Obama begins 5-nation tour next week

In an effort to quell the foreign policy experience critics who’ve been hammering his campaign for months, Barack Obama has planned a 5-nation tour with visits to the Middle East and Europe. Of course, there will be a close eye on his visit to Iraq on which his position has seemed to waver in the past few weeks concerning the effectiveness of the surge and when troops should be withdrawn.

Story from USAToday:

WASHINGTON — For Barack Obama, the road to the White House is about to take a 12,000-mile detour.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee will try to boost his résumé next week with a five-country European and Middle East tour that threatens to turn into Obamapalooza.

In contrast to the low-key coverage of Republican John McCain’s European and Middle East trip in March, Obama will be accompanied by a campaign plane of reporters and trailed by three network broadcast anchors. McCain got some headlines, but did not have a traveling press corps.

Obama is “going to be a rock star,” said James Thurber, an American University political scientist who recently taught a course in Brussels. “Expectations are high,” agreed Christian Hacke, a retired professor of foreign policy at the University of Bonn. “I think too high.”

Obama lived in Indonesia as a child but lacks the foreign policy experience of McCain, a Navy veteran and the top-ranking GOP member of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee.

Another report from USAToday on the major broadcast networks sending their anchors for exclusive interviews with Obama during the trip:

The three traditional TV networks will be sending their evening news anchors overseas to interview Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama when the senator takes his much-anticipated trip through the Middle East, central Asia and Europe later this month, The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz is reporting.

“That means the NBC, ABC and CBS newscasts will originate from stops on the trip and undoubtedly play it up,” Kurtz says. Obama’s stops are expected to include Afghanistan and Iraq, though his schedule has not been made public.

The senator has been to Iraq once, in 2006, and has not visited Afghanistan.

The networks’ decisions stand in contrast to the treatment they gave Republican hopeful John McCain’s trip last week to Colombia and Mexico, and his trip earlier this year to Israel and Europe. The anchors did not link up with him during those excursions.

There was little ado about McCain’s trip with Lieberman a few months back yet Obama will receive the “rock star” treatment from the press. However, McCain has visited Iraq several times so this will be bigger news as Obama has not been to the country since 2006.

  • Babs

    The MSM has become so transparent in their preference to Obama that I don’t even watch them anymore, and I used to really be a fan of Brian Williams. Oh well, whatever leg tingling news they deliver from abroad won’t reach me anymore. I have to get my news from online newspapers and youdecide2008.com. 😉

  • nzpudding

    Fox should send Bill O’Reilly along for the trip, but I doubt Obama’s people would want a no-spin interviewer there.

  • IndiMinded

    Obama’s going mid-campaign season after his rival suggested he make such a trip. It’s bound to attract more attention than McCain’s did, back when the press was still more focused on the resolution of the primaries. I’m pretty sure if he made a 5-country tour right now it would get a good deal of press – perhaps not as much as this though.

    This is, after all, sort of Obama’s introduction to the international stage. McCain is almost certainly more familiar with some international major players who have never met, and only recently heard, of Obama.

    However the press reacts to it, isn’t it obvious that in some ways this stands to be a more noteworthy trip than McCain’s? He’s severely lacking in international experience, and he’s cramming as much as he can into this trip. McCain’s trip, well he was in his element, and it was sort of business as usual.

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Of course it will atract more press. ITS BARACK OBAMA! the press love him, and it will be all over the news, while John McCain made his last visit, it was as if no one cared he was even there.

    What is wrong with business as usual, on such a big issue like foreign policy? I would rather have someone who has been there a lot and is the usual for them.

    Obama goes wherever the polls and issues go. The main reason he turned down McCain’s offer of going together was in my opinion because McCain would look like commander in chief while Obama would look like a meaningless bystander.

  • Grey

    I don’t get how people conclude that the media are biased for Barack, especially with the material Fox News comes up with.

    And the idea of taking a trip for some kind of international street cred seems pointless to me. Is talking to a few dozen individuals around the world supposed to somehow make him a better candidate for the presidency? This trip is nothing but a weak attempt to convince us that he isn’t lacking in awareness when it comes to international relations.

    It’s sad to note, however, that this is indicative more of a lack of discernment on the part of the American people than it is of Barack’s showmanship. In reality, there’s no tangible foundation for the belief that Barack is more inexperienced and weaker on an international scale- if anything, international opinions of Barack are leagues higher than they are of McCain. These weaknesses of Obama are all visceral in nature. However, it’s because that a majority of the nation believes him to be inexperienced that he has to showboat around like this.

    It’s sad that Barack is once again pandering to popular opinion and even more sad that popular opinion is so misguided.

  • Wouldn’t it been nice to see Obama pick up a gun and defend his country well the rock star makes the rounds. To bad Michelle’s not going to tag along, especially since the New Yorker portrays her as a gun totin’ mama. On the other hand he may grow a pair if he has the privilege of being shot at by terrorist. However, that said they(the terrorist) may think he’s one of them.

  • Babs

    Grey, Fox is the only network that will report the negative about Obama as well as the positive, and that is changing as well. Shep Smith is definitely an Obama fan, along with most of the young reporters in the afternoon – obviously so, 50% by poll Maybe even worse than Colmes, and I think he has a serious crush on Obama – really. The other three major networks have lost their minds over him, and that’s not just my opinion. It’s being well touted that never before has the MSM been so biased in their news reporting as they have been in favor of Obama.

    Indi, come on now. You can whitewash the difference in the two candidates overseas trips, but that won’t change the facts. Sending reporters with Obama would be a natural assumption, sending the big anchors is way over the top. And McCain’s trip really wasn’t business as usual, because THIS time he made those rounds as a candidate for the Presidency. You do make the point well, though, that Obama’s trip is different in that he’s never been and for McCain it’s an easy fit from years of interacting with these countries leaders already. In fact, you could almost sound like a McCain supporter in your argument. 😉

    I’m glad Obama is taking this trip – I just hope he doesn’t tell anyone over there we have 57 states, or quote any of his wife’s gaffes. It could be the Dixie Chicks revived.

  • Erwin

    McCain has been criticizing Obama’s “war sense” if you will or lack of to be more precise. Now there is talk about sending troops to the forgotten war, which has a higher death toll than Iraq. Obama has been singing that song for a while now, longer and louder than anyone else at that. I haven’t seen anyone give him credit for that call though.

  • Todd

    Erwin, I would imagine that Obama dosen’t get credit for his
    Afghanistan policy because it was based on sending “available” troops which came out of Iraq. In other words he made the increase in one war contingent on a decrease in the other. He also spoke against the Iraq war as a war that was costing to many American lives, now he wants to increase our presence in Afghanistan, recently the more dangerous place for our troops out of the two. Seems to me he now has minimized the weight he once gave to the danger factor for our troops.

    I will say this, I hope he is given the in depth tour instead of the “VIP” tour. He needs to see the viciousness of our enemy as compared to the attempt at war we employ. Maybe then it would be clear to him which side is the good side and which side is causing the deaths.

    As for you guys who try to ignore the obvious bias in the media. NBC, ABC, CBS blatantly liberal FOX blatantly conservative—FOX easily has higher viewership, where’s your argument ?

  • Babs

    I agree, Todd, about the media bias. That’s why I’ve stopped watching the major networks.

    As to Obama’s foreign policies on Iraq, here’s a new video that contains nothing but Obama’s shifts to and fro on the subject in his own words via video. I usually try not to list biased links, but the RNC did this video (almost 8 minutes long) and included the written transcript of all of Obama’s words. I have felt like he’s flip flipped a bit, but in all honesty after seeing the whole collection of his “stances” at one time, I was left even more confused by the man himself as to where his head is concerning Iraq.

    http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=776660df-fe2b-47c1-9171-5ad798112196

  • Grey

    In truth, I have no respect for fox news at all. Equating a fist bump to a terrorist fist jab? From any perspective, that’s just bad news. I remember this one time last year when there were wildfires throughout the San Diego area, and fox news had the audacity to suggest that Al Qaeda might have been involved. I don’t care how pro-Obama the other news networks are- fox news in and of itself is pathetic.

    That’s assuming that networks do have such bias- I remember vividly that all networks held an Obama roast during the Pennsylvania gaffe and the Jeremiah Wright controversy.

  • Todd

    Grey,

    I have absolutley no problem with what you said. If you feel that one network is worse or better than the other or if you get your news somewhere else that’s fine. The problem I have starts when folks try to say Fox is somehow alone in the “news” world when it comes to being bias. For every Fox story we can give 3 liberal slants to the same issue simply because the other networks are liberal (ABC, NBC & CBS) To only point out Fox is to ignore the trash feed to us everyday by the other media outlets who are by far center left or left. Fact is fact if CBS, NBC & ABC are slanted liberal and Fox is conservative then there is a 75% chance your news will be from a liberal viewpoint if you get it on TV. We didn’t even go into the papers.

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    But there is a difference from having a “slant” and all out LYING.
    I don’t see anything wrong with any of the networks having a slant. But if they are fabricating Lies or creating rumors themselves this is what separates having a slant and actually creating propaganda.
    There is a difference between Fox style and the other networks style. I mean even some of Fox own news anchors have complained about Fox.
    I mean as far as media if you are liberal good luck trying to get talk radio across the country. If we all provided evidence of lies or propaganda i bet you a mountain of info from fox can probably be presented in comparison to what can be provided from several of the other networks.

  • Dreadsen

    Let me also add maybe i need to watch some of the other networks to have a more balanced view because I watch fox almost all the time! So if there is an equal amount of Lying and propaganda being spread on the other networks let me know. But listening to Rush Limbaugh and Savage and reading Rush’s website as aggressive as they are to point out inaccuracies if there was a lot of all out laying or propaganda they would point it out each and every single time in full details.

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Msnbc, abc, cbs =liberal
    fox=conservative

    Fox is the more balanced of all the major stations.

    Why do you think they are the most watched out of the major stations.

  • nzpudding

    OBAMA_SUCKS:
    If Obama goes wherever the polls and issues go is true, then why hasn’t Baracks positions for offshore drilling, drilling in ANWAR and nuclear energy shifted?

    Grey:
    The TV media are mostly biased towards Obama but the radio talkshows aren’t, so it’s swings and roundabouts really on the whole ‘media’ spectrum. OS could quite easily add CNN and NBC to the list of being liberal and biased towards Obama.

    Maybe if Obama got captured whilst on his little trip and was held a POW for a period of time, perhaps that would qualify him enough to run for President…LOL

  • Drew

    I have a question for everyone—if Fox News is so fair and balanced why did they not show (and delete it from the transcript) John McCain in a recent interview saying..well heres the video…
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=_amh5NP0pVY&feature=related

  • Todd

    Give it time guys,

    Saw on several networks thursday I believe, that Harry Reid and I believe it was Dick Durben are reconsidering the positins they have on offshore drilling, may be considering allowing “some” in certain here to for protected areas. If the leading congressional Dems accept it Obama will not be far behind

  • Rayven

    offshore drilling would be stupid. why don’t the oil co. buy the land with those record breaking profits instead of them giving them it.we will not see benefit of the drill ,the oil co. will. there by only benefiting the oil co. not us the people.

    and fox is a load of crap that broadcast gossip,but I don’t expect you to see that. balanced bullcrap gossip , over stimulation,& over reaction. All aimed at giving you the wrong impression.

    load of crap.

  • Dreadsen

    omg

    “Why do you think they are the most watched out of the major stations.”

    Using that Logic since Obama pulls a bigger audience than Mccain……….

    All because Fox Claims they are the most balanced doesn’t mean that they are.
    They are far from being balanced.
    Have any of the other Networks as a WHOLE completely lied about
    anything? I’m not talking about one commentator I mean several of them in a joint venture attempt to spread a lie?

