Perhaps you should do some studying. SOS all over again, just like all the lies leading to regime change in Iraq, except this time with NUKES. Once again, Bush believes he knows the Iranian people and thinks he can predict how they will respond. Bush's messianic vision is labeled as worrisome, which is a rather kind description of this President.
You really should read the entire article, but I doubt that you will. It's likely to actually cause you to think.
http://www.newyorker.com/press
Issue of 2006-04-17 Posted 2006-04-08
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 8, 2006
THIS WEEK IN
THE NEW YORKER
PRESS CONTACTS: Perri Dorset, (212) 286-5898 Daniel Kile, (212) 286-5996 Maria Cereghino, (212) 286-7936
The Bush Administration’s Plan For Iran
“The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack,” Seymour M. Hersh reports in the April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker (“The Iran Plans,” p. 30). Moreover, he writes, “There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change.” One former senior intelligence official tells Hersh that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Adolf Hitler. “That’s the name they’re using,” he says. A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror says, “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.” The danger, he adds, is that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” The former senior intelligence official, referring to activity at three U.S. military facilities, says, “The planning is enormous.” He depicts it as hectic and operational—far beyond the contingency work that is routinely done. One former defense official tells Hersh that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He adds, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ” A government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon confirms that undercover units are working with minority groups in Iran, and that while one goal is to have “eyes on the ground,” the broader aim is to “encourage ethnic tensions” and undermine the regime.
Hersh reports, “In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat.” A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, tells Hersh that the Administration is “reluctant to brief the minority.” He adds, “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq.... There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”
Hersh also reveals that one of the options under consideration involves the possible use of “a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz.” The former senior intelligence official tells Hersh that the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military and that some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed. Hersh writes, “The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option.... He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue.” The adviser explains, “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries.”
The Pentagon adviser warns, as do many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?” he asks. He tells Hersh that any attack might also reignite Hezbollah. “If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle,” he says. A retired four-star general tells Hersh that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.” “If you attack,” a high-ranking diplomat in Vienna tells Hersh, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.” The diplomat went on, “There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking.” He adds, “The window of opportunity is now.”
Also this week: In “A Church Asunder” (p. 44), Peter J. Boyer reports that the election of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church “posed the biggest crisis for Anglicanism since the Reformation, and brought the worldwide church to the edge of schism.” Boyer writes that while a belief in the power of compromise has always permeated the Anglican faith, to several conservative bishops the move “pushed the Anglican notion of comprehensiveness beyond its historically implied limits. What the Church had affirmed, in the view of these traditionalists, was not just a different expression of Christianity but a different religion altogether.” Bishop Robert Duncan, of Pittsburgh, led a small delegation of twenty bishops in protest the day of Robinson’s affirmation and has since reached out for support from the worldwide Anglican community, and specifically from bishops in the Global South, who tend to be far more conservative. Boyer writes, “More than half of all Anglicans live in Africa, South America, and Asia.... There are more Anglicans in Kenya (roughly three million) than there are Episcopalians in the U.S.... The balance of power has shifted dramatically.” While Anglicanism has no global hierarchy as in the Catholic Church, Duncan hopes that through an alliance with the Global South, he and like-minded bishops can convince the worldwide Anglican Communion that the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, or ecusa ... has already departed from the faith, and that an alternative body of orthodox Episcopalians should be recognized as the true church in America.” Boyer writes, “Duncan says that his battle is not with Gene Robinson, or even over the issue of homosexuality, but with what he considers a radical reinterpretation of the faith by the liberal church.” He says that the future may hold many unpleasant legal battles, “And the question that the state courts are going to have to figure out is, ‘Who are the Episcopalians.’ ” Boyer writes, “Gene Robinson watches these developments with a mixture of sadness and alarm.” He tells Boyer, “Bob Duncan wants to ally our church with the church of Kenya, where the primate there said that, when I was consecrated, Satan entered the church. What most people don’t realize is that homosexuality is something that I am, it’s not something that I do.... We’re not talking about taking a liberal or conservative stance on a particular issue; we’re talking about who I am.” Later, he adds, “I have to tell you—I felt called by God to come out. It seems to me that if God stands for anything, God stands for integrity. And to be a priest, calling other people to integrity, when you’re not exercising it yourself—it’ll kill you.”
