Yep, pretty dumb to claim you have foreign policy experience from 3 weeks in Pakistan!!!...
Posted By: sm on 2008-10-25
In Reply to: More dumb stuff. - gourdpainter
Obama started off saying he was confident in his FOREIGN POLICY experience ("Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain"). He then proceeded to talk about his visit to Pakistan.
SO WHAT? I visited and lived in several foreign countries, too. Does that mean I understand foreign policy better than someone who may have spent less time but has had actual interaction and policy discussions with those countries' leaders? And with the leaders of 80 countries?
If 3 weeks in Pakistan is the extent of Obama's foreign policy credentials, then I am way more qualified on the "foreign policy" front.
My point is that Obama's claim is ridiculous. Better that he stick to his "better judgement" mantra, since the "3 weeks abroad = foreign policy experience" is just pathetically weak.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
He has more experience than Obama in foreign policy and that cannot...
be disputed. He did add that with Joe Biden; however, I still say it will look odd to foreign leaders if Biden goes to all his meetings with him. McCain can instill any number of advisors and/or his VP pick to help where he lacks in knowledge of the economy. Frankly, I would rather have the economy knowledge in the second chair than the foreign policy knowledge. Because if we get pulled into a confrontation with someone who we know for sure unequivocally DOES have nukes...well, you get my drift.
McCain does not plan to stay at war for 100 years. That was taken completely out of context and not what he said at all. What he said was that there could be an American presence there for 100 years in the form of bases. There are American bases all over the world. We still have bases in Germany and that war has been over for what...60 years or more? If the world lasts 100 years past WWII, those bases will still be there. THAT is what McCain was talking about. Not staying at war for 100 years. We have bases in South Korea, and that war has been over for 50+ years.
I could start pulling out all the Obama quotes but his followers don't care. I have never seen such a group myopic view about one individual. It seems like if he got up on a podium and said I really don't plan to do anything I say I will do, I am just like all the politicians before me, they would chant back "we don't care, we don't care, we don't care." Such is blind devotion. This goes way past a politician and party members.
How do you know McCain has no plans to help Americans through hard times? I can tell you one thing that should not be done is impose harsher taxes on the small family businesses in this country who employ a lot of people. All that does is either cause those companies to go offshore or fold, and then you have even more unemployed and add to the government ticket. But oh...what am I thinking. That is what Democrats want. The more beholden people are to the government, the better Democrats like it. When I say Democrats, I mean the Democratic party hierarchy. I do NOT lump all Democrats together and demonize the whole group as other posters here tend to do with Republicans. Even lump Independents in with the Republicans because they are "not Democrats." That is a decidedly unDEMOcratic attitude, unAmerican attitude. One would surmise the socialism thing is already working...well of course it is. How many times in the speech did we hear tax the rich and the disappearing middle class? Class socialism...redistribute that wealth.
Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience...
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/08/31/foreign-policy-experience-what-americans-dont-know-about-sarah-palin/
Biden has plenty of foreign policy experience.
n/m
One's child being in the military doesn't mean foreign policy experience...
the site I posted lists several things that do constitute foreign policy experience...more than Barack has. That is not a slam, it is just the truth. And she is the #2 person, not the #1 person. I don't know if she said she doesn't know anything about Iraq or not. She is a governor, in state politics, and that should have been her focus. She was running a state government. Obama has never run any kind of government,so she has more executive experience than he has...well, in fact, more than any candidate running, including her running mate. John McCain has more foreign policy experience than Obama. Obama's #2 has more foreign policy experience than he does. That is why he is the #2 guy. As far as experience goes...Sarah Palin has more than Barack Obama. That is fact on paper. Not trying to downgrade Obama. Contrary to popular opinion, I think he is a likable guy. I think he is a good orator. I think he has a beautiful family he loves and who love him. I don't have anything against Joe Biden, other than he can be condescending and hateful sometimes...there are sound bites all over the internet. I just don't think he is right to lead either. I just think Obama is wrong for the Presidency and so would Joe Biden be. Apparently holding that opinion put me on the tracks in front of the hate train with a target painted on my back. But that is okay...I can deal with that. My country is too important to me to throw my values under the bus for the "party." I am with PUMA...party unity my tailfeathers.
Why should she think about foreign policy?
She was the governor of a state and that should have been her focus. Your #1 also has zero foreign policy experience. That is why he has Joe Biden. That is why Sarah has McCain. If something happened to McCain, she would have foreign policy advisors, just like Obama has in Biden. The thing is...she is the #2. If we elect Obama, we have zero foreign policy experience from day 1. It's pretty clear to me what I would rather see. I would like to at least start out with someone with several years foreign policy experience. But that is just me.