    Look at this remember the Move on dot org ad against Gen. Petreaus? Obama voted in favor of a bill which would condemn attacks on any active Military personnel? But TWO different programs on Fox claim that he did not.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=_6BbYzKGpUc

    Or you know how bad you have to be when one of your own ACTIVE journalist Chris Wallace blasts you on your own network about excessive Obama bashing and taking things out of context for almost 2 hours! This is a morning show with THREE people who are very unbalanced. Not like Hannity and Colmes but now Hannity has his OWN SHOW on Fox to help unbalance what every balance Colmes tries to ad.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=MiIK8jh3ZCE

    Now CNN wasn’t so Liberal when the war was a big deal were they? They were so pro war and being that war was the Republican agenda that doesn’t meant that they were a Republican network. Msnbc was pro war too. That is how Bill Press and Pat Buchanan lost their show. You had a Liberal and a Conservative both anti war. So they got canned.

    Hey and I like how “Liberal” Msnbc is right here in this video. Where they put Rachael Maddow on a pannel with 4 Republicans lol! Then Joe wants to make a vote and thinks it is legit because it is a 4 to 1 vote lol!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=9UiF6xvKYBo

    Glen Beck is aggressive he is a Conservative on CNN

    Joe Scarborough is aggressive he is a Conservative on MSNBC

    Does Fox have an equivalent of this on their channel? The closest they have is Alan Colmes but he doesn’t have his own show.

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    To say offshore drilling would be stupid Rayven just makes me think you are stupid.

  • Rayven

    How is drilling off shore gonna fix anything? they have played this game before, and we did not win. drilling will not be a benefit to us,we will still be hooked on oil.And pandering to the oil co. isn’t gonna help either.It would only make more problems.

  • Babs

    Dreadsen, on the bill concerning moveon.org’s ad, Obama did a “not voting”, he refused to vote. It’s a big talking point for the RNC and I’ve seen the voting record. He really did refuse to vote.

  • IndiMinded

    Hey Babs,
    it’s a boone to McCain that his trip could be perceived as business as usual – it’s unnerving that a presidential candidate should be coming in so new to the political landscape, and nowhere is that more apparent than on the international front. That’s part of what makes Obama’s trip big news. If he were well experienced, he would never be making this trip.

    It’s why I’ve always hoped that Obama will grab Biden up for something big in his administration, because I think Biden knows his stuff better than anyone. At any rate, you know I’ve got nothing against John McCain. Although admittedly it’s been getting more difficult to like either one of them these days…

    But look, my understanding is that McCain didn’t even invite the press corps when he went over, so it’s kind of silly to be upset that they didn’t show up at his jet, ready to go. Obviously the networks are going over the top with Obama’s trip though. I get the impression that they’re getting desperate for some big election news as of late. Inflammatory political parody just doesn’t hold audiences.

    On a side note, if you think CNN is all liberal, Obama-supporting bias, you should watch Glenn Beck some time. But of course Chris is right, the news networks don’t really offer journalism anymore, but commentary on current events. That’s probably why people keep accusing Jon Stewart of being a real newscaster (and why he has to keep denying it), because his job is sort of what ‘real newscasters’ are doing these days.

  • Dreadsen

    Babs

    But they omit the fact that he voted on Boxers resolution which covers ANYONE only a half an hour before the specific Petreaus one.

    Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2947 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
    Statement of Purpose: To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

    http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00343

    go to the link you will see Obama voted for this and McCain did not. This amendment doesn’t just cover specifically General Petreaus but it condemns ALL ATTACKS ON ALL MILITARY FIGURES. In the video it is talking about Boxers amendment which is the same thing. Boxers amendment was at 11:58 am the other Amendment was at 12:36. Now he also canceled a town hall meeting in S.C. at noon to be there for those votes but he had another Town Hall event in Atlanta later on that afternoon. It is possible that there as a scheduling conflict. But the talking point should be why did he vote for one amendment which condemns all attacks but did not stay to vote for the one which specifically focuses on Petreaus. Could be a waste of time. But all of this Information is suppressed when talking about this. They only talk about the 12:36pm amendment but they don’t talk about the one he voted for at 11:58am the one McCain voted against. Hillary voted for the first one but against the 2nd one. Should he cancel a 2nd town hall event to vote for something in the 2nd amendment which is also covered in 1st amendment?

    Here is the 2nd one look at the time and the description.

    http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344

    Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2934 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
    Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

    Looking at his schedule he could have played it safe by not voting on anything that day. Hell the senators running for president miss lots of votes. But they do try to get in on the important ones. There were some Iraq votes earlier that day. But again deception by omission.

    Anyone who voted for either one of those amendments should be attacked for supporting an amendment which violates Freedom of Speech.

  • Babs

    I agree with you, IndiMinded. Funny thing happened today, NBC picked up on the news bias claim along with CBS and presented defenses for themselves. NBC was bold enough to hold an open poll on the subject. I don’t they’ll like the results:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25785762/

    Even the options are skewed, take a look at them.

    Out of over 13,000 voters so far:

    1)Yes, the media has a liberal bias…is now 79%
    2)No, media coverage is based on newsworthines…is now 14%
    3)Sometimes, but it’s a long campaign…is 6.6%

    Think they’ll put the results on the evening news? Sometimes you shouldn’t ask questions when you really don’t want to know the answer. 😉

  • Dreadsen

    Rayven and O.S.

    They are already drilling Off shore and Inland.
    In the Alaskan North Slope they have been drilling Oil there and all of it from B.P. Amoco is being exported to China, Japan and Korea. It’s only a half million barrels a day.
    I know one of the talking points is Congress is blocking drilling. When there are 23 million acres of the 91 million acres of land they lease currently being drilled and producing about 1.6 million barrels a day. The remaining 68 million acres DOES CONTAIN OIL.
    The block was for the ADDITIONAL leases of land to oil companies for drilling.
    They want additional land plus the 68 million acres of land they already have which they are more then welcome to legally drill.
    But their argument is that the other 68 million acres of land is not as cost effective to extract oil out of as the current 23 million of acres they are currently using.
    They want the ban of more leases to be lifted so they can get Millions of more “cost effective” land. I forgot how much of it is offshore land as well. I think it’s 30 million acres or something like that. But that land allegedly would cost to much as well. So they need goo gobs of more land.
    So the oil companies with all the money and profits they are making actually want us to give them very easy and cheap land to extract oil from that is more cost productive.
    Which could be true being that China is drilling off the shore of Florida when they have all the land off shore of China they could be drilling from. The offshore land of Florida is probably more cost effective than their own land in China. So I can buy into this argument.
    But can we trust Big oil to drill on this land just like up in Alaskan northern slope and sell it to everyone but us?
    Can we trust them to do this and keep the prices down to a cost as low as what they pay in Brazil and Argentina?
    The big question do we trust our Oil companies?

    Here is info on the Alaskan Oil exports

    http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/natural/nrgen-25.cfm

    And here is Giulani and Sean Hannity claiming that Obama and other democrats have BANNED drilling and Alan Colmes calls him out and presents the evidence.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=8HQMOL7Jwqc

    So both the republicans and democrats are omitting info on this argument.

  • Todd

    Dresden,

    where do I start ?

    I will take your last post first; China may or may not be drilling off the Florida coast, you got me there–The point is-AMERICAN companies are prevented by law from drilling in the protected areas along our coast. I do agree with you that obtaining more oil will cause the problem to be repeated. I appreciate your agreeing with me on the drilling issue. The problem would be repeated because more drilling would mean more oil in the system which means THE PRICE WOULD FALL (not yelling just pointing out). After the price fell the American people would get complacent once again and in 5 years we would have $5 gas. Liberals would try and convince everyone that the law of supply and demand has been repealed and that it’s just the big bad oil companies screwing us.

    Now don’t get me wrong, I am not for big oil and actually I am more liberal on the issue of oil because I believe we are messing up the very planet that common since would tell us we need to take care of. But we have to have oil in the near term. If we would get together and demand congress and the president give subsidies to alternative energy projects while we did what we could to lower the price of oil-now, we could kill two birds with one stone. I bet you drove to work or rode in a gas powered vehicle today, so why does it make since to rail against more oil so you can pay for your dinner tonight ?

    Secondly, Can you not see that Obama has done exactly what you are saying he doesn’t do ? He votes for the money to fund war, votes to condemn attacks on troops and yells for about the need for MORE troops in Afghanistan all while convincing dems that he is not responsible for war. I am sure the troops would love the fact that Obama and McCain condemn those who hurt them but Obama has been allowed to play both sides all while telling you he isn’t. How can he be against war but steadfastly vote for the war machine and yell for more troops in Afghanistan ? I truly do not understand this

  • IndiMinded

    As to your last point Todd, I’d just like to say that I think your condemnation of Obama on the issue of funding the war is that of a conservative who believes the war should be continued and above all that the troops should be supported – but expects certain things from the opposite side of the isle.

    Obama, like many democrats, has voted to continue funding this war because if he votes against funding the war while our soldiers are remaining in the field, he is leaving our soldiers there without the support they need and deserve from our government. To a certain degree, continuing this war is an all-or-nothing deal. When we bring them home, then we can support our troops here. But so long as bringing them home is not an option, it would be downright immoral and absolutely unamerican to cut off the funding of the supplies they need to do their job.

    Since you agree with funding the war, Todd, I assume I’m sort of preaching to the choir here so far as supporting the troops goes. Just realize that everyone’s pretty much on the same page so far as that goes. Anti-war does not mean anti-troop. Don’t beat up on Obama on this issue, he did the right thing.

  • Todd

    Sorry Indi we disagree (who would have tought it right)

    If you believe that Obama has the right to base his entire election effort on the fact the WAR IS WRONG and should not be fought, while slamming Republicans about the whole thing, and at the same time talking tough (said he supported the war on terror and intends to win it), voting for war funding bills and then HIGHLY ENCOURAGING MORE TROOPS BE SENT TO AFGHANISTAN then you are ignoring the double standard he has adopted on the very issue that made him stand out as a candidate
    .
    You cannot be against something while you vote to support the mechanism to do it. Dennis Kesenich (I know I destroyed the spelling) is the only democrat who can stand with ANY honor on this issue. He is what a real person looks like who hates the war and he knows it cannot be fought without money which supplies the manpower & materials, so he votes against war funding. I disagree with him, of course but he sticks to his principles.

    Indi, one other thing when you say Obama like many democrats vote to fund the war on the basis of troop safety you leave out one glaring problem. They also voted to give Bush the power to wage it. Somehow every democrat in congress deferred to Bush, well I think I remember a house rep from Texas voting against it, kinda ironic considering they all thought he was an idiot now isn’t it ? I mean democrats on the armed service committee, House intelligence committee and so on; but somehow they get the free pass. I guess it’s the same pass Clinton got for bombing Iraq 3 times himself, two over WMD’s and Saddams failure to comply.
    Before you think to yourself here we go with Clinton again, I fully supported him in that, Somalia (until he left with his tail tucked), Bosnia & Sudan’s bombing.

    You see it’s my opinion that history teaches use one thing, every time a U.S. president attempts to get along and pacify the fact that we are the super power of the world some country sees us as an easy target. Now if you can get these same countries to stop taking our money, that could be used to help our inter cities and poor, then I guess we should back off the world stage but as long as they look at us as the central bank, peace maker and leader on EVERY issue then we have to act the part. Sometimes being a leader requires hard work and yes discipline.

    .
    All I am trying to say is dems want it both ways. they want to yell about fighting the war while they vote to support it, the only thing new is Obama wants to send MORE troops to Afghanistan. But then again that’s also puzzling considering he sees the military as unable to provide a solution in Iraq but APPARENTLY believes it can against the same extremist in Afghanistan. Remember this, if Obama really believes in the war on terror then he should have supported the war in Iraq. Saddam at the very least financially supported suicide bombers in Israel and last I checked that was terrorism.

  • IndiMinded

    Well you won’t hear me arguing with a lot of what you’ve said Todd. I’m not particularly eager to defend the democrats original role in beginning this war. But if I were a politician and my son were a soldier, I would never vote to cut the funding that provides him things like weapons, information, and body armor. Because I’d want to see him return alive, no matter what I felt about the war he was fighting.

    Many politicians don’t vote as if their sons were soldiers. But they ought to. I see your point, Todd, that it sends mixed messages to the voters and to the nation. But I don’t want to be the one to tell a mother that her son got killed because he made the misjudgement to serve his nation amidst primary season politics. Do you?

    I had a cousin serving in Iraq a while back. I never liked the war, but I absolutely felt he deserved the full support of the our government until such time as they brought him home. No politician who votes to leave my family stranded SOL in Iraq would be getting my vote.