Plus: Hendrik Hertzberg, in Comment, on the drawbacks of the Bush Administration’s health-care plan (p. 25); Adam Gopnik on “The Gospel of Judas,” a recently released translation (p. 80); Alec Wilkinson on Pete Seeger and on a new album inspired by his work by Bruce Springsteen (p. 44); Cynthia Zarin on the works of Maurice Sendak (p. 38); David Denby on the new films “The Notorious Bettie Page” and “Friends with Money” (p. 86); John Lahr on the life of playwright Clifford Odets (p.72); and fiction by Bernard MacLaverty (p. 66)
The April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker goes on sale at newsstands beginning Monday, April 10th.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
is the worst sin possible if a Republican suggests it...but such a GOOD idea when Democrats suggest it....is North Korea the new Iraq?? Hil is talking regime change in North Korea...already, and they have been in power how many weeks? This is rich!!
Nobody called SP a pig. Phrase means JM can call change "change,"
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. JM can call change "change," but he is still 4 more years of W. SP is the one who is running on the lipstick platform. That's why her supporters are trying to accuse O of calling her a pig.
Deja Vu
I've been reading the comments on this board and it reminds me a lot of when George Bush was running - first and second time. For his first term and much of his second term no matter what he did a lot of people defended him. And a lof of the same people who supported Bush now support McCain. We are all paying for the decision 50% of the voters in this country made in November 8 years ago and then again 4 years ago. Are we all going to have to pay for the next 4 years too?
Bush has been a disaster for this country. If you vote for McCain in a lot of ways we continue on the same path. The people on this board who are worrying about things that don't matter should look more closely at the things that do. Instead of trying to prove a point or that you are right and acting like anything negative said about John McCain is a personal insult why not spend that time learning more about the important issues and what exactly will happen to this country if we elect John McCain and continue on a similar path to the one we have been on for the past 8 years?
Barack Obama is not perfect. But he's not a Muslim. He's not an elitist. He's not for sex education for kindergartners. Those things are absurd but John McCain and his campaign managers know those are the things that get people riled up. Those are the things that some people in this country will occupy themselves with instead of the things that matter. He sure doesn't want you talking about the war and how he was for it and Barack Obama was not.
Barack Obama is an intelligent person who is honest, ethical and who has the insight and good judgment to make the best decisions for this country. He has a gift of being able to motivate and encourage people. He may not have executive experience but neither does John McCain or Joe Biden. Bush did.
Sometimes history provides the right person at the right time. I believe that Barack Obama has come along just we need him. Like Lincoln and Roosevelt did.
I am hearing on the news programs that the repub base is fired up. I am certain this is the same language I heard in 2004. How many times do we have to repeat and relive the consequences of Bush's election, reelection and McCain's same policies until we get it? What needs to happen to make citizens actually look critically at the past and apply the lessons to the future. I am gobsmacked.
Media Manipulation - Deja vu?
The press remains allergic to the topic of what Bush's deep political stain could mean for the GOP on Election Day. The press has virtually erased Bush as a player in this campaign, which is striking because back in 2000, when Bill Clinton was the retiring two-term president, the press couldn't stop writing and gabbing about his role in the unfolding campaign. (It was mostly bad for Dems, the pundits agreed.) But Bush? Who's he?
It's fitting, really, that as the media's lapdog performance under Bush comes to its conclusion, the press would soft-peddle the president's role in his farewell convention fiasco. It's fitting because, let's face it, Bush's presidential failure is really the media's failure, and what journalist wants to dwell on that? Remember, this is the same political press corps that just had a gut feeling about Bush in 2000; just liked the guy. They vouched for him. Said he was a real, authentic politician who would restore bipartisanship to Washington.