RE: Foreign Policy. Sam says we'd be just as well off
On the issues
Sarah Palin on Foreign Policy.
No stance
Obama on Foreign Policy
- Meet with Cuban leaders only with agenda of US interests. (Feb 2008)
- Cuba: Loosen restrictions now; normalization later. (Feb 2008)
- Important to undo the damage of the last seven years. (Feb 2008)
- Never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate. (Jan 2008)
- Ok to postpone Pakistani elections, but not indefinitely. (Dec 2007)
- Pakistan crisis: secure nukes; continue with elections. (Dec 2007)
- President must abide by international human rights treaties. (Dec 2007)
- Obama Doctrine: ideology has overridden facts and reality. (Dec 2007)
- China is a competitor but not an enemy. (Dec 2007)
- Willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung IL & Hugo Chavez. (Nov 2007)
- Wrote 2006 law stabilizing Congo with $52M. (Oct 2007)
- No Obama Doctrine; just democracy, security, liberty. (Oct 2007)
- Invest in our relationship with Mexico. (Sep 2007)
- Strengthen NATO to face 21st-century threats. (Aug 2007)
- $50B annually to strengthen weak states at risk of collapse. (Aug 2007)
- No "strategic ambiguity" on foreign policy issues. (Aug 2007)
- At college, protested for divestment from South Africa. (Aug 2007)
- Increased aid to Republic of Congo. (Aug 2007)
- Visited largest slum in Africa, to publicize its plight. (Aug 2007)
- My critics engineered our biggest foreign policy disaster. (Aug 2007)
- China is a competitor, but not an enemy. (Aug 2007)
- Meet with enemy leaders; it's a disgrace that we have not. (Jul 2007)
- No-fly zone in Darfur; but pay attention more in Africa. (Jun 2007)
- Europe & Japan are allies, but China is a competitor. (Apr 2007)
- Palestinian people suffer-but from not recognizing Israel. (Apr 2007)
- FactCheck: Palestinian suffering from stalled peace effort. (Apr 2007)
- U.S. needs to ameliorate trade relations with China. (Mar 2007)
- U.S. funds for humanitarian aid to Darfur. (Mar 2007)
- We cannot afford isolationism. (Mar 2007)
- Protested South African apartheid while at college. (Feb 2007)
- Focus on corruption to improve African development. (Oct 2006)
- Supports Israel's self-defense; but distrusted by Israelis. (Oct 2006)
- Visited Africa in 2006; encouraged HIV testing & research. (Oct 2006)
- Never has US had so much power & so little influence to lead. (Jul 2004)
- US policy should promote democracy and human rights. (Jul 2004)
- Sponsored aid bill to avert humanitarian crisis in Congo. (Dec 2005)
- Urge Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations. (May 2007)
- Let Ukraine & Georgia enter NATO. (Jan 2008)
- Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet. (Apr 2008)
- Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy. (Apr 2008)
Sarah Palin on Homeland Security
- Strong military and sound energy. (Aug 2008)
- Armed forces, including my son, give us security and freedom. (Jan 2008)
- Ask all candidates "Are you doing all you can for security?". (Oct 2007)
- Visits Kuwait; encourages Alaska big game hunting to troops. (Sep 2007)
- Promote from within, in Alaska's National Guard. (Nov 2006)
- Let military personnel know how much we support them. (Nov 2006)
Obama on Homeland Security
- No torture; no renditions; no operating out of fear. (Apr 2008)
- Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital. (Feb 2008)
- Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons. (Feb 2008)
- Al Qaida is stronger now than in 2001 as Iraq distracted us. (Jan 2008)
- Colleges must allow military recruiters for ROTC on campus. (Jan 2008)
- Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy. (Jan 2008)
- FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it. (Jan 2008)
- No presidential power for secret surveillance. (Dec 2007)
- No holding US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants. (Dec 2007)
- Congress decides what constitutes torture, not president. (Dec 2007)
- No torture; defiance of FISA; no military commissions. (Dec 2007)
- Restore habeas corpus to reach Muslims abroad. (Dec 2007)
- Human rights and national security are complementary. (Nov 2007)
- Don't allow our politics to be driven by fear of terrorism. (Nov 2007)
- 2006: Obama-Lugar bill restricted conventional weapons. (Oct 2007)
- Judgment is as important as experience. (Oct 2007)
- If attacked, first help victims then prevent further attacks. (Oct 2007)
- America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions. (Sep 2007)
- Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. (Aug 2007)
- 2005: Passed bill to reduce conventional weapon stockpiles. (Aug 2007)
- We are no safer now than we were after 9/11. (Aug 2007)
- Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus. (Jun 2007)
- Homeland security must protect citizens, not intrude on them. (Mar 2007)
- America must practice the patriotism it preaches. (Mar 2007)
- Protecting nuclear power plants is of utmost importance. (Mar 2007)
- Personal privacy must be protected even in terrorism age. (Mar 2007)
- Get first responders the healthcare and equipment they need. (Mar 2007)
- Need to be both strong and smart on national defense. (Oct 2006)
- Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules. (Oct 2006)
- Battling terrorism must go beyond belligerence vs. isolation. (Oct 2006)