  • Babs

    “No politician who votes to leave my family stranded SOL in Iraq would be getting my vote.”

    IndiMinded, you just hit on what is an important point for me concerning Obama’s withdrawal plan. Pulling one to two brigades a month, I worry about those left with no one to cover their backs. Is that naive?

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    “Secondly, Can you not see that Obama has done exactly what you are saying he doesn’t do ? He votes for the money to fund war, votes to condemn attacks on troops and yells for about the need for MORE troops in Afghanistan all while convincing dems that he is not responsible for war.”

    Where did I say this? All i was talking about was the difference in media bias in the way they reported a vote. I didn’t say anything about the war. You are lumping voting to condemn the attacks on troops with other things which are independent of that bill. Are you saying that if someone is against the war then they should not be against the attack on military personnel?

    And in my Oil statements I was only trying to illustrate the suppressed information that the Democrats leave out of their Argument and Republicans leave out. Democrats when presenting their argument that they don’t want to lift the ban on new leases because the oil companies already have 68 million acres. But what they leave out is not all of those acres are cost and time effective. Some us easier and to tap meaning less money and less time. Some of it is much harder meaning much more money to tap and maybe 30 years before we see anything. Their 23 million acres which they are currently drilling is the most cost and time effective land out of the 91 million acres.
    The Republicans when presenting their stance say that the Democrats have a ban on drilling or are blocking new drilling. There is not ban on drilling because they are currently drilling and there is not ban on new drilling because they are allowed to drill on the remaining 68 million acres. But what they leave out is in the Alaskan Northern slope where they have been drilling they export ALL 500 million barrels a day to Japan, China and Korea. So how would we know that if they lift the ban on more leases that they won’t export that as well?
    Now you say that are not allowed to drill in the Protected areas along the coast. But my understanding is they don’t have the leases on that land. They can only drill on land which they own or have leases. Are you saying that they have leases on that land but are not allowed to drill on it?
    Okay am not against drilling or lifting the ban on more land to lease to the oil companies. But I would want a BAN on any exporting of any of that Oil. This is where I know conservatives would frown on. Because this is more “big government”. I would also want the government to make sure after that ban that their profit margins are not inflated because in the countries like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela where they drill their own oil and refine it they are only paying 30 to 50 cents a gallon. There may be some economics i am ignorant of to those prices but i think if we did the same thing we shouldn’t be paying more than a dollar or a dollar and half. So i think that should be the compromise.
    Meanwhile we work on alternatives. Once we get off of oil then they can release the ban on exporting it and they can make the money off of it internationally. Which would help the economy we are in because we are importing more than we are exporting. Back when we did more exporting than importing our dollar was a lot more stronger. But the possible problem then would be being that we are paying so low for oil that the alternatives would be put on the back burner. I mean look at our situation now. Alternatives still aren’t being taken as seriously as they should be and we are paying out the a** for Oil and gas.

  • IndiMinded

    It’s not a naive worry, Babs, it’s a definitely a valid concern. But Obama’s made it as clear as he possibly can that he’s not going to do this as carefully and delicately as possible. In fact, he’s taking a lot of flak from people about not putting forth more specifics of his plan. To me that sounds more like a candidate that wants to leave himself some flexibility when it comes down to actually taking action.

    The fact that he doesn’t want to put forth too many specifics now, months before he could potentially be taking office, says to me that he doesn’t want to find himself in the White house months down the line being pressured to adhere to specifics which he may realize later to be unwise.

    I have no real doubt that, if he’s elected, his plan will vary in accordance to needs on the ground. Some voters will probably get upset at that too, but I can’t imagine it being down any other way.

  • IndiMinded

    Hah, ignore the ‘not’ in the 2nd sentence, if you would. I think my subconscious is swinging McCain

  • Babs

    I wish I could believe him, IndiMinded. Whether I support him or not, the way things are going its a toss up on who’s going to win this thing. After Obama’s press conference today where he said he talked to Petraeus but basically he didn’t care what he had to say, it worries me more. I have family in Iraq, too, and I’m like millions of other Americans. I don’t trust his inexperience in this area, and I’m not seeing him take the advice of people he should be taking advice from. Like this statement, I don’t like it:

    “So there are a range of factors that I have to take into account as a commander in chief or a potential commander in chief that I wouldn’t expect General Petraeus or anybody who’s just on the ground to have to take into account.”

    “Just on the ground”? Nope, I’m not comfortable with that statement at all.

  • Todd

    Dreadsen,

    I was referring to your comments to Babs where you were comparing who voted for the ‘don’t attack our troops’ measure. I believe you pointed out Obama voted for it and Mac didn’t. My point was that When Obama takes a position it is NEVER a stretch for him to do it. He is getting the benefit of being against the war, yet he never had to decide if he would have voted for the war (like 99% of his mates). He gets to yell about ending the war as he votes to spend more money on the war (by doing this he can make the argument that he is against the war but just wants to give the troops what they need-TO FIGHT THE WAR !) Today he makes this completely stupid statement which was a response to the question he got about the surge working. The reporter wanted to know how did he felt about his opposition to it. Obama actually said that “we don’t know what would have happened if we did what I suggested”. Would it kill the guy to say he is happy with the result ? after all he wanted U.S. deaths to come down and the Iraqi government to take more control-hasn’t/isn’t that happening ?

    Obama would impress me a lot-if he actually acted as if he was concerned with the facts on the ground when he continues his party fed lines. Oh better yet, How about this one. Obama is now concerned with the facts on the ground as it relates to his withdrawal plan, I can get the exact quote if need be, but wasn’t that what the Bush administration has been saying all along? that the facts on the ground would dictate any withdrawal plan ? talk about double talk !

    Now Obama is saying what he decried as stupidity 2 months ago.

    Which leads me to get back to the subject. I was not saying you actually said anything. I was saying that you inferred something by saying he voted against our troops being attacked. Wow–that’s going out on a limb ! Think about it, he was against the war when 60% of the country was against the war, he was/is against big oil when 80% of the people of the country thought it was big oils fault prices were/are high, he was/is against tax cuts for the rich-like that is a risky policy and now he wants to give himself more room on Iraq because it looks like it may actually be working (McCains plan that is)and guess what else ! he needs more troops in Afghanistan, why ? because 70% of the people feel it is getting out of control. What has this man done that is opposite popular thought ?

    and why is he getting credit for saying it like he came up with this stuff on his own ?

    Mac was saying the surge would work even when he couldn’t have been positive it would. He was slamming Bush when troops were getting killed at a much higher rate and demanded change. Change Bush was backed into by Mac’s position as a Republican which Dems liked at the time !

    now do I really need to respond to the oil thing, oh well I guess I will. Oil is not a U.S. commodity, it’s price is controlled by the world demand. OPEC pumps less when it gets to cheap and more when it gets to expensive. The U.S. consumes 24% of the daily world consumption of oil. That means the other countries, mostly India and China are consuming 75%. The belief hat the U.S. pumping more oil would help is based on the belief that OPEC would be in less control of the market. If we increased production when OPEC decreased it the world price would stay consistent. As it is now we do not produce enough oil to influence the market. Now I agree with the fact that if we produce it we should get it cheap but here is the next problem you would have.

    Lets say I go into the dairy business and get 10 cows to produce milk. When I need to increase profits I can simply take 2 cows and put them in the pasture. I can then raise my price based on a lower supply, there is no government control of the price fluctuation. You on the other hand have 10 Oil wells and in your American oil company you get $ 80 a barrel. Iran threatens Israel and the world market goes to $100 a barrel. The non American countries and OPEC are making what the world will pay but here comes the U.S. government and they are saying you can still only make $80 a barrel. Does that make you a competitive company ? Can you employ as many workers ? How long do you think you would be in business ?

    Now here is the point you cannot pick one sector out of U.S. business and tell it how much it can make while the rest of the world does what it wants. The result would be no American oil companies.

    The only way to control the price is to control the product, since I don’t think you would support an all out war of acquisition the only alternative is to pump more into the market to control price.

    As far as leased land and drilling permits. Congress has made it illegal for them to drill off shore. They cannot drill offshore so they don’t lease offshore. The argument is not about exploring the LAND they do have it’s about pumping the known resources that they cannot have access to. I hope we would agree exploration is more expensive than just pumping.

    sorry guys I know I talk a lot but I love debating

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    “I was referring to your comments to Babs where you were comparing who voted for the ‘don’t attack our troops’ measure. I believe you pointed out Obama voted for it and Mac didn’t. My point was that When Obama takes a position it is NEVER a stretch for him to do it. He is getting the benefit of being against the war, yet he never had to decide if he would have voted for the war (like 99% of his mates).”

    Well my point was not to compare Obama to McCain it was still on the position of Media bias. Again I was pointing out the difference of how Fox news is bias versus the other liberal networks. ( actually Babs did you see the CBS news piece which they edited out McCain’s error on Iraq?) In that comparison I was not trying to say that Obama was better than McCain or vice versa. I was presenting the case that Fox omitted the info that Obama actually did vote on a measure condemning the attack on Military personnel by only focusing on the second one which he was absent on. Now my point in showing that McCain did not vote in favor on the first one is not to say anything bad about him. But was to show that the same false argument could have been presented on McCain as well. One of the news outlets could have presented that McCain did not vote in favor for the bill at 11:58 and then tout that he is not in support of condemning attacks on the Military from political groups. But this would be false because he voted for the 2nd one at 12:36. Therefore committing deception by omission. Which was done with Obama as one of the RNC talking points by only pointing out him being absent for the 2nd bill but not showing that he voted for the 1st bill which had the same purpose. Do you see my point now? And either way this goes any politician who was in favor of either bill or against either bill has nothing to do with whether or not they are for the war or against it.

    Now on to oil.
    Yes you would employ even more because being that we use 24% of the oil in the world the American Oil companies do not produce enough to meet domestics needs. But if their business expanded to meet those demands they would employ a lot more people and bring in a lot more revenue. I understand the economics of inflation and supply and demand. But if our only purpose of drilling is focused on controlling the price of the world then that means we are still leaving our fate in the hands of the world market. Opec could slow down production to match the amount of Oil we are pumping into the world market and the prices would be the same or they could lower to the point that they are higher. We would have to put trust in Opec and trust in our Oil companies to not export 100% of the new supply to prevent this. So we should look at the economics of the countries who only pay 30 to 40cents a gallon for gas. Because i don’t think the American people would be happy if we give the Oil companies new Leases on land only for them to us to get gas reflecting $129 a barrel. Because if the countries which only pay 40 cents a gallon for gas are ALSO selling on the world market as well. Then we could be doing the same thing. ( that would be abandoning my idea of banning export of the new supply) So if we change my first idea to not ban the export but to ban them from selling oil on the domestic market for the same price as the world market we should be in the same position as Saudi Arabia. In my first idea i was not suggesting that they be limited on the amount they make on the world market but only on the domestic one.

    “As far as leased land and drilling permits. Congress has made it illegal for them to drill off shore. They cannot drill offshore so they don’t lease offshore. The argument is not about exploring the LAND they do have it’s about pumping the known resources that they cannot have access to.”

    Yes but they can not drill where they don’t have leased land. And there is a ban on any new leases. True they can not drill off shore but they even if they could drill there they wouldn’t be able to get a lease on the land because it is a ban on any new leases. I was pointing out the false argument both parties are presenting. To say that there is a ban on off shore drilling is wrong because there is off shore property which they can drill on because they have leases on the land. And to say that they don’t need new leases because they already have 68 million acres is misleading because those remaining acres with KNOWN OIL are not as cost and time effective as the known sources which they are already tapping.

  • Babs

    Todd and Dreadsen, I’m enjoying this debate so much I’m not going to say much, except answer you, Dreadsen, on what you asked me specifically. No, I didn’t catch the clip you referred to, but I am going to have to give kudos to Katie Couric (write it down in your record books) for at least making a good attempt at a fair interview with both Obama and McCain, giving McCain fair time for rebuttal. I will say she tried ever so hard to get Obama to say the surge worked, and that I think he even became a little irritated with her over it. But kudos to her for trying *this once* to appear unbiased, even though it was under pressure from the public to appear not “in the tank” for Obama.