Aren't these the same claims being proclaimed by McCain's media buttkissers........one foot in the grave and a heartbeat away.............
Obama is change you can believe in until you have to take it to the bank.
Our jobs have been offshored until now because of greed. Under Obama and his taxation of small businesses, they will be offshored not because of greed but because of survival.
You could make a difference for our country by not voting for Obama, but instead, if you vote for him, you are selling out to deception. You are embracing a socialist, a communist, a Marxist, a liar, a cheat, and someone who legally cannot run as President of the U.S., much less the Illinois senate. But, you make your choice. You believe the consumate liar and his lies who sat for 20 years under the teachings of a black racist preacher filled with hatred for the U.S., whose association with Bill Ayers is recent and documented down to the fact that Ayers himself wrote Obama's best-selling book (best-selling in the eyes of far left liberals that is), who is a documented member of the socialist party, whose friends and close allies are extremists who not only bomb innocent people and are unrepenetent but who intend to eliminate (kill) 25 million Americans who they cannot "re-educate" in communist ideaology (gosh dog it, those dreadful capitalists), who refuses to hand over a certified copy of his birth certificate and educational records (my goodness, don't you have to provide your birth certificate to any number of entities who want to know if you are legal, i.e., social security, DMVs, etc., and your educational records would show if you had received aid as a foreigner and in 1963 would have shown you were a negro instead of an African-American which Obama's falsified record shows, please speck up on history), and who thinks Joe the Plumber is so stupid not to realize that if he wants to achieve the American dream, he is going to achieve it only if he lets Obama take what he makes to give to those WHO WILL NOT WORK. I'd like to see you, liberals, give a share of your 7.5 cpl to those who don't work as hard as you, but then with Obama, that's what you will have to do. Don't be fooled by his rhetoric that only those making over $250,00 will be taxed. We will all be taxed, and there will be no incentive to work for any of us because we will all have to give up a piece of our pie so those who do not work can have a piece of our pie.
Here is the dividing line, folks. We are at a crossroads in our history. The Lord Jesus puts it this way, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction; and there are many who go in by it."
Choose which gate you enter, the wide or the narrow. It not only determines your eternal destination, but it determines the destination of this country. If anyone here calls themself a Christian and can vote for Osambo, I daresay you are a liar and cheat just as he. One cannot be a Christian and vote for a party and a political candidate who is in total rebellion to God's Word. That is a fact, and if you think any differently, then you, too, like the Obamanation, call God a liar. May He have mercy upon your soul. As He makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust because He is no respector of persons, we will all suffer as this country is destroyed and our Constitution that guarantees our freedoms is trampled just as Bill Ayers is pictured standing upon our flag in total disrespect, and we will thank you liberals that we are all in bondage, reduced to third world status, just as the Israelites were in Egypt. Only Obama ain't no Moses but a Muslim and has no favor with God, and there will be no one to lead us to the Promised Land coming from the Democratic party.
I agree with change....change to socialism...
NO THANKS.
DEFINITELY Change!
We have seen where experience gets us!!!! Look at it like this...
How many of you have ever worked a job before and your "boss" (with experience) knows a LOT less about the job than you do?! Bet you all never thought of it like that, huh?!
EXACTLY! And now we have someone who wants to change all that...
and only one side is even TALKING about it. That is the side getting my vote. And this post illustrates the problem with your side..."Repugnants." How is that productive? Zero! What crossing party lines have Dems done? Zero! It should stop on both sides, but the bitterness for whatever reason you see in the Dems on this board apparently is rampant throughout the country, one only has the read the blogs. It is just beyond ridculous, beyond childish, and until our elected leaders can move past it, we are stuck to repeat the same old mistakes over and over and over. One ticket is talking about changing that stagnant swamp in Washington, that is McCain/Palin, and that is one of the reasons I am voting that ticket this time around. They get it.
so much for change....nm
nm
Change
8 years of a Republican president is enough, change is needed. America is in a very bad state.