- Going after AL Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion. (Jan 2006)
- Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Jan 2006)
- We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo. (Oct 2004)
- Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes. (Jul 2004)
- Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available. (Jul 2004)
- Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk. (Jul 2004)
Sarah Palin on War and Peace
- We don't know what the plan is to ever end the war. (Aug 2008)
- Wants exit plan; also assurances to keep our troops safe. (Mar 2007)
Obama on War and Peace
Iraq War
- President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics. (Apr 2008)
- President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission. (Apr 2008)
- $2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable. (Feb 2008)
- Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis. (Feb 2008)
- FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million. (Feb 2008)
- The Iraq war has undermined our security. (Jan 2008)
- Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats. (Jan 2008)
- End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war. (Jan 2008)
- The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start. (Jan 2008)
- Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent. (Jan 2008)
- Get our troops out by the end of 2009. (Jan 2008)
- No permanent bases in Iraq. (Jan 2008)
- FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago. (Jan 2008)
- Congress decides deployment level & duration, not president. (Dec 2007)
- Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed. (Nov 2007)
- Leave troops for protection of Americans & counterterrorism. (Sep 2007)
- Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)
- Tell people the truth: quickest is 1-2 brigades per month. (Sep 2007)
- No good options in Iraq--just bad options & worse options. (Aug 2007)
- Be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. (Jul 2007)
- We live in a more dangerous world because of Bush's actions. (Jun 2007)
- Case for war was weak, but people voted their best judgment. (Jun 2007)
- War in Iraq is "dumb" but troops still need equipment. (Apr 2007)
- Open-ended Iraq occupation must end: no military solution. (Apr 2007)
- Saddam is a tyrant but not a national security threat. (Mar 2007)
- Iraq 2002: ill-conceived venture; 2007: waste of resources. (Feb 2007)
- Saddam did not own and was not providing WMD to terrorists. (Oct 2004)
- Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism. (Oct 2004)
- Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder. (Oct 2004)
- Democratizing Iraq will be more difficult than Afghanistan. (Oct 2004)
- Never fudge numbers or shade the truth about war. (Jul 2004)
- Set a new tone to internationalize the Iraqi reconstruction. (Jul 2004)
- Iraq war was sincere but misguided, ideologically driven. (Jul 2004)
- Not opposed to all wars, but opposed to the war in Iraq. (Jul 2004)
- International voice in Iraq in exchange for debt forgiveness. (Jul 2004)
Trouble Spots
- Iran is biggest strategic beneficiary of invasion of Iraq. (May 2008)
- Military surge in Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban. (May 2008)
- Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel. (Apr 2008)
- Two-state solution: Israel & Palestine side-by-side in peace. (Feb 2008)
- Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed. (Jan 2008)
- No action against Iran without Congressional authorization. (Dec 2007)
- Iran: Bush does not let facts get in the way of ideology. (Dec 2007)
- Meet directly for diplomacy with the leadership in Iran. (Nov 2007)
- Committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. (Oct 2007)
- Iran military resolution sends the region a wrong signal. (Oct 2007)
- Deal with al Qaeda on Pakistan border, but not with nukes. (Aug 2007)
- Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel. (Aug 2007)
- FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda. (Aug 2007)
- Focus on battle in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda. (Jun 2007)
- Bush cracked down on some terrorists' financial networks. (Jun 2007)
- Iraq has distracted us from Taliban in Afghanistan. (Apr 2007)
- Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat. (Apr 2007)
- We did the right thing in Afghanistan. (Mar 2007)
- We are playing to Osama's plan for winning a war from a cave. (Oct 2006)
- Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine. (Jan 2006)
- Terrorists are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. (Oct 2004)
- Problems with current Israeli policy. (Jul 2004)
- Engage North Korea in 6-party talks. (Jul 2004)
- Use moral authority to work towards Middle East peace. (Jul 2004)
Voting Record
- Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check. (Nov 2007)
- Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war. (Jun 2007)
- Spending on the Cold War relics should be for the veterans. (Jun 2007)
- Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war. (Jul 2004)
- Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
- Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
- Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
JM/SP foreign policy exactly what?