    And on the other vote issue we were discussing earlier, the vote to denounce moveon.org’s ad of “General Betrayus” was symbolic, if you will, and should have been supported by every member. There was nothing stopping Obama from voting yes on that bill except his allegience to moveon.org, and the fact that he needed them. Whether he had already voted on another bill or not is immaterial, this bill was specifically a symbolic statement denouncing an organization that Obama happens to have personal ties to. By casting a “not voting” ballot, he slapped Gen. Petraeus in the face by essentially supporting the ad by moveon.org.

  • Dreadsen

    Babs but a similar argument can be made about the first bill which was created for the very same reason.

    There were a good number of people who voted against the first one.

    So shouldn’t everyone have voted for BOTH OF THEM.

    And over all both parties Obama and McCain throwing Freedom of speech down the river.

    But as to be fair all information should be shared. But only presenting the evidence of the 2nd bill and not telling people about the first bill is misleading. Because whether right or wrong people may be satisfied knowing he voted for the first one which was created for the same reason. that bill was created after moveon.org’s commercial. The first one covers Moveon.org as well. He should have not voted for the first one either. Especially being that it was drafted in response to their ad.

    Now what is that to say about all the politicians who voted AGAINST the first one. Shouldn’t they be attacked too? All kinds of spin could be used against them. But my point is the first bill was hidden when presenting the argument of the 2nd bill. Which means all information is not being presented.
    This lessens the chance of someone being satisfied with his vote for the first bill by omitting it.

  • Babs

    Dreadsen, I think we’re trying to draw a fine line here between freedom of speech….and slander. What moveon.org did was slanderous in my opinion, and in the opinion of many more Americans. Freedom of Speech is a protected right of Americans. Slander is illegal.

  • Dreadsen

    Babs

    In Boxers bill it covered Gen Petreaus ad by even bringing it up in the minutes.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110uh26wh:e0:

    But what they are pointing out is this

    “My friend from Texas is taking one example, attacking an organization that he doesn’t agree with–I am sure of that–and we are going to be pretty busy in the Senate if we turn into the ad police. When Senator Cleland was attacked we didn’t have a resolution on the floor of the Senate. When Senator Kerry was attacked we didn’t do it. When General Batiste was attacked we didn’t do it. For General Zinni we didn’t do it. We did speak out, and we did speak out about the ad, all of us on both sides of the aisle, that attacked General Petraeus. But we didn’t have a resolution all these times.

    Suddenly, now, a political organization is attacked by name in a resolution in something that reminds me of the old, bad days in America when organizations were attacked by the Government. So what we have done is we have written this. I thank Senators Levin and Reid and Durbin and other Senators who believe what we see is a trend to attack heroes. We say it is wrong. We don’t go after one organization. We say it is wrong.

    Let me show you the Max Cleland ad. We have the picture of Max Cleland in the same ad with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

    This is what Senator McCain had to say about that ad. Here is what he said:

    I’ve never seen anything like that ad. …..Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a man who lost three limbs on the battlefield, it’s worse than disgraceful, it’s reprehensible.

    But we didn’t come down and pass a resolution attacking the campaign that ran this ad. But now we have an attack on one organization. It is wrong. It should be defeated. This amendment I have offered is the one that ought to pass this Chamber.”

    Boxers resolution would prevent slander against present AND PAST military. The one McCain voted on only covers PRESENT.
    You see the comments McCAin made about putting saddam and osama next to Max Cleland.

    This would also cover any attacks on MCcain as well which people have been talking about.

    After you read the excerpt i posted and read the entire minutes in the link tell me why should this have been voted against by ANYONE. These were not political attacks but attacks on their patriotism.
    So everything in the amendment at 12:36 is included in this one with those additions.
    But the RNC talking point is misrepresenting Obama by omitting this amendment which is better than the 2nd one AND…

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r1100WVeW9:e99041:

    here is the counter argument on the other ammendment at 12:36. Read Boxer and Durbins argument to Cornyn. If slander is illegal then Slander on Kerry and the triple amputee should also be Illegal especially if the slander is aimed specifically at his Military record. But remember Kerry is also a democrat.

  • Rayven

    Todd weather the surge worked are not is a mutt point.Obama has and exit strategy. does McCain. what is victory to McCain. Quite frankly he sounds like they want not to leave the Iraqis
    in control.And If the surge is working then its time to leave this distraction.The MP of Iraq agrees,but McCain wants to listen to the general. The President is the commander and chief
    not the generals( who only have this war to worry about )the pres. has other stuff to worry about to(such being a diplomat)such as keeping us out of even bigger messes.That is a much bigger pic. . The generals should not in control of foreign policy the pres. is.And it is not just about on the ground sit. .

  • Dreadsen

    Okay I can’t let this one slide. I know it’s a Conservative myth.

    “Before you think to yourself here we go with Clinton again, I fully supported him in that, Somalia (until he left with his tail tucked),”

    Clinton did not leave. He wanted to send in more troops similar to the amount for the surge. But Congress opposed it by cutting off funding.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvXtdA2spWM

  • Todd

    Ok,

    Dreadsen I’ll take your last post 1st again. I will admit that I began researching the Somalia Issue in order to disprove your statement that Clinton did not cut and run. As a result I must admit I was wrong. I did not know Clinton had the aggressive opinion which he did. I also found that he actually said in a cabinet level meeting that we should kill three times as many of them as they do of us, so I was incorrect in may statement.

    Now with that said, researching this reinforced my thoughts on democrats response to war and the need to be tough.

    McCain did introduce legislation to stop funding the Somalia effort however it was tabled in favor of Democratic senator Robert Byrd’s even more restrictive motion which was passed with a majority of democrats voting for it. So it was the democrats in congress who cut and ran. Now I can see your response-McCain wanted to run also, right ? and as I said he did. Either way I didn’t like it ! but here is my slant on that. At least McCain had the balls to actually vote what he thought. I don’t think he wanted them to leave but hid behind the excuse that cutting funds would only hurt the troops. I don’t think he wanted them to leave so he could send them somewhere else.

    As for media bias, we agree they all are bias which is what I said several days ago. I also pointed out Fox is conservative and NBC, CBS & ABC are liberal. What I don’t understand on this from you is why are you saying they are all bias and then attacking Fox as if the are the only ones ? I will make this argument on the vote issue however, Obama is looked at as the anti-war, weak foreign policy candidate. He will get issues pertaining to that looked at harder. I mean come on is it not a moronic position to vote on a resolution expressing that attacking our troops is wrong while you acknowledge you plan on fighting and winning the war on terror ? All while demanding troop reduction in Iraq so you can send them to Afghanistan. I mean do we really think the terrorist would target our troops and then call it off because the U.S. senate said it was wrong to do so ? Obama was doing nothing but trying to appear to take a tough stance. It was a completely stupid and useless resolution and I WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED AT ALL IF I WAS THERE.

    With that said the media will slam Mac on his economic plans because he is suppose to be weaker in that area. Maybe if Mac votes yes on a resolution condemning poverty democrats will jump on board then.

    We will just have to disagree on this oil thing. I find it fundamentally wrong to tax one person or one business more than another. All of us should pay the same rate and all businesses should pay the same rate.

    I am sure I do not have to remind you that this is the USA it is not Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Jordan or another dictator state. Our system runs off free enterprise. The government cannot dictate the price of only one product. Common since should suggest that the one business whose product is priced by the government will be the one that cannot compete. Saudi Arabia doesn’t need to be concerned with the price of oil since they are the one of only a few that produce it. I will bet you that the price of wheat is very high compared to that same product in this country though.

    On the issue of offshore drilling, it is point on correct to say drilling is taking place off shore, but the Republican argument is not that it isn’t. The argument is that it is restricted to where the government says they can. This policy has restricted oil companies from accessing 200 billion barrels of oil recovery from one 80,000 acre field in the central gulf alone. The ban on new leases therefore prevents off shore drilling in the most productive areas of our coast. Listen don’t take my word for it, Democratic Senator Landrieu of Louisiana has joined “the group of ten” in the US senate calling for opening up new leases in the off shore areas where drilling is currently banned by congress. The group has 5 dems and 5 republicans, Landrieu today on the senate floor stated we needed to drill as much as possible everywhere we have oil near our coast. She introduced statistics and graphics which showed the modern ways of drilling without hurting the environment, she documented the Chinese and three other countries who are drilling closer to the mainland than American companies are allowed too. She most importantly stated that Durbin has signaled he is about to sign onto the deal. The 5 republicans will agree to take Anwar off the table and pass new environmental protection laws but Reid says it is just a wet blanket being thrown over the issue and he will not support it. Therefore he is providing flip flop insurance for Obama and it is the dems once again who will block price cutting measures, even when they get concessions from the Republicans. Landrieu’s proposal calls for higher fuel ratings on cars(she said she would like to see 60 MPG cars in 10 years), more money for alternative fuels and a requirement that automakers sell flex fuel vehicles in the US at a higher rate.

    She also talked about the fact that oil is a world commodity not unique to the U.S. She said the only way to influence the price is to flood the world market with what we have and that she knows of no other country in the world that bans themselves from their own natural resources while mandating through it’s restrictive laws that they import the product that they have a documented abundance of.

    I tried to post the floor statements but it has not been posted on the congressional site yet. In the meantime you can google her or follow her web site to get more.

    Rayven,

    what is the definition of victory ?

    answer : a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war.

    when we have complete success and triumph over the enemy we will have won our victory in Iraq then the war will be over and we can come home.

    otherwise when Obama gets more troops in Afghanistan he will leave after the enemy is beaten down not when they have lost and there is a difference.

    It is not an exit strategy to leave based on time. An exit strategy is based on results.

    I do not compare this on a actual basis but when you bake a cake do you take it out because the recipe says bake for 30 minutes or because it is done ?

    Do you say to the mechanic ; you have 16 minutes to fix my brakes and if your not done I am driving off ? The obvious answer is when it is done it’s done isn’t it ? We shouldn’t leave Afghanistan until is done either but what happens under your logic if we start getting beat there? Do we put a time line on it and say win or lose we are gone in 16 months ? Obama doesn’t believe that applies in Afghanistan why in Iraq ?

    I promise you if we don’t have victory in Iraq and we leave based on time the PM will beg us back when Sadar is beating on his door and his military has deserted. Oh yeah that’s when Obama will send in the strike team and save the country, I forgot.

  • IndiMinded

    Todd, evidently you didn’t hear about how CBS basically sacrificed their journalistic integrity and flat out lied to the American public in order to protect McCain from potential embarrassment. When he made a gaffe on an interview question they removed his response but kept the question in the interview – inserting footage from an entirely different portion of the interview in it’s place, as if that were his response.

    If they had a true liberal bias they might do it the other way around, taking inappropriate responses of his and pretending they were awful answers to other questions 😉 In fact they simply don’t have an ounce of journalistic integrity, or the decency to objectively report any newsworthy responses that result from their own interviews.

    Anyway, strike CBS from that list and remember this next time you complain that the media’s in love with Obama and against McCain. Evidently someone’s rooting for him.

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/23/by_howard_kurtz_when_cbss.html?hpid=topnews

  • nzpudding

    Just to comment on previous posts, I’m all for offshore drilling. So it might take 10 years to actually get the oil, so it won’t have any immediate effect on the price of a barrel, eventually there will be oil flowing and eventually it will bring down the price at the pumps.

    I’m all for nuclear power too.

  • nzpudding

    McCain’s a white monotoned boring old fart and Obama is a young vibrant black orator. The only way the media would love McCain is if he was running against someone more dull than him, someone like Joe Lieberman.

  • Babs

    Nz, your first comment was spot on. Your second was a cheap shot. You can do better. 😉

  • Rayven

    Todd , So we agree on the definition .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFijzDyJnVE

    The war in afganistan suffered becase we started this war. That war was started becuase of terrorism . The people who attacked us are in afganistan .

    So we liberated Iraq .We took out there leader ,and made sure that there was no WMD. Why are we still there again. o yeah to achieve success . What are they trying to achieve here.Occupation ,naa that couldn’t be it.what exactly is a time horizon anyway? do you ever really get to the horizon?

    http://therealnews.com/id/1792/June 26, 2008/New+Bush-push+for+US-Iraq+security+pact

    Does it matter what the Iraqis want? O yeah we beat them right, R were we even against them? I think there trying to confuse us.