Maybe you should change...
your name to "Mar Tar."
CHANGE, YES, CHANGE -- we need O to take the
to all the deadbeats who don't wanna work. The new change
This is what I am talking about. Somebody from the INSIDE, a congressman sees our new change coming. This is NOT THE CHANGE I opted for.
From Change.gov
Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): Obama and Biden will create a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.
As far as CD in general, you seriously do not think that we as citizens should be prepared for what to do in the event of a major disaster or, heaven forbid, another terrorist attack?
the change who wants??
that remains to be seen, I think. I am not so sure it is the change I want. Actually, I'm not so sure it is change. Shall we not just wait and see instead of speculating?
Duh, in trying to change
it to many more, I managed to say 'much many'. Think that'll catch on?
This would not change...(sm)
a "christian marriage." Unless, of course, you can show me where in the bible it says anything about legal benefits that come with marriage?
He said what he said! You cant change that.
nm
At least it SHOULD be, for a change! change is gonna come
I gotta tell ya, I dont believe it is true. I live in an extremely republican conservative bible belt air force area (what the heck am I doing here..smile) and the democrat party through the 1990s was doing okay but the republican party sure was flourishing. I have seen through the 2000s the democratic party has grown quite a bit and more people moving into this rural area are signing on to the democratic party. We also have a lot of unions here, Farm Workers and such as this is a major area where immigrant workers pick crop year round. Well, the unions have pushed for the democratic party and its working. This reminds me of the 1990s with Newt Gingrich, he was gonna change America. Well he is no where now. Americans might be apolitical most of the time but when they get fed up, they get fed up and they vote their frustration and with this administration, there is so much distrust, knowlege that Bush lied about war and our brave military has paid the price, the deficit will affect my children and my childrens children, the policies he has passed do not benefit me or the working class, only the corporations. Change is gonna come..its frustrating waiting for the change but its gonna come.
Some things never change...
War Crimes Even Helen Keller Could See By Mickey Z.
In a textbook example of whitewashing, if today's America knows Helen Keller (1880-1968) at all, it's the easy-to-digest image portrayed in the 1962 film, 'The Miracle Worker.' Brave deaf and blind girl 'overcomes' all obstacles to inspire everyone she meets. 'The Helen Keller with whom most people are familiar is a stereotypical sexless paragon who was able to overcome deaf-blindness and work tirelessly to promote charities and organizations associated with other blind and deaf-blind individuals,' writes Sally Rosenthal in Ragged Edge.
But, in 1909, Helen Keller became a socialist. Soon after, she emerged as a vocal supporter of the working class and traveled the nation to voice her opposition to war. 'How can our rulers claim they are fighting to make the world safe for democracy,' she asked, 'while here in the U.S. Negroes may be massacred and their property burned?' Of course, as a woman with disabilities, she was patronized by the same mainstream media that previously championed her as a heroine. The editors of the Brooklyn Eagle wrote: 'Her mistakes spring out of the manifest limitations of her development.'
Keller minced no words in her responses...one of which appeared in newspapers across America: 'So long as I confine my activities to social services and the blind, the newspapers compliment me extravagantly, calling me an 'arch-priest of the sightless' and 'wonder woman'. But when I discuss poverty and the industrial system under which we live that is a different matter.'
As the militaristic frenzy spread across America, Keller appeared at New York City's Carnegie Hall on January 5, 1916. 'I have a word to say to my good friends, the editors, and others who are moved to pity me,' she said. 'Some people are grieved because they imagine I am in the hands of unscrupulous persons who lead me astray and persuade me to espouse unpopular causes and make me the mouthpiece of their propaganda. Now, let it be understood once and for all that I do not want their pity; I would not change places with one of them. I know what I am talking about. My sources of information are as good and reliable as anybody else's. I have papers and magazines from England, France, Germany and Austria that I can read myself. Not all the editors I have met can do that. Quite a number of them have to take their French and German second hand. No, I will not disparage the editors. They are an overworked, misunderstood class. Let them remember, though, that if I cannot see the fire at the end of their cigarettes, neither can they thread a needle in the dark. All I ask, gentlemen, is a fair field and no favor. I have entered the fight against preparedness and against the economic system under which we live. It is to be a fight to the finish, and I ask no quarter.'