I notice you have expressed no defense of SP regarding the points I have raised in the previous post regarding her breathtaking lack of knowledge and experience in foreign policy as was so painfully obvious in her first interview with Gibson and will be even more visible when she debates Biden. So you did what you always do and resorted to attacking Obama instead. OK. Let's go there for a minute.
You failed to mention who is the Chairman of the (full) Senate Foreign Relations Committee where hearings and strategies relative to NATO-Afghanistan relations are conducted. Lo and Behold. Would you look at that? It's Joe Biden, who served as chairman of that committee Jan 2001 to Jan 2003 and assumed his current incumbent chair position in Jan 2007. Looks like O made a pretty good choice of VP running mate when it comes to foreign policy experience. So if O is Chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, why shouldn't he be in California for a debate? I would argue that if the Foreign Relations Committee IS the place where policy is debated relative to NATO and its relationship to Afghanistan (last time I checked, NOT in Europe) and O has (according to you) 300 advisors, his attendance is not expected or required, then evidently he feels that he can confidently rely on his advisors to keep him up to speed on what actually IS within the realm of his duties as Chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs since he is running for president.
By the way, how many foreign policy advisors does SP have at her disposal? Just curious. Also, it is notable that JM does not serve on any committees and his foreign policy experience is exactly what now? Speaking of advisors, for the life of me I cannot understand why you think there is something wrong with Obama having access to the insight of more than 300 people when it comes to foreign affairs. Sounds like a pretty impressive staff to me. Some might argue that that is an asset, not a liability. The world is a mighty big place and it is ludicrous to think that a president or a senator on a committee should not be taking advice and guidance from the experts on a given region.
Here's some foreign affairs stuff Obama did do during his time in the Senate before the campaign. Notice his interest in WMDs and his involvement in the strategy planning for controlling them in defense against terrorist attacks.
1. Introduced expansions to Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction and their associated infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.
2. Sponsor of Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act, signed by Bush, to restore basic services like clinics and schools, train a professional, integrated and accountable police force and military, and otherwise support the Congolese in protecting their human rights and rebuilding their nation.
3. As member of Foreign Relations Committee, he made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. His 2005 trip to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan focus on strategy planning for the control of world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons and WMDs and defense against potential terrorist attacks.
4. January 2006, met with US military in Kuwait and Iraq. Visited Jordan, Israel and Palestinian territories. Asserted preconditions that US will never recognize legitimacy of Hamas leadership until they renounce elimination of Israel.
5. August 2006, official trip to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad where he made televised appearance addressing ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.
So that's about it for now. JM/SP foreign affairs experience is what now?
Dirty foreign policy
Well, seems to be if we didnt have such a murderous dirty foreign policy for the last 50 years, the rest of the world might not be wanting to blow us to kingdom come. You have to wonder why other people of the world hate us so. It is because we have overthrown third world governments and placed puppets in, undermined elections in other countries, murdered duly legally elected leaders in other countries. Heck, we were bombing Iraq nonstop through the 1990s and stepped it up right before this illegal criminal war. The great thing is lots of those soldiers who took part in the bombing are now speaking out. It has been my experience, from what I have seen in life, you can only bully for so long, then others will definitely strike back. We are now being struck back.
That's ridiculous. This is a foreign policy debate...
mccain still leads all the polls on foreign policy. He has no reason to try to duck this, and that should not even be an issue...they should both be back in Washington doing their jobs as leaders of their parties, not to mention as senators, which they both still are and drawing checks for.
I am glad one of them is doing it, and believe it or not, if Obama had said it first he would be getting the kudos from me too. If he even agreed to it I would give him thumbs up. But he chose not to.
Cheney 'cabal' hijacked foreign policy
Cheney 'cabal' hijacked foreign policy By Edward Alden in Washington Published: October 20 2005 00:00 | Last updated: October 20 2005 00:19 Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday. In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made. Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences. Transcript: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson Click here http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c925a686-4...000e2511c8.html Mr Wilkerson said such secret decision-making was responsible for mistakes such as the long refusal to engage with North Korea or to back European efforts on Iran. It also resulted in bitter battles in the administration among those excluded from the decisions. If you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions, you are courting disaster. And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran. The comments, made at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, were the harshest attack on the administration by a former senior official since criticisms by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism czar, and Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary, early last year. Mr Wilkerson said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out with Mr Powell, whom he served for 16 years at the Pentagon and the State Department. He's not happy with my speaking out because, and I admire this in him, he is the world's most loyal soldier. Among his other charges: ■ The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was a concrete example of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it. ■ Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was part of the problem. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president. ■ The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel. Mr Wilkerson said former president George H.W. Bush one of the finest presidents we have ever had understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast, he said, his son was not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either. There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today. www.newamerica.net
How much did Barack Obama think about foreign policy before he decided to run...?