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    No. McCain’s logic for Somalia was not cut and run. McCain’s logic was that there was no end in sight so there was no sense in fighting the war in Somalia. If you watch the video I presented with Chuck Hagel you will see how he does a parallel comparison of Iraq to Somalia. But you can see what McCain said right here on Meet the Press.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs

    For the media bias I hope you can see the difference in being bias and lying and creating propaganda. That is what I was pointing out. And yes I hope you strike CBS off of that list now. And Msnbc does have Joe Scarborough. Yes he is one man but fox doesn’t have an equivalent. Meaning a Liberal with his own show.

    “Obama is looked at as the anti-war, weak foreign policy candidate. He will get issues pertaining to that looked at harder. I mean come on is it not a moronic position to vote on a resolution expressing that attacking our troops is wrong while you acknowledge you plan on fighting and winning the war on terror ? All while demanding troop reduction in Iraq so you can send them to Afghanistan. I mean do we really think the terrorist would target our troops and then call it off because the U.S. senate said it was wrong to do so ?”

    Todd you are not reading anything we are posting about those amendments. It is not about physical attack in war. It is about political attacks on the patriotism of current and past members of the military! If you read what Babs and I have been talking about you will understand. Once you get a real understanding then look at what you have been basing your argument off of.

    On oil well you don’t have to convince me of either side of the argument. But as far as Republicans saying there is a ban on drilling maybe I should have just specified Hannity and Guilani because in a video I provided they were claiming there was a ban but Colmes called him out on it. You don’t have to convince me of either argument I am aware of both sides and I am not against drilling. But you know there is a liberal argument that the only benefit in drilling would be for the oil companies.
    IF it was up to me we would be drilling in the Rocky Mountains! BUT…. There is no sense in doing this if the possibilities of Gas remaining the same or going even higher in price even after 10 years. This is one counter argument and that is why I proposed a guarantee that we don’t agree to this for sole purpose of the Oil companies being the only ones benefiting from it. Look at our domestic cars. A corvette here is cheaper than it is over seas. I believe it is around 90K over there. Now should we be paying the same price as the world market for something we are producing domestically here? And is Hugo Chavez a dictator?

    Now the definition of victory is not as easy as you describe.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=4yG83rSm6fY

    You will see above that Obama was asking Petreaus the same thing. Everyone in those hearings were trying to find out what is victory. You know this is not the same and the situation is more complex.
    McCain has stated that he would want to stay there maybe a 100 years in peaceful occupancy similar to Germany, Japan and South Korea. Now THAT is one definition of a goal. But do you think this Goal is achievable? And if so do you know how long that can possibly take with Syria and Iran assisting? Osama Bin Laden will have a free pass until his death.

    Afghanistan and Iraq are two different things. They are not parallels. All the evidence you need has come out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We were supposed to go to Afghanistan because the Taliban and bin laden were responsible for the attack on us. Now there have been more deaths in Afghanistan in two months then there have been in Iraq. The Taliban the ones responsible for 9/11 are stronger now than they were before we went over there. We took focus off of the war on Afghan and the search on Bin Laden for the purpose of invading Iraq who had nothing to do with any type of terror at all related to the United States. If you are saying that we SHOULD jump on Iraq for possibly supporting some terror to some other sovereign country other than us then we the American people would not have bought into that war for that reason. And we should be firing missles into Syria, Pakistan, Iran,etc. But STILL all of that would have been done while leaving Bin Laden alone? WE also had support from Arabic Countries when we went into Afghanistan. Iran gave us assistance as well. But now Iraq was an unwarranted war which was not waged by the congress let me point out. They gave authorization of FORCE but not to wage war.

    The Iraqi prime minister has agreed to your 16 minute brake analogy. Bush said himself that if the Iraqis say they want us to leave we will leave. Well guess what maybe it isn’t exactly 16 months BUT they said by the end of 2010 which will only be what? 6 months longer than Obama’s plan?

  • Dreadsen

    More on how strong the Taliban and Al’qeida is in Afghanistan they are releasing more videos on Afghan t.v.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=gTvL3GVv8rQ

  • Dreadsen

    Here is something else to take into context. Canada has announced that they are pulling all of their Troops out of Afghanistan by 2011.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=YFoII3GltmY

  • nzpudding

    Babs, I’m on a tight budget since the gas and food prices have gone up, now and again I can only do cheap…LOL But lets be honest, Joe Lieberman is dull.

    Dreadsen:

    It doesn’t surprise me that Canada is going to pull its troops out. Not only is the war very costly, but I’d imagine they’re disillusioned by the progress (or lack of) being made.

  • Babs

    nz, I think a lot of them are dull, so we’re in sync there. As to Obama being a great orator, he is. With the written speech. What a contrast, though, when he is on his own. After reading his transcript yesterday of the Berlin speech, I thought it was very eloquent. Then someone sent me a response he made to Katie Couric in an interview. The contrast was striking, you wouldn’t recognize him as the same person:

    “Obama: Well, you know … I think that … there are so many issues in which I am not an expert but require you to be an expert. That the most important job that I will have as president is choosing excellent people to help to shape policy and provide me with a clear set of decisions.”

    Kind of a scary statement if you take it at face value. To think he might just be choosing people to make the decisions that affect our lives. Maybe that’s why he changes his mind so much, his “excellent people” can’t make up their minds.

  • Babs

    Ya’ll, I’m sorry, but this has got to be the funniest spoof of Obama’s trip there will ever be, and I just had to share it. I’ve laughed til my sides hurt:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    I’ve got a comment that has been awaiting Moderation since 13:22 yesterday. I posted it before the last two responses of mine.

  • Babs

    Dreadsen, you might want to just post it again. Nate has to do that, and he’s been unvailable on a daily basis lately.

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    No. McCain’s logic for Somalia was not cut and run. McCain’s logic was that there was no end in sight so there was no sense in fighting the war in Somalia. If you watch the video I presented with Chuck Hagel you will see how he does a parallel comparison of Iraq to Somalia. But you can see what McCain said right here on Meet the Press.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs

    For the media bias I hope you can see the difference in being bias and lying and creating propaganda. That is what I was pointing out. And yes I hope you strike CBS off of that list now. And Msnbc does have Joe Scarborough. Yes he is one man but fox doesn’t have an equivalent. Meaning a Liberal with his own show.

    “Obama is looked at as the anti-war, weak foreign policy candidate. He will get issues pertaining to that looked at harder. I mean come on is it not a moronic position to vote on a resolution expressing that attacking our troops is wrong while you acknowledge you plan on fighting and winning the war on terror ? All while demanding troop reduction in Iraq so you can send them to Afghanistan. I mean do we really think the terrorist would target our troops and then call it off because the U.S. senate said it was wrong to do so ?”

    Todd you are not reading anything we are posting about those amendments. It is not about physical attack in war. It is about political attacks on the patriotism of current and past members of the military! If you read what Babs and I have been talking about you will understand. Once you get a real understanding then look at what you have been basing your argument off of.

    On oil well you don’t have to convince me of either side of the argument. But as far as Republicans saying there is a ban on drilling maybe I should have just specified Hannity and Guilani because in a video I provided they were claiming there was a ban but Colmes called him out on it. You don’t have to convince me of either argument I am aware of both sides and I am not against drilling. But you know there is a liberal argument that the only benefit in drilling would be for the oil companies.
    IF it was up to me we would be drilling in the Rocky Mountains! BUT…. There is no sense in doing this if the possibilities of Gas remaining the same or going even higher in price even after 10 years. This is one counter argument and that is why I proposed a guarantee that we don’t agree to this for sole purpose of the Oil companies being the only ones benefiting from it. Look at our domestic cars. A corvette here is cheaper than it is over seas. I believe it is around 90K over there. Now should we be paying the same price as the world market for something we are producing domestically here? And is Hugo Chavez a dictator?

    Now the definition of victory is not as easy as you describe.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=4yG83rSm6fY

    You will see above that Obama was asking Petreaus the same thing. Everyone in those hearings were trying to find out what is victory. You know this is not the same and the situation is more complex.
    McCain has stated that he would want to stay there maybe a 100 years in peaceful occupancy similar to Germany, Japan and South Korea. Now THAT is one definition of a goal. But do you think this Goal is achievable? And if so do you know how long that can possibly take with Syria and Iran assisting? Osama Bin Laden will have a free pass until his death.

    Afghanistan and Iraq are two different things. They are not parallels. All the evidence you need has come out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We were supposed to go to Afghanistan because the Taliban and bin laden were responsible for the attack on us. Now there have been more deaths in Afghanistan in two months then there have been in Iraq. The Taliban the ones responsible for 9/11 are stronger now than they were before we went over there. We took focus off of the war on Afghan and the search on Bin Laden for the purpose of invading Iraq who had nothing to do with any type of terror at all related to the United States. If you are saying that we SHOULD jump on Iraq for possibly supporting some terror to some other sovereign country other than us then we the American people would not have bought into that war for that reason. And we should be firing missles into Syria, Pakistan, Iran,etc. But STILL all of that would have been done while leaving Bin Laden alone? WE also had support from Arabic Countries when we went into Afghanistan. Iran gave us assistance as well. But now Iraq was an unwarranted war which was not waged by the congress let me point out. They gave authorization of FORCE but not to wage war.

    The Iraqi prime minister has agreed to something close to your 16 minute brake analogy. Bush said himself that if the Iraqis say they want us to leave we will leave. Well guess what maybe it isn’t exactly 16 months BUT they said by the end of 2010 which will only be what? 6 months longer than Obama’s plan?

  • Dreadsen

    Babs

    I just posted it again and it is now awaiting moderation! LOL!!

  • Babs

    Wow, that’s weird. I have mine wait sometimes, too, but I always thought I got picked for the moderation lottery that day. Were there a lot of links in your post? I’ve wondered if that had anything to do with it before.

  • Todd

    Indi,

    I watched Fox news tonight and they reported that Obama gave a very good inspirational speech which roused most of the 200,000 Germans who went to see it. I guess that makes Fox a liberal outlet under your logic. You give me one story about CBS and McCain and use that to say they should be taken off the liberal list ? Remember Dan Rather ? I believe he was the big guy at CBS for 30 years I really doubt one cover for a Republican qualifies as a conversion.

    CBS has always taken the liberal mantle and ran with it. They were the leaders of slanted news and up until Keith Oberman got his gig on NBC they were the most blatant about it. Now Oberman addresses open letters to Bush and dresses him down as an everyday part of his show.

    Hey Pudding, what would you say if I described any older black person as Black monotone old fart ? much less added that the white person was young and vibrant in comparison ?

    If you are making the choice on looks and smooth talk it would explain a lot about our country today.

    Overall you guys are cracking me up your constant insistence that Iraq is a failure. It’s like you want it to be so you can say I told you so. On one hand you argue that the Iraqi government wants us to leave now (which it would not do if the country was failing) and on the other you want to increase troop levels in another Muslim country. At least I could understand if you wanted to stop the killing everywhere but you don’t even want that !

    It looks as if you want Iraq to fail because you hate Bush. If money, ethics or troop deaths were really your concerns you would not be yelling about increasing the troop levels in Afghanistan and Obama certainly would not be talking about going into Pakistan if they will not do the job themselves (which Bush should have done long ago).I really believe that if Obama said tomorrow that the war was working in Iraq you would suddenly support it.

    You will not address how you can support a war on terrorism while you fail to acknowledge Saddam himself was a terrorist. I will even concede that Bush hyped the war and fudged on the facts but they were the same facts used by Clinton to bomb Iraq. What I see is given all the hatred against Bush you cannot even bring yourselves to admit that Saddam was a terrorist and by that logic Bush did what Obama is saying he will do, beat the terrorist.
    You cannot support why you call for troop involvement in Darfur to protect the innocent but you ignore the ensuing genocide when you say we should get out of Iraq now. Truth is you really support military action-on your terms, as long as you can feel good about it. You don’t mind killing those who kill the innocent or killing in the name of peace yet you ignore those who fund terrorist, promote killing American’s and hide behind international law. As long as you jeer the good guys and sympathize with the real trouble makers you ensure there will always be war. Whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat those who want to kill us will have to be killed unless you guys want to learn the Wahhabi version of the Koran and live in peace under them, which is what the extremist believe that Jews and Christians have to do it their society.

    If you guys want to see what we really face type Muslim extremist into your search engines and watch their videos.

    The non cons are extreme in some thought but I really doubt that want to kill muslims just because they are muslim. I also believe that because Bush is willing to do it, he would handle all the problems caused by the leaders in Darfur, Iran and Rwanda. He can’t though because we will have to hear how he is the devil and how evil he is. The end result is we have to be kind to murderers and act as though we respect them and they feed of of it.

    Anyway the way I see it liberals support the following :

    Higher taxes (25 % ain’t enough of my salary)
    Higher gas prices (via no drilling and special taxes)
    Government controlled Health care (unless it’s Bush in charge)
    Negotiating with every nutcase in the world
    Leaving Iraq in disarray or at best incomplete
    Killing more Muslims in Afghanistan (as long as they are the enemy, I support that one)
    Open borders with national security (haven’t figured that one out yet)
    A One world mentality where the international court can prosecute the soldiers you want in Afghanistan and control our trade policies (bet Obama would never allow his child to be tried in The Hague)
    and
    World Peace at any cost to our own safety

    With all that said I do not think it would be the end of the world if Obama is president but I will bet any of you that if he goes out on this let’s be friends thing we will be attacked again within 2 years. If that happens remember war cost to much and it was most likely America’s fault, right?

  • Rayven

    Todd just for the record on Fox they like to attack people different from them.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ_kR8nP1Tc
    That is my problem with Fox.can you show me where the other liberal media networks attacked McCain’s wife,or questioned McCain’s patriotism.

    My problem with the Iraq war is they (Saddam who was not a terrorist but the leader of a country)did not attack us, We attacked them (without provocation).Of course I want us to win in Iraq ,but that doesn’t excuse the fact the war was a bad idea.This is still a distraction from the war on terror and the people that attacked us.We already achieved our objectives in Iraq (albeit it stupid).there 36,000 troops in Afghanistan and over 100,000 in Iraq. The people that attacked us are in Afghanistan ,I am just saying maybe we should finish what we started in Afghanistan and let the Iraqis build there nation. I think you find the gas prices going down.The leader of a country is the leader of the country ,and diplomacy is not a bad thing it is there job.Unless they have other plans.

    http://therealnews.com/id/1885/July 17, 2008/Ex-CIA+Ray+McGovern+on+Obama%27s+%27new+world%27

    have you thought about that?

  • IndiMinded

    Alright Todd, I’m willing to hear you out on CBS, but I think I should clarify something, because your counterexample with fox confuses me. Was the fox report a clear, shameful distortion of the truth? It sounds reasonably accurate to me. I suspect you may not have fully understood the gravity of what CBS did.

    If someone interviews you, but then they take up the footage and mix it so that your responses do not match the questions that were asked, that isn’t an interview. That’s lying, fraudulent journalism.

    If they had made McCain look really dumb in the interview using that same method (which any video editor could probably have done), every McCain supporter would be frothing at the mouth over that interview, and CBS would probably be hearing from a battalion of lawyers.

    In any case we have this situation, CBS has lied – outright lied – to the American public in an effort to protect McCain’s image in that interview. BUT you feel they are a heavily biased liberal media outlet. Personally, I think all these outlets are biased towards themselves and how best they can make a buck. But I’m open-minded, and I’m willing to be persuaded. But I need you to throw out an example, something CBS has done in favor of Obama which would top what they did for McCain here. Or at the very least rival it.

    If you can do that, I’ll cede the point.

  • Todd

    Indi,

    I think we may be talking past each other toward slightly different points. I believe ANY media distortion is VERY harmful to our country. But I was trying to point out that one “mistake” as CBS called it which is obviously helpful to McCain does not make up for the intentional statements made everyday by a media that is predominately slanted to the left.
    Statements such as the country has more terrible economic shape, leading the news with stories such as unemployment rises to a 5 year high when in fact it went up 3/10ths of a % to 5.5%. These statements are dramatic and don’t reflect the true context of the facts. To say something like our unemployment rate is the highest in 5 years is true on it’s face, and that’s how they get away with it. But wouldn’t another way to put it be something like ‘the unemployment rate is at 5.5%, the highest under the Bush Administration in 5 years’ ? The implication of the other headline is that the country is headed down the toilet, and it ignores the facts of our economic history. We all know that unemployment has been ALOT, heck it was 10.8 % under Reagan.

    The media controls all of America’s thoughts that’s why it bothers me to know that as PBS pointed out tonight; 92% of
    the journalist traveling with Obama on his world tour voted for a democrat in the last two election cycles, 88% have lived and/or worked in only three cities, LA, NY & Washington and if you avg. the contributions to the democratic party among them it would be about $ 6,500 each.

    I cannot help but believe that in the event of a “mistake” at least 85% of the time it will be made in favor of the democrat. So editing, while bad, is no worse that blatant biased reporting and I feel it helps the democrats overall.

    The young voters of today never knew Carter’s years in which the inflation rate was 7.6%, 11.2%,13.5% & 10.3. They never knew Carter’s unemployment rates of 5.6% in May of 79 to 8.5 in Dec of 81.
    and it’s not told to them that NEVER before in America’s history have the economic #’s been as good as they have been under Bush Jr.
    Inflation has been 2.8%, 1.5%, 2.2%, 2.6%, 3.9% 3.2% 2.8% and is about 4.7% now. The unemployment rate under Bush has never been higher than the 6.3% in 2003 and is 5.5% now, still lower than Carter’s lowest.

    So let’s be real the overwhelming information put out by the media would indicate that Bush and the Republican’s are complete failures and that our Country has never been worse off, a message that will all but elect Obama.

  • Dreadsen

    Will someone please release my post out of “waiting for moderation” limbo? I had two links in the posts. I’ve posted two links before. but i guess if i post two links and write a novel it triggers something. But I’ve posted the same thing twice.

    Todd CBS edited out Ahmadinejads interview to slant towards the Right as well. I can provide you the unedited footage of that as well.

  • Babs

    Dreadsen, only Nate can do that, and he’s unavailable for a bit. Sorry.

  • Todd

    Dreadsen

    try posting the links by themselves I am sure I will get your point that way.

    I will try to jump your point without reading just for the sake of debating. I doubt seriously that any media outlet can broadcast any president saying he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map unless he actually said it. But then again I could be wrong he may just be intent on killing these 30 or so folks in his own country who will be stoned to death over a morality violation.

    Oh yeah that’s another thing, if liberals were true to there word they would be demanding something be done about Iran just on the ethical and moral stance of it’s leaders, who Bush on his worse day could not match in terms of cruelty, viciousness and human rights violations, but I guess it’s easier to accuse your president of war crimes when you are in a country that doesn’t kill you for doing it.

  • Dreadsen, sorry for the delay. I just posted your comments.

  • Frank

    OBAMA_SUCKS Jul 19th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
    Msnbc, abc, cbs =liberal
    fox=conservative

    “Fox is the more balanced of all the major stations.”

    Oh my god!! Please OS, tell me this is a joke

  • Rayven
  • Dreadsen

    Todd my posts were just posted. Look up. I want to stay on our debate with out derailing.

  • Todd

    Dresden,

    I went back and reviewed all the comments between you & Babs and my responses to them.

    I see the general talk was about media bias. But your post kinda sway back and forth. You speak of media bias but you present an Obama to prove your points. You talked about the lack of reporting on one vote as oppose to the 2nd vote and you spoke about the difference in Fox lying as opposed to NBC, ABC & CBS slanting the truth. While we agree that the media is bias you seem to be hitting on all the points you believe go against Fox. You even posted that I should take CBS off the list because they did something that was pro McCain as oppose to pro Obama, do you really believe that is something that should be acknowledged or shouldn’t that be the norm (fair reporting overall)

    Your post solicited my comments. I commented on what you were using as a basis for your belief, in support of your views on media bias.

    I don’t deny they ALL are bias but at the same time I sure ain’t trying to say there is a difference in lying and slanting. Each one has a purpose and that is to get you to buy the overall package and what they are saying. My point is that the OVERALL package is PRO OBAMA. A slant is no better than a lie, they are both based in deception. You seem to be willing to give the “liberal networks” a little more wiggle room than you do Fox.

    You also went into how liberal media is basically non-existent on the radio. I don’t know how that shows a bias but I think if Al Frankin and Air America had tried a few positive stories about The U.S. that wouldn’t be an issue.

    Look, here is the basic problem as I see it.

    Neither party has a lock on morals, truth or remedies but your basic “slant” if you will, is obviously liberal. Mine is conservative. I happen to believe that the war on terror is what it is. If the democrats really just support a war on Afghanistan then say that because you really don’t support a “war on terror”. You seek the approval of NATO, The European Union and Middle Eastern Countries before you take action that will ensure our safety, you are willing to put our future up for vote among those nations.

    Conservatives are not ! I believe the war on terror involves Iraq because of Saddam’s funding the killing of innocent people in Israel. I don’t believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and I wish that had been the main push with Bush for attacking him but I just believe a terrorist is a terrorist and therefore qualifies as an enemy in the war on terror.
    I do believe that Iran is an enemy on that level but because of training that I have had I see a opening to speak clearly with them and define who the enemy of both countries really is. We should not be at each others throats ! I would not be threatening Iran right now and if I felt Obama had a clue of what is really going on in this war on terror I would support him to the utmost in his no preconditions approach to Iran. I see a potential in Iran to be both a very close partner and very important player in world peace and would approach them in that way. However if Iran is intent on focusing on Israel then the message would have to get tough.

    Iran is the country that is different in this war on terror. Iraq by virtue of Saddam’s actions is the exact same thing as Afghanistan, if we are really in a war on terror as even Obama says we are. They were/are bases of action by terrorist. Bases from which most all western interest have been attacked. Whether it be Saddam’s supporting attacks on Israel or The Taliban and it’s attacks on Spain, Britain or the U.S. a terrorist is a terrorist.

    When Bush declared war on terror he did not differentiate between those who attacked us and those who attack our friends. He said we would seek out TERRORIST anywhere they hide he also said we would base our relations with other countries on if they hide terrorist or help us seek them out, with exception of the Axis of Evil comment most liberals went along with that pretense until it became protracted.

    I will still go back to the original vote, one that the democrats cannot possibly be serious in arguing. Do you really believe there is a difference between a vote to authorize force and a vote to authorize war ? That’s double talk at it’s best. The democrats played this just as they saw the chance. They voted for “force” knowing that Bush was going to attack, as everyone in the world did, and now they are trying to say they didn’t know, they were lied to, they were manipulated etc… The plan fact is they voted for what they got and now they want to use it to bash Republicans. All while knowing they will not do anything different when/if they take office. Matter of fact it is the Democratic congress who voted to give Bush one final war budget so the transition period between presidents would be covered and give the new president time to evaluate the situation. The same budget they continue to beat Bush over the head with is the one they voted for, once again having the cake and eating it too.

    I look at things as they are, an enemy is an enemy. Given the chance I would try to talk someone out of shooting me but once they declare that I do not have the right to live I believe they are taking the first aggressive action against me, I do not intend to let them shoot me before I shoot them.

    In essence I believe that is the bottom line to what liberals want us to do. They think we should talk to people who we already know want to kill us (us includes Britain, France, Germany Spian and all our friends), talking means trusting and I can’t trust people who announce openly that I should not live unless it is under their feet.

    I respect your ability to discuss things and your beliefs but what liberals don’t get is that I should not have to die for lack of self protection while liberals try to feel good about themselves all while under appreciating the country they do have. America is historically the country that comes the defense of every other, be it militarily, economically or humanitarian needs we are always there. I would like to hear a liberal say that a lot more than they seem willing too.

    Rayven, I just saw your comment tonight, I will respond but I’m sure you get where I will be coming from by reading this.

    I will say this-If you believe Saddam can fund suicide bombers in Israel, who blow up people who are eating and shopping and still not be considered a terrorist we will never agree on anything. This what I am talking about liberals will refer to Saddam as “a leader of a country” Implying he should be respected but you damn sure don’t have a problem with people who call or are calling your own president a war criminal when he attacks the person paying for the suicide bombers, I just don’t understand, I guess I never will, I think because I will give our country the benefit of the doubt over others, where as liberals won’t.

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    We should have bomed Pakistan as well. Right now Pakistan allows the Taliban to have a safe haven in their borders.
    I can show you where bill O’reily proved this point. Now Pakistan has also said that our troops are not welcome in their country for the purpose of this war on terror. So why aren’t we in Pakistan? Why didn’t we go in Saudi Arabia? Saudia Arabia is where most of the terrorists came from during 9/11. How about Syria? Syria was sending supplies into Iraq as well. Listen using your logic any form of terrorism which does NOT THREATEN OUR COUNTRY we should be taking action to. Remember Bill Clinton used force on Iraq remember? That is the difference of using force and actually waging war.
    Oh and please do not assume that I am defending Liberals and take your argument as an attack on Liberals thinking that I have all of their views. I like Bob Barr and I also liked Ron Paul’s views so maybe this will give you a hint. Bob Barr was just in the abuse of executve power hearings on C-Span in the house judiciary committee. This doesn’t mean that he is a Liberal now does it?
    That is why i try to ignore SOME of your talking points because they drift into a partisan attack. Which is not where i am standing.
    And as far as all of them being Pro Obama i would like you to comment in the thread where the think tank has showed that the media may be bias as far as covering obama more but obama has gotten more negative coverage than McCain.
    So do you support the same military action on Iraq as the other countries who have done far much more in comparison? Using your logic we will be waging war on all of the Arabic countries for the rest of our lives.
    And if this was the basis of the reason for why we were attacking Iraq well then we were lied to. because Congress would not have voted for the use of force at all.
    You can’t present one argument for why we are attacking Iraq then afterwards switch it to some retrospective reason which is not the one that was presented.

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    let me also add Taliban and Al’queida has over 100 terror training camps in the Tribal region of Pakistan.

    Which i’m sure you know didn’t just pop up AFTER we invaded Iraq. Now remember these are the DIRECTLY LINKED people to 911. Meaning they were the ones responsible. These were not the people who were loosely linked by means of connecting the dots through some other country and ended up being part of the war by default. So Iraq ( were not going to get into all the intelligence that existed which debunks that Sadaam was assisting Terrorist) should have been the one targeted despite this information?

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    “n essence I believe that is the bottom line to what liberals want us to do. They think we should talk to people who we already know want to kill us (us includes Britain, France, Germany Spian and all our friends), talking means trusting and I can’t trust people who announce openly that I should not live unless it is under their feet.”

    Let me also point out the extreme terrorist you are talking about are a minority and do not share the views of the middle eastern countries as far as your statement above goes.

    Colin Powell disagrees with you on this. I posted this in another thread here just recently as well. Colin Powell is not a Liberal

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=4K4vj3yOZ60

    (R) Wayne Gilchrest(Vietnam Vet) on the senate floor makes the case of diplomacy with our enemies and lays out how we have done this in history. He was against the surge and says that diplomacy at that point should help bring troops home.

    I think he’s been elected into the senate 9 times?

    http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=NAg2sRoVKn0

    Here in this video where Gilchrest speaks at the National Press club about diplomacy with Iran. He brings up once again how Nikita Khrushcev who was the successor of Stalin said at the U.N. to our diplomats “We will Bury you”. Eisenhower’s response was to invite him to the U.S. This is one leader having a face to face diplomacy with another Leader. Right now the current argument is not to negotiate with people who use such harsh words yet Eisenhower helped ease tensions and was also invited to U.S.S.R by Khrushcev.

    http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=sFDMqt5cBcQ&NR=1

    and if you read here how Chuck Hagel praises Obama and hammers McCain on his policy of no diplomacy with Iran. He basically says that he believes McCain is smarter then what he is saying and he is upsetting him.

    read this here

    http://www. huffingtonpost. com/2008/05/20/chuck-hagel-takes-on-mcca_n_102775. html

    Another thing Iran is not focused on Israel in the sense the media and OUR politicians(both parties) misrepresent THEM. Remember Iran has a parliament and a prime minister. What do they have to say about Ahmadinejad? Do they ALL AGREE? With him? Also the Iranian president doesn’t even wield the power. I can provide all the video of Ahmadiejads “unaltered” interviews and him meeting with Rabbis.

  • Rayven

    Thanks for making the point Dreadsen.Todd ,we really have to see pass the propaganda. We all want the best for America and the world.So lets not pretend that we are innocent or Israel.we definetly do our dirt that warrant certain actions from others(Muslim world).And I believe its our feet on them.

  • Todd

    Dreadsen,

    You know what I just thought of reading your post ? When you said I sometimes start on talking points my first thought was that these are not talking points it is how I really feel, then it hit me you guys really believe what you say too. I know that may be condensing but I always looked at liberals,libertarians,Greens and others as spouting their “talking points” meant to critique the sitting party. I guess the environment of politics has created this distrust.(I bet we could argue over who started the distrust if we wanted to) ;).

    Anyway, back to the war. You cite the truth about a lot of countries and yes we should deal with all of them as enemies until they prove otherwise. Dealing with them as enemies is not, however, a call to fight all of them at the same time.

    Iran–This country is supporting a different kind of terrorist (not any better but different)Iran’s actions are based almost solely against Israel, in that they support Hamas and suicide bombings and indirectly see us as an enemy of that entity which occupies their brother’s land. Iranians are Shia Muslim’s they do not believe the infidel should die just because they are infidel’s and they are seen as dirty by the extremist Sunni’s (Wahhabi’s), who believe that in the coming of GOD, will be seen as blasphemous to the Islamic religion. Sunni extremist, such as the Taliban, believe that Shia are just as dirty as us. This is why you see sectarian violence in Iraq (Shia v Sunni). Iran can be talked to because the visceral hate of the west is not present BECAUSE IT IS NOT RELIGION BASED but they have to accept Israel !

    Pakistan–this country has placed itself in between a rock and a hard place. They want to be our “allies” yet they have a significant Muslim population. In order to keep the extremist from overthrowing the U.S. friendly government the U.S. has to make it appear as though Pakistan is handling the matter of terrorist in the country. As soon as the U.S. goes over that boarder in mass Pakistan will become an extremist controlled country with nukes. Yet I can promise you that we are in Pakistan.

    Saudi Arabia—The birth place or Sunni extremist. This is the country that teaches the Wahhabi version of Islam to it’s kids and then exports it by virtue of spreading Islam (their version). We should abandon them, treat them as an enemy and befriend Iran (their natural enemy) We cannot simply talk to Saudi Arabia and ask them to do right because they cannot really go against the terrorist and keep their kingdom. It would also kill our economy since they are our biggest middle eastern supplier of Oil. Another reason we should be drilling our own oil, until we have mass produced alternative fuels.

    Syria—Syria is the exact replica as Iran, same method should be applied.

    My point is that as a result of the extremist views held by a growing Sunni Muslim extremist religious population (I should also say that even the Sunni’s who do not hold the extreme viewpoint are considered dirty to the Wahhabi’s and in their view need to be cleansed) we have an opportunity to rid the world of all terrorist. Iran supported our invasion of Afghanistan becasue the Taliban are Sunni extremist, their enemy.

    We should talk to Iran and Syria, become more balanced in our dealings with Israel (mainly in demanding the dismantling all settlements) and Secure Iraq, move a large force into Afghanistan and win there and then deal with Saudi Arabia. This will take time ! We can start by making it very clear to the kingdom that they will no longer be considered a friendly nation if they continue to fund extremist schools and export terror. We should demand that THEY, with logistical help from us if needed, wipe out the Wahhabi sect. This will be a huge under taking for them and they will have the chance to show the world where they stand. If they do not do this we should be able to gather a large contingent of countries including Iran and Syria who will support an eradication of the most dangerous terrorist, Sunni Wahhabi’s. Yes I am talking about invasion. However I do not think it will come to this if we are fair in our dealings with the Middle East and Israel. Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and the smaller countries of that region can and will support us if we show we are trust worthy and do what we say we will do.

    If we do what we say and stay fair, I believe that Hamas and terrorist sponsored by Syria and Iran in Lebanon will go away on their own, if not Iran and Syria will handle it because they will see it as a losing matter and against their own interest. Given the fact we can respectfully ask them to stop based on our acts of goodwill. They also would know we hold the key to the key of an independent Palestinian state.

    The alternative to this in my view is a war that is actually eternal, which is what democrats say they oppose the most. The Wahhabi do not plan on living with any of us, therefore we will always be at war if we do not stop them. A war we cannot stop simply by being nice anymore than a Catholic can stop being a Catholic, a JEW stop being a Jew or a Baptist stop being a Baptist. Sunni Wahhabi’s are of the religious belief that the world must be made clean in preparation for GOD (and you thought Christians were demanding). This is not about oil to them it’s about unclean people inhabiting the earth who must be cleansed or killed, to be cleansed you have to subscribe to their belief.

    Keep in mind this cannot be done without drilling our own oil. But also keep in mind the U.S. government must be MADE to remove all subsidies from all companies. (Why do we pay farmers not to grow certain food when the world is hungry ?), tax them at the same rate as every other company and use the subsidies to fund alternative energy.

    If we did all this we could have world peace and settled boarders in 10 years and alternative fuel in 5.

    by the way I did not mean to say we should change our reasons for going into Iraq, but I meant to say that should have been the reason in the first place. I am currently attending a course of instruction Called Understanding Islamic Terrorist-it’s worldwide context, When I complete it I will have college credit and California credentials as a Law enforcement intelligence officer specializing in terrorism. I assure you from what I have seen Republican’s and Democrats are not taking this thing seriously. The course is taught by US Naval intelligence officers. I have seen the extremist in their own words, I have heard from those who were called to cleanse their own families but choose to flee Saudi Arabia instead they give very interesting insight as to what Iraq is about to them and what it will mean if we are perceived as the loser. With all that said I ask you this-if a local law enforcement officer in small town USA knows all this do you really believe the democrats don’t ? When we hold Democrats AND Republican’s accountable on Iraq we can began what we really need to do first and that is acknowledge a war on terror is actually needed and it has to be both bi-partisan and real. This stuff about they didn’t attack us worked in the 20th century but extremist are by nature not held to border limitations, like religion in ever aspect it spreads across nations and has no respect for bounds. It is no longer valid to say, ___________ (insert your pick) didn’t attack us so we should not attack them because the nature of the problem, which is to allow it to accumulate and fester in your country is a danger to us all. Democrat & Republican, Green & Reform, white & black, male and female, Christian & Islamic–worldwide.

    I hate to keep using comparison’s which are old and stupid but there is a reason they take the cancer out of your body, if it stays it kills you.

    Rayven I never said we are innocent I have tried to tell you that we are the right ones in this fight though. I also just said we should be more balanced but that doesn’t keep the Sunni from killing the Shia and being a Shiite is as close as you will ever get to thinking like an Sunni extremist. I do not intend to be a jerk but you need to educate yourself before you decide it’s our fault because religious belief is much more involved than whose fault it is. It is salvation to the Wahhabi’s. We have to stop applying OUR thought process to the oldest religion in the world which has been diluted by extremist, it ain’t working in politics and it doesn’t work in any attempt to understand or reason with them. Did Spain, Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and the royal family of Saudi Arabia have their foot on their throats also they are all victims of terrorist attacks since 2005.

    Dreasden I am posting this in the media blog too just to see what comes of it. I believe it’s relevant to media coverage on both candidates. I also want feedback on what I say the solution is.

  • Rayven

    Tom,I understand there are terrorist. He just tried to have two wars at once. He did it all wrong. Made us look bad as Americans. It was important two finish the first war before you start the next.He made a mess of everything.
    He just should have finished the first war.And may be tried some diplomacy.

  • Todd

    Rayven,

    I have a real problem with the part about “he made us look bad as American’s”. I understand it’s your opinion but I really believe this is about a lot more than what we look like to the world since it’s not the world who is trying to kill everyone. I am concerned about what the terrorist are thinking and how they come to there beliefs. Again with my analogies but do you really care what you look like when your in a fist fight ? OR DO YOU CARE ABOUT WINNING IT ?

    By the way what do you think people thought about Democrats voting for war and then slamming him when he did it ?

  • Rayven

    Todd ,I guess to me this is a international issue. We should have stuck with the first war and finished it. WE agree that we need to get the terrorists cells.I think we need to bring them to justice,so thats not my issue.My issue is with Iraq . We had no real reason to be there. That whole war took away from the goal of getting the people that supposedly attacked us.The Iraq side track makes my think it something else.We know they have bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan .What ever that was in Iraq was meant to throw us off course and spend money.That is no good.They gained power while we were focused on Iraq.
    http://therealnews.com/id/1943/July 23, 2008/Al-Qaeda+calls+for+a+new+%27Jihad%27

    I think it was stupid of them to approve the second Iraq war without diplomacy. And it looked bad on them.WE left our allies holding the bag . While we went to Iraq to start a political vacuum.We were unprepared and they had no plan and no strategy(that part was clear).In order to win you need a strategy. That is why we looked bad. We left them holding the bag and we didn’t even have a strategy for winning.So again, I get the terrorist thing but we can handle there business alot better.This is and international issue we need there help.Other wise we just look like billy bad ass.So in short while we were in Iraq tryin to win.Al Qaeda And the Taliban recruiting people to fight against us .

  • Todd

    Rayven,

    When you put it into those words I agree a lot more. I understand and agree we screwed Iraq up, we had no plan because they under estimated the requirement but politics played into to it also. I believe the Bush administration failed to listen to the general chiefs on what they needed to do it with, 250,000 -350,000. I believe they didn’t send that many because they were not committed enough and anticipated heavy partisan fall out if they sent that many.

    The only real issue I have from your last post was that I believe that America has to take the lead on everything or the world will never do it. In this case it can be like Russian roulette. If we sat back and do nothing with Saddam and just focus on the Taliban then eventually Israel would have stopped it themselves, covertly or not they would have not allowed him to support suicide bombers. When they did the entire middle east would have beeen up in arms. I believe we are going to see the results of a lack of U.S. attention to Iran and the result of that when Israel hits them.

    Bottom line is you are right it is an international issue. problem is nothing happens unless we force it. Look at the Kyoto Accords, the U.S. out so now France, Germany and the others are putting the energy into slamming the U.S. when it could be put toward India and China and bringing them to the table on the environmental issue. The treaty fell apart because we did not do it (good or bad) and the others apparently felt if we were not then there was no point.

    I know I have gotten off base a little but my point is that it doesn’t get done in this world unless we lead or at least agree to be a part of it. Saddam would have never been dealt with had we not done it, especially given the investment return France and Germany were getting on Saddam.

  • Dreadsen

    Hey Todd

    So what you are proposing is that we talk with the remaining countries that you say should be treated as enemies. Countries which are way more responsible for terrorism which is linked to our country. But Iraq which wasn’t even remotely a threat to the united states itself we should have actually went to war, invade and occupy? Why couldn’t the same diplomacy which you suggest for those countries be exempt from a country which didn’t threaten us?

    Saudi Arabia is also ruled by Sharia law. And i don’t know what you are talking about saying they can not go against terrorism because they revoking Osama Bin Laden’s citizen ship and them allowing us to have a base there is what started his quest against us. If that was true they wouldn’t have allowed us to build the base out of fear of retribution which did happen. Osama bombed there.

    So Saudi Arabia is exempt from the war on terror even though the biggest threats come out of their own country? So how do you plan to conduct this war? Just on the easier countries to invade?

    By the way you are wrong about Iran. Iran is run by Sharia law , which is the law of the Quran. Which makes your statement of them not being Religion based false.
    Syria is not a replica of Iran. Their laws are not based on Sharia law. I also know that Iran allowed a Jewish representative in their Parliament ( this guy cussed Ahmadinejad for His questioning of the accuracy of Holocaust).
    His actions are not soley on Israel either. BUT he has given peaceful resolutions for Israel which is omitted. He hasn’t said anything about wiping them off of the map like the media says. He was taken out of context.

  • Rayven

    Timing is the key ,Todd.It’s all about timing.I know we had to get Saddam . It just wasn’t the right time.Yes we should be leaders,but that takes diplomacy.Not just brute force.

  • Todd

    Dreadsen,

    Sorry but you are completely wrong–Sharia law is looked at as a moderate/liberal interpretation of Islam by the Wahhabi. Wahhabi’s are more conservative in their application and are from the sect called Salafi’s, they are also considered “Islamist” because they believe in the purist form of Islam. They consider Shia (Shiites)(Iran) and others of Islamic faith to be dirty and on par with the infidel in part because they are not pure. Wahhabi’s invoke Sharia law but they take it a few steps further. Wahhabi believe that currently nations should be ruled by those elected under the guidance of Sunni belief. Western Democracy to a Wahhabi is something to be opposed and eliminate because it is seen as blasphemy against God because Western values are skewed therefore the leaders are not elected in the Islamic mold. So to say Sharia law is the same as Wahhabi’s more radical interpretation is like saying Jim Jones just had a church in Guyana that taught Christianity. I am talking about degrees of salvation.

    You are also wrong on the religious difference between Sunni Wahhabi’s who are Islamic and Shia who are Islamic. Shia do not base there salvation on cleansing the world before the one and only GOD arrives, Wahhabi’s do. Therefore to simply say that they are both under Sharia law and are religious is misleading and is wrong. Wahhabi’s means to meet the end is very different than that of the other Muslim and even more mainstream Sunni beliefs.

    As you know Methodist, Baptist, 7th day Adventist, Catholics and others are “Christian” faiths but they have different degree’s of instruction. Catholics are more restrictive/conservative in requirements than say a 7th Day Adventist.

    The same is true for Islam, the various degrees of practice dictate various beliefs which are slightly different from one another. Wahhabi’s are a extreme version of Islamic belief.

    As far as Saudi Arabia, is it really hard to understand that they needed us at the time because the entire middle east thought Saddam was about to invade them. Saudi Arabia would have been no match for Iraq who at the time had the biggest military in the region. Of course they wanted us there to save there collective asses (the royal family). If you really believe the Royal Saudi family is going to declare war against the entire Wahhabi sect you have lost your mind. Kicking Osama Bin Laden out of the country is hardly an attack on terrorism or the sect, and was done in order for the Royal Family to protect themselves from the influence of one man and his money. Matter of fact when Obama parted ways with Saudi Arabia he was nowhere near as influential in the Wahhabi viewpoint as he is now.

    If you are trying to say that Sharia law and Islam is one in the same you really need to study the difference. If you did you would see why Sunni and Shia are at war amongst themselves and you would see they believe differently on a lot of issues–cleansing being one of them. I have provided you with a neutral definition of Wahhabi, it clearly describes what I am trying to tell you.

    wttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

    Here is another link that shows you the different denominations (?) within Islam and how they differ. I would suggest you pay attention to the difference in Jihad in the Sunni belief as oppose to the Shia belief. Add to that that the most dangerous terrorist are considered “Islamist” you should be able to see one is more dangerous than the other

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

    Now on to your first point. Saying countries are “more” responsible for terror is ridiculous terror is terror. Would you have said Saddam wasn’t a threat AFTER they assassinated the elder Bush ? Clinton’s administration thought he was before he did it. However that assassination attempt does show the difference in thought. Saddam was intent on killing America’s leader as it was political not religious to him. Bin Laden is intent on killing Americans’ in an attempt to rid the world of the infidel-that would be religious based terror.

    You also have to remember that Saddam was a Sunni and as such had to balance his actions against his beliefs. What I mean is that he was NOT a Wahhabi and therefore he knew it would eventually spread into his country. In order to preempt that he took positions that made him appear to be a true or pure “Muslim” when in fact he was more secular. In the Muslim world he was the equivalent of a thug. However while funding terror against Israel he could be assured that Syria and Iran would side with him out of necessity. He was a help to there political cause against Israel and he was a counter weight against all out war with Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabi’s purist though process. The threat that he posed was against us, was that he did what he needed to do to stay in power. He supported terror to maintain his position.

    The problem/mistake we made was that we didn’t or cannot see that Iran can be a bigger friend to us, in fighting the Religious more extreme threat, because we are beholden to The Saudi Royal family and their oil. Democrat and Republican have supported the family. Had we befriended Iran it would have been to to fight the Saudi/ Wahhabi version of Islam not because we love them or because they love us but because of a mutual threat.

    What I am trying to tell you is that they are all terrorist but Iran and Syria are less threatening because their reason’s for terror ARE NOT BASED IN RELIGION but are based in politics. You can apply that to Saddam if you like and had I been president I would not have attacked Iraq but rather I would have attempted to use them in the same way I am suggesting Iran should be used. But one thing I will not do is constantly slam any president over and over and over while ignoring the actions, or lack of actions of the other party. If the democrats would have stood for what they really believed I might be thinking about voting for them now but they didn’t do that. No matter what spin you put on it they either supported or directly contributed to Bush’s actions against Iraq and then promoted constant complaining about it. They should shit or get off the pot as some would say. Straddling the fence simply helps which ever enemy you wish to recognize.

    Rayven you are right timing is everything, we just went after the wrong one first that’s all, it is not that he wasn’t a threat which is a political argument democrats put forth to get votes, nothing more.

    I will tell us this though if we don’t get it right and befriend Iran NOW we will be fighting ALL OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME no matter what Republicans and Democrats think.

  • Dreadsen

    Hey Todd And Rayven

    School House Rock – Pirates and Emperors.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqUBbscTq0A

    This Video is on topic

    Be back later.

  • Todd

    Dreadsen,

    That was a very entertaining little video. 1st off I think you should post it in the other blog for the Angry American to see, I think I know what his response will be.

    Now for my thoughts,
    The video failed to show one thing, the other side of the issue at the time we supported the thugs mentioned.

    See we picked Saddam because we were having problems with the Ayatollah and Irans revolutionary movement which at the time was anti American. So Saddam was the country to act as the counter weight.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

    The Contras’, I believe they were called, were needed to try to keep Russian control out of Central America and were the result of yet another Carter (Mr. Noble Peace Price) international screw up, when he backed the Sandinista’s overthrow of a legitimate Nicaraguan government. Problem is the Sandinista went communist friendly so Reagan began funding the Contras to be a counter weight in that area of the world.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista

    Noriega, Now here is a hard one to defend other than to say he was useful to gain info on Cuba and fund the Contra’s I cannot say much more

    point is choices are made every day as to how to counter other countries actions against us or our interest. Th eonly way this will ever stop is when you can get all the other major countries to stop the game also, otherwise you have stopped the U.S. but no others.

    which gets back to my point, I cannot stand to hear all this U.S. bashing because the same ones who have no problem yelling about us don’t any courage to go to Cuba, Russia, Panama or any other country and call them out on it, therefore all the pressure is on the U.S. If the look what the U.S. does group would actually protest other countries inside those countries I would have no argument with any protest or finger pointing they do

  • Rayven

    Todd see we actually do agree even on the dem.s . Didn’t know all that stuff about Islam.Tel me what you think of this .

    http://therealnews.com/id/2006/August 4, 2008/%27Surging%27+McCain

    You to Dreadsen. I loved the video .

  • Rayven

    Dreadsen

    Check this one out.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctd0SlA-A4w

    GOP(Gas,Oil,Petroleum)

  • The commentator on this video sounds like Ricky Ricardo. *LOL* Cuban?

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    I am still researching the different denominations on Islam.
    I have gone as far as to trying to see where all of the denominations are across the world. It’s a lot of reading.
    But this information that you have turned me on to is something
    that should be broadcast more. Because people have a bad stereotype for muslims but don’t know that the differences between them is just as complex as the differences between the different denominations of Christianity. And if we look at some of the atrocities that have been done in the name of Christianity over History people should be hating Baptists, Jehovahs witnesses and seventh day adventist all for something that Catholics have done. That would be the same logic.

    Also we were arguing two different stances on Iran.
    What you were saying was their Foreign Policy is not religion based which is true.
    I was talking about the law of their government. Which is religious based.