Keller's critique of the government propaganda campaign to stir up Americans to support U.S. intervention in the war remains more germane than ever. 'Every modern war has had its root in exploitation' Keller said. 'The Civil War was fought to decide whether the slaveholders of the South or the capitalists of the North should exploit the West. The Spanish-American War decided that the United States should exploit Cuba and the Philippines. The South African War decided that the British should exploit the diamond mines. The Russo-Japanese War decided that Japan should exploit Korea. The present war is to decide who shall exploit the Balkans, Turkey, Persia, Egypt, India, China, Africa. And we are whetting our sword to scare the victors into sharing the spoils with us. Now, the workers are not interested in the spoils; they will not get any of them anyway.'
She urged workers-the ones who do the fighting and dying-to strike at the heart of America's drive toward war. 'Strike against war, for without you no battles can be fought,' she declared. 'Strike against preparedness that means death and misery to millions of human beings. Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army of destruction. Be heroes in an army of construction.'
Excerpted from the soon-to-be-released '50 American Revolutions You're Not Supposed to Know: Reclaiming American Patriotism.'
I should probably refrain from any dialogue and perhaps just correct posts that are obviously erroneous (like the one about poverty in the U.S.). Correcting factual errors on their posts would probably be a full time job. Besides I enjoy the research and learn lots!!
One of the brightest points in Barack Obama's rising political star has been his ability to talk about Jesus without faking it. Beginning with his rousing "Audacity of Hope" speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and continuing with his book of the same name, Obama has shown that he can speak about his Christian faith in ways that are authentic and broadly appealing.
Little wonder that his enemies have tried to turn that strength into a liability. Right-wing bloggers and TV pundits have been targeting Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, complaining that its self-proclaimed Africentric Christianity is separatist or even racist. Obama's campaign has itself pulled back a bit from being identified with Wright. In February it revoked an invitation to have him give the opening prayer when Obama announced his run for the presidency.
Africentrism (that's the term Trinity prefers to Afrocentrism) is wholeheartedly embraced at Trinity. One of the church's mottos is "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian." Its choir is regularly decked out in brightly colored African dress, as is Wright when he preaches. The church emphasizes its connection to the African diaspora: it sponsors trips to western and southern Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin American countries with significant African populations. Julia Speller, a leader at Trinity and author of Walkin' the Talk: Keepin' the Faith in Africentric Congregations, notes in her book that the church offers courses in Swahili and that its youth programs, Intonjane and Isuthu, take their names from Swahili words for coming into manhood and womanhood. The congregation celebrates the Kwanzaa holiday and Umoja Karamu, a Thanksgiving Day service that narrates the story of the black family from its West African origins to today with dancing, drumming and storytelling.
Bible courses at Trinity emphasize the African roots of Christianity, focusing on the account of the Exodus and such passages as the psalmist's promise that Ethiopia would stretch out its hands to God (Ps. 68:31), and the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. In his preaching Wright goes out of his way to describe Moses as "an African prince" and his wife as a "raven-black" beauty. He declares that Jesus himself had "nappy hair" and "bronze skin" (he cites Rev. 1:14-15). Otis Moss III, who will succeed Wright upon his retirement this summer, says that the church is proud of its "Africanity," proud that "when we talk about Sudan, we have Sudanese present."
African Americans have generated distinctly black forms of Christianity since they arrived on these shores. The significance of these forms has been appreciated in mainline seminaries and churches for at least two generations. Trinity is well within the mainstream of the black church, and is remarkable in the mainline world only for its size and influence and for its handful of celebrity members, like Oprah Winfrey and hip-hop artist Common.
Critics have pounced especially on the church's "Black Value System," by which members affirm their commitment to God, the "black community," the "black family" and the "black work ethic," and disavow "the pursuit of 'middle-classness.'" One hatchet-job report in Investor's Business Daily, pointing to the Black Value System (a statement written not by Wright but by church members in the early 1980s), concluded that there is "little room for white Christians at Obama's church." Black conservative pundit Erik Rush said the church has embraced "things African above things American," and he claimed that this should be as alarming as a Republican presidential candidate "belonging to the Aryan Brethren Church of Christ." Tucker Carlson of MSNBC described Trinity as having a "racially exclusive theology" that "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity." Sean Hannity of Fox News confronted Wright on TV and asked how a black value system is any more acceptable than a white value system. Hannity also suggested that Trinity's emphasis on black values contradicts Martin Luther King's famous hope that people would be judged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Follow link for more.
Not afraid of change...
It's not the change that scares me, but the fact that my money will be going to pay for someone else to have something I can barely afford for my own family. Already too much of it goes for that - think foreigners that get Medicaid to pay for all of their doctor visits. And yes, lots of legitimate claims are being denied, but do you think that's going to change when the government has thier hands in it? That's what's really scary. I don't even trust the government with the money they already get from me - what's going to happen when they get more, and more power to boot? The insurance industry needs a complete overhaul, that I agree with, but as far as letting politicians take over? I'm thinking that's not really the best plan.
Change....away from NeoCons.
nm
Hope, Change....
If Barack Obama is a reformer, he could be the first one ever to become President of the United States having done almost nothing different in the name of reform. Consider: What has really changed? In a positive way?
He did not change politics in Chicago. By endorsing crooked machine politicians who reward their campaign donors and door-knockers with a government salary. By backing a mayor whose aids and appointees sell city contracts in exchange for campaign contributions. By endorsing an alderman who pulls a gun on her colleagues. By failing to endorse the rare candidate who has a chance to win and change something in Cook County. By covering up the excesses of the Chicago Teachers Union, knowing just how abysmal the city's public education is. By earmarking funds for a radical Catholic priest who ecourages blacks to hate whites.
Obama did not change politics in Springfield. You can't reform a state like Illinois by voting present 130 times to avoid controversial issues. By teaming up with a state Senate Majority Leader whose main concern appears to be placing every member of his family somewhere on the state payroll. By backing for statewide office a financier whose family bank lends money to organized crime. By negotiating to minimize the impact of welfare reform. By writing letters to get state grants for someone who just paid you $112,000. By co-sponsoring nearly any bill that helps Tony Rezko and his friends make money from taxpayers for building uninhabitable slums where rodents roam and sewage backs up in kitchen sinks (Obama said he did not know the condition of the buildings; however, all reside in his senate district and it had been well reported in the media).
Obama has certainly not changed politics in Congress. You can't reform Washington by earmarking a million dollars for your wife's employer after they double her salary (this can be verified on line...I was amazed!!...if I were him I would back off the earmarks thing and lamblasting Sarah Palin...this one could come back to bite him big time). By voting to throw away money on ethanol, farm subsidies, and the Bridge to Nowhere while much of New Orleans was still under water. By reaching across the aisle on ethics reform, only to pull your hand back and bury it in your pocket. By earmarking funds for your campaign contributors. By suddenly deciding its time to leave Iraq when you start running for President.
It's not that Barack Obama is a bad person. It's just that he's like all the rest of them. Not a reformer. Not a Messiah. Just like all the rest of them in Washington. Just like all the other liberals. Well, that is not entirely true. Most liberals in Congress know more about foreign policy and how diplomacy works than Obama. And most of them, nearly ALL of them...believe that babies born alive have a right to medical care.
Obama's radical ties don't make him a radical. His ties to Communists don't make him a Communist. His ties to a terrorist don't make him a terrorist. But his continued relationships throughout his public life show an important influence in his public career. What ideas are so important to Barack Obama that he desperately seeks the approval of Black Commentator and the New Party, but drops the Democratic Leadership Council as it if were a molten porcupine?
These connections do not disqualify Obama from the presidency. But they do raise questions about his judgment. By what criteria does a man choose his friends and end up with the likes of Tony Rezko,Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers? How does he choose his advisors and end up with people who chat with terrorists, advocate reparations for slavery, and praise Hugo Chavez a a champion of democracy?
What sort of nominations does such a man make as President? What kind of diplomacy does he pursue, give that so much of diplomacy consists of reading, understanding, and judging others' intentions and character?
That is why these ties deserve scrutiny. If Barack Obama becomes President, his good judgment, or the lack thereof, will affect the entire country.
--From "The Case Against Barack Obama"
This does not change the fact that CNN has not
You see, I know my candidate. He is very careful with his votes. There must have been something HIGHLY, HIGHLY stinky for him to have voted no on Katrina finding in view of the 36 other times he did everything humanly possible to help out. Cetainly you didn't have time to read it, but I feel certainly others will at least glance at the list. Don't blame you for being a little touchy on being exposed for posting half truths on the board. It does have a tendency to undermine one's credibility, especially if you let it become a habit.
Yes, let's change the subject, shall we? NOT
I trust in the majority of the American people to know true honesty, goodness, and grace when they see it.
All the greasy left smear tactics in the world, cannot change that.
Just watch and see.....
Sorry, this does nothing to change my mind.
Only tells me that like many other soldiers, McCain came back from war and decided that the life he had wasn't the life he wanted now. It does happen - doesn't make it any easier on those left behind, but it does happen. What we're looking for in a president is someone with expereince in government, not experience in marriage. If that was the case, we wouldn't have found Bill Clinton in the closet with Monica! And yes, I left pretty much the same comment on the board at this site. My vote is still for McCain.
if you already have insurance you don't have to change - nm
x
I agree....nothing will change what is to be.
And this may just be a forefunner...maybe he loses this time and runs again in 4 years? Maybe he runs again in 8? Now might not be the time.
All that being said...I am not voting for him because I think he has some religious meaning...I am not voting for him because I think he is a socialist and I think that is wrong for this country.
You got that right...there is nothing you can say to change our minds!
:D
I could use some hope for change but
I don't need the money.
Afraid? You bet. I do not want change that O wants.
He keeps changing his mind. You want change? Boy are you going to get change. I am afraid a lot are going to regrete who they voted for down the road when welfare will be spreading around, electricity rates skyrocket. No more small businesses because people will be taxed over 250,000. Oh wait. It will be 200,000. Oh wait. It is 150,000 by Biden. Oh wait. Now it is 120,000. Next it will be 42,000. Gosh, cannot make up their mind. I could go on and on. The O says it is going to be difficult for us because he needs to "kill people's expecations" if he is president. HE FREAKS ME OUT. Been reading up on the GREAT DEPRESSION and about Hoover. Also been hearing reports of O's plans and he will probably put us through the biggest Great Depression in history. He will kill middle class first and then it will be welfare and the rich.
change can be good or bad
I normally don't post on this board, but for all of you caught up in the "Obama palooza" remember that change can be good or bad. Be careful of what you wish for. You might not like the change that is coming. As an MT for one of the big companies we have seen a lot of "change" and none of it has been good. It has all benefitted the upper management and none of it trickled down to the MTs, even though they told us these "changes" were for us. That said, my husband and I plan to hide our money from BO by using every tax evasion strategy we can; 401K, offshore accounts, more writeoffs and hope in 4 years everyone has had enough of "change."
They are revamping the change.gov
The agenda items were basically block copied from the campaign site. As JtBB posted, the items are still up on the campaign site.
So if he did change it to not mandatory
I don't get the outrage. He did something that appeases his critics, but still they complain.
marks the location of current message within thread