I would say...none. There is certainly no proof that he DID, that is why he chose Biden. So, if HE has to make a crucial decision that does not involve voting present or yelling at Michelle for spending $10,000 to send their kids to camp, or which Britney Spears designer to use for his next big speech...what's he gonna do? All I can say is, if he is elected, he better put Biden on speed dial or handcuff him to himself. You act as if your guy is ready!! And no one has to keel over for HIM to be in charge...he is in charge on day 1. Yeah, THAT IS scary!!
I don't know in what alternate universe you think Karl Rove is advising him. Karl Rove and John McCain detest each other. Have you not paid ANY attention these last few years??
Biden's giving a speech on foreign policy right now..
sure doesn't sound like he is stepping down any time soon, but don't want to burst your bubble.
Because they were roasting the economy, foreign and domestic policy
I am a firm Obama suppoter but I concede on this point. McCain out-roasted Obama. He was clever, not over the top, comfortable with himself and amazingly gracious in his concluding remarks...in stark contrast to his demeanor when debating the more difficult issues of this election.
McCain and his foreign policy would have pushed America into total isolation from the rest of the w
and the world would have disrespected us even more.
There are different ways to SHOW STRENGTH, it must not always be BOMBS !
Non-stop hate rhetoric for weeks and weeks on end
Red camp has been making character the issue by their own choice. They copped out on the national crisis and decided to go with the culture war. Well, now they have it and I am sure that GP is not the only one who is feeling a bit surly at this point. What is the O camp (and I am not assuming that GP is going that way since she has not said so) supposed to do? Did you think that they would simply quietly sit back and take lash after lash after lash and wait for the tribal warriors to suddenly develop a conscience and call a cease fire?
Honestly, it was dumb....twaddle dumb....
x
vacation in Pakistan?
Now I'm starting to worry . . .
Is Pakistan in Europe?
Just wondering...
It didn't say he grew up in Pakistan
Big difference.
What on earth does the Taliban in Pakistan....
getting stronger have to do with the war in Iraq? That has to do with the war in Afghanistan, which, by the way, Obama never said he would end, in fact, he wants to escalate, which he has. The war in Iraq was the one he vowed to put an end to...you don't remember the speech? "We do not belong there, we never belonged there, and when I am elected I will begin immediate withdrawal." Yeah..uh huh. Then he moved it out to 16 months. And he has moved it out again to 24 months. Your golden idol has clay feet, my friend. You are so blinded by the "light" you just can't see it, and I cannot decide if that is plain old denial or if you really are that naive. :-)
Wrong! Indonesia as a child not Pakistan. nm
.
Obama visited Pakistan in 1981...
http://dailymusings.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!EBAB74DA8F94C559!5351.entry
1981 - Obama Visits Pakistan When All Non-Muslim Vistors Unwelcome - Bin Laden There, Too
The following asks a lot of good questions about Obama's supposedly "innocent" visit to Pakistan in 1981. One thing not asked is whether we know exactly how long he was there? Campaign mangers are known to lie a lot, especially when a troublesome issue arises. And where is our major media on this? Quiet!!!!!!
At a fundraiser in San Francisco, Ca., Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., claimed he had more world experience than his rivals, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and introduced a new bit of biographical information. "Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain," Obama said, according to the Huffington Post. "It's ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries' -- I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then -- you go." "You do that in eighty countries," Obama said, "You don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa --knowing the leaders is not important -- what I know is the people...I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college -- I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." (But later he says the USA has 58 states and he's been to 57 of them, not counting Hawaii and Alaska. I guess he knows Muslims better than Americans, he certainly is not picking 58 out of the air, what about 58 relates to Muslims?) This last part -- a college trip to Pakistan -- was news to many of us who have been following the race closely. And it was odd that we hadn't hear about it before, given all the talk of Pakistan during this campaign. So I asked the Obama campaign for more information. Apparently, according to the Obama campaign, In 1981 -- the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University -- Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia. After that visit, Obama traveled to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from there. The Obama campaign says Obama was in Pakistan for about three weeks, staying with his friend's family in Karachi and also visiting Hyderabad in Southern India. NOW, It all sounds very innocent, "a college trip to Pakistan".
Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and ruled of martial law. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan, while the Afghