liberals themselves and there are plenty of people out there who think they fall into that category. Ran into one of those over the weekend out with friends discussing the whole election BS over the weekend - a person who wished to join the conversation. Said person did not like the response of "Give me a Kennedy Democrat or a Goldwater Republican, not a Socialist, a Marxist, or a 21st Century Democrat." Said person also did not have a response to "Voting the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, so who are the Libertarians running?"
Elect anyone but Obama, Clinton, or McCain.
Found it myself, y'all are worrying too much about me, but thanks anyway.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
By all means, post it.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
bttt
Keep in mind, robin, that this tribe is not voting or voting for James Madison or whoever. They prefer to set on their asses and let a second helping of Bush be served. But then they can say "well, don't blame me I didn't vote for McHill".
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
I've posted his foreign policy position from credible sources. They aren't lies. I'm not about to repeat them, but it's enough to say he has plans to continue fighting terrorism in the Middle East for perhaps another 100 years. Same as McCain, same as Hillary, same as Bush. He's nothing more than a darker colored neocon, beholden to both Israel and Black Liberation Theology.
Oh, it is not a worry; it is all about education, of everyone. I often wonder, when I meet up with others such as yourself, as to what part of; no matter who gets elected, nothing changes you do not get? Why is it, that in election after election, you can find someone who is 'the lessor of two evils' to support? Why is it that participation in 'their' system is so important to you? What part of democracy, as opposed to republic, do you not understand?! I 'got it' when I was 25 years old! So, what's the problem?
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.
Obama must have had a meeting with his CFR advisors and enablers. They told him "Look Barack, if you're really serious about making it into the general elections, you'd better drop that anti-war rhetoric. It was fine for the primaries, but now we need to get down to business."
I believe you're first person I've ever heard boast of his arrested development.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
You're right, let's do talk about who the oppressors are.
Good links at the site. Jacob Rothschild: Born in 1936 in England. After gaining prominence in the family bank, NM Rothschild and Sons in London, he established in 1988, the Rothschild Investment Trust, now known as RIT Capital Partners Here which holds controlling investment interest in Royal Dutch Shell Oil. ~ Jacob Rothschild is the Chairman of Yad Hanadiv, a Zionist Charity of the Rothschilds’, which gave to Israel the Knesset & the Israeli Supreme Court. Nathaniel Rothschild: Born in 1971 in England. He is Jacob Rothschild’s son & heir apparent. He began his career in 1994 at the Rothschilds’ Jewish sister bank, Lazard Brothers in London. ~ Currently, Nathaniel Rothschild is an executive (what else would he be?) with Gleacher Partners, a New York-based mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advisory firm founded by Eric Gleacher, former head of M&A at another Jewish sister bank of the Rothschilds,’ Lehman Brothers. ~ It should be noted that both Lazard Brothers & Lehman Brothers hold shares along with the principal share holder, NM Rothschild & Son, in the privately- held Jewish bank known as the Federal Reserve System of America. Evelyn Rothschild: Born in 1931 in France. He began his career as Director of the Paris-based De Rothschild Frères Bank. Between 1976 & 1982 he became Chairman of NM Rothschild & Sons in England & Rothschild Bank in Zurich. He is also honorary director of De Beers Consolidated Mines & IBM United Kingdom Holdings Limited. ~ Evelyn Rothschild is a man of many propaganda-hats. He has served in Directorships of the internationally renown, The Economist, and newspapers owned by Lord Beaverbrook, which included the London Evening Standard & the Daily Express. He has also served as Director of Lord Black’s Daily Telegraph. David René Rothschild: Born in 1942 in NYC. He is currently the Senior Partner of Rothschild & Cie Banque of Franc. He took over the Chairmanship of NM Rothschild & Sons of London upon the “retirement” of Evelyn Rothschild in 2003. Benjamin Rothschild: Born in 1963 in France. He succeeded his father, Edmound de Rothschild, as Chairman of the LCF Rothschild Group in France. The LCF Rothschild Group, centered in Paris with a branch in Tel Aviv, has a global network of financial institutions with assets over €100 billion.
At issue is a fundraising luncheon held in March at London's Spencer House, during McCain's swing through the United Kingdom. An invitation to the event lists Lord Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild as hosts, and indicates the event was made possible with their "kind permission".
www.marketoracle.co.uk/Art icle4486.html ..."The agency doesn't believe financial investors are driving up grain prices"?!? Prices have doubled, people are starving, and the Bush troop is still parroting the same worn party-mantra. Its maddening. The US has been gaming the system for decades; sucking up two-thirds of the world's capital to expand its cache of Cadillac Escalades and flat-screen TVs; giving nothing back in return except mortgage-backed junk, cluster bombs, and crummy green paper. Nothing changes; it only gets worse. But this is different. The world is now facing the very real prospect of "completely avoidable" famine because twelve doddering old banksters at the Federal Reserve would rather bailout their sketchy friends and preserve their spot at the top of the economic food-chain then save the lives of starving women and children. Bernanke now has an opportunity to do more damage than Bush with one swipe of the pen. If he cut rates; the dollar will fall, commodities will spike, and people will starve. It's as simple as that.
Interesting site. I wondered what happened to bn. Lots of reading to do there.
ha! perfect. you do have a way of cutting to the chase.
Well, this is another reason why I think McCain is the selection. We'll need to watch who is VP choice will be. I've had a stinking suspicion Jeb could pop from nowhere. A little O/T but Pelosi is pulling some creative projects out of her hat recently, and it's caused me to consider the structure of Congress. It would not surprise me if they are preparing to breakforth with a whole new one. Didn't something similar just happen in the UK? Lastly, I thought last night, if McCain should win... would the 'other party' get mad enough to 'do something', or just go along as usual. Perhaps that would finally show the people, it's just a puppet show. If that's what it takes to wake people up, fine. The partisans aren't going anywhere.
I think Jeb would be the kiss of death. Lieberman seems the likely choice.
Please elaborate...I'll check back later.
I would think so, but this is puppetry. I don't discount liberman at all. I just don't see a bi-party ticket... There is another shell game afoot. What we think we are seeing, and will wind up with, I think in reality, will be different. Exception of Bush/Clinton holding the throne at the end of the round. You have McCain who is ill. Romney who only suspended his campaign. Huck is riding shotgun with McCain. LIberman is his travel buddy. The polls have got to be a total fraud, as no one but for the 17% that still think Bush is fine, would probably vote for him.. exception, anti-Obama voters. Add in the stories coming from the RP delegates and the shenanigans of the RNC. I think the polls are equally unreliable on the HIllary Obama side. I think had Obama been properly vetted, he wouldn't be in the running, and zillions more reasons, but the fact is the numbers are with Obama, and the Clintons are in a corner. So are the Super-D's. They have to give it to Obama. No matter what happens in this next week, two clinton wins in a row, the superD's are dealing with the public perception that Obama won it going away long ago... and again, no matter what happens, the party will not survive another self- inflicted wound. So, if they choose Clinton/Obama to go head to head with the cryptkeeper, they risk losing a chunk of their support for playing the nasty in the smoke filled room. So, both sides are hobbled going into the General. Great great puppet show so far, so who will win.... With a bunch of ships in the Persian Gulf, I have to stop and say, hmmm... does this look like another Pearl Harbor picture? I know, wild scenario.. we can only watch.
This is not the original article I found, but for your consideration...... The other article discussed the separation of funding bills that would fall outside review and go straight to the floor for a vote. !! I'll try to dig that up. ===================================== Pelosi plots three-step Iraq dance www.politico.com/news /stories/0408/9848.html House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is rapidly pulling together a carefully orchestrated plan for what looks to be the last Iraq war supplemental before November’s election: Let Democrats take separate, conscience-clearing votes on troop withdrawal timelines and economic stimulus proposals, then negotiate a deal with the Senate and the White House that would combine money for the war with some modest domestic spending. The complicated choreography — sketched out by lawmakers and congressional aides involved in the ongoing discussions — could involve a dance around a veto; White House Budget Director Jim Nussle warned again Wednesday that the president will veto any bill that exceeds his $108 billion request. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are thinking through their moves in a series of behind-the-scenes meetings this week. Their goals: maximize the political impact of votes, paint the White House and the Republicans as intransigent on the war and the economy, but still provide funding for the troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Lawmakers and aides in both chambers caution that nothing is settled and there is still vigorous debate within the Democratic Caucus about how to proceed. But Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said that Democrats understand that the supplemental may provide their best, last chance for accomplishing anything on economic issues. “This may be the only legislation that has sufficient leverage,” he said. “This is the last defining bill.” All the Democratic hand-wringing amuses Republicans, who say they have just one goal in what amounts to the final substantive congressional debate on the war this year: “No pork, no surrender,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). That may be an oversimplification: Like Democrats, Republican members are aware of the need to appear sensitive to voters’ economic woes heading into November. But there’s no doubt that Pelosi has a twisting trail to walk. The speaker, who has met previously with moderate Blue Dogs to gauge their support for the war spending bill, met Wednesday with the top House members from the Out of Iraq Caucus — California Democrats Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters. They took to Pelosi a demand that votes on war funding and domestic spending be kept separate, Lee said, so that “people don’t have to choose between food stamps and accepting the occupation of Iraq.” “The speaker has to balance all the Blue Dogs, the progressives, the liberals — that’s their priority,” said Waters, a founder of the 72-member Out of Iraq Caucus. “I just don’t want the stimulus to be tied to the supplemental.” Leaders of the anti-war movement are also accepting that their best hope is a symbolic vote. “We’re advocating putting as many of the provisions in the first round” of the legislation, said John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World, which is part of a larger anti-war coalition led by MoveOn.org. “We recognize that ultimately the wars are going to be funded, … that some type of supplemental will be passed.” That sort of reality check — from some of the most aggressive anti-war voices — allows Pelosi the freedom to go through the process of trying to extract other promises on domestic spending and economic stimulus, whether it’s an extension of the unemployment benefits, infrastructure spending or an extension of clean energy tax incentives that are set to expire. The White House said domestic spending needs should not be addressed in the war supplemental but instead in the regular appropriations process. “The President made clear he will veto a war supp that does not meet the needs of our troops, ties the hands of military commanders and exceeds the $108.1 billion request,” said Corinne Hirsch, a spokeswoman for the White House Office of Management and Budget. Clarification: An earlier version of this story quoted OMB spokesman Corinne Hirsch as saying that additional domestic spending in the supplemental is “negotiable” so long as Congress works “within the $108 [billion] cap and the troops get their money.” Hirsch says she did not use the word “negotiable” and that the White House would prefer to see any additional domestic spending addressed in regular appropriations bills. Ryan Grim contributed to this story.
If that's what it takes to wake people up, fine. The partisans aren't going anywhere. yes! totally reminds me of the consternation (to put it mildly) we all felt with clinton et al and back then the hope a lot of us then republicans had for bush cleaning things up. instead, as we know, he simply swept all the clinton dirt under the rug. that's when i GOT it.
no so wild a scenario, imo.
Well, you got before I did... LOL! Going into 2004 it was a vote against Kerry. When he said we should only die for the UN flag, that did it. He loved all things Global this and that plus his wife was an abomination. Then, when dems swept in to power in '06, it was the last gasp of hope that they might be different.
:/ Not to sound dramatic, but it's felt like 'one second to midnight' for a long time.
Yeah, I didn't get it until mid 1992 wmd, colin powell, iraqis, bin laden, mutterings about 911 inside. We were had.
#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?
#42. To: Peppa (#39)
#43. To: richard9151 (#41)
Red Shield bump
#44. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#40)
Besides, it's "old news" and "no longer relevant." Who knew that political writings had experation dates like milk?
#45. To: richard9151 (#0)
#46. To: richard9151 (#0)
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.
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."
#47. To: Peppa (#24)
I know that's risky, and he has come so far.. but, this is not going to go away.
#48. To: richard9151 (#26)
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?
#49. To: richard9151 (#19)
There, that should clear up any lingering doubts about what I mean.
#50. To: Jethro Tull (#8)
Os simply cannot defend his (ME) position, which happenes to be equally as bad as that of the other two candidates.
#51. To: Turtle (#45)
People aren't going to vote for some elitist liberal black guy, even if he is half white.
#52. To: richard9151 (#32)
Oh, Pissed Off Janitor found it for me, but not to worry, I could have!!
#53. 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.
#54. To: mirage (#51)
#55. To: robin (#46)
The antiwar movement supports Obama, to Hillary's displeasure. The swiftboating of Obama is testimony to his not being establishment enough.
#56. To: iconoclast (#50)
If we can't get past bald-faced lies like how can rational dialogue occur?
#57. To: iconoclast (#52)
Found it myself, y'all are worrying too much about me, but thanks anyway.
#58. To: richard9151 (#0)
#59. To: richard9151 (#57)
I 'got it' when I was 25 years old! So, what's the problem?
#60. To: angle (#47)
I know that's risky, and he has come so far.. but, this is not going to go away. It's a risk he needs to take. People are wanting some leadership position. Like I said, let's talk about who "The Oppressors" really are. But Obaba ain't gonna give 'em more than "hope".
#61. To: Peppa (#60)
How The Rothschild Dynasty Operates
#62. To: All (#61)
McCain accused of accepting improper donations from Rothschilds
#63. To: All (#61)
In a nutshell, the FED is the key.
#64. To: angle (#61)
#65. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#40)
Besides, it's "old news" and "no longer relevant." Who knew that political writings had expiration dates like milk?
#66. To: angle (#62)
At issue is a fundraising luncheon held in March at London's Spencer House, during McCain's swing through the United Kingdom. An invitation to the event lists Lord Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild as hosts, and indicates the event was made possible with their "kind permission".
#67. To: Peppa (#66)
I've had a stinking suspicion Jeb could pop from nowhere.
#68. To: Peppa (#66)
It would not surprise me if they are preparing to breakforth with a whole new one.
#69. To: angle (#67)
I think Jeb would be the kiss of death. Lieberman seems the likely choice.
#70. To: angle (#68)
Please elaborate...I'll check back later.
#71. To: Peppa (#66)
Lastly, I thought last night, if McCain should win... would the 'other party' get mad enough to 'do something', or just go along as usual. Perhaps that would finally show the people, it's just a puppet show.
#72. To: Peppa (#69)
#73. To: christine (#71)
yes! totally reminds me of the consternation (to put it mildly) we all felt with clinton et al and back then the hope a lot of us then republicans had for bush cleaning things up. instead, as we know, he simply swept all the clinton dirt under the rug. that's when i GOT it.
#74. To: christine (#72)
no so wild a scenario, imo.
#75. To: christine (#71)
that's when i GOT it.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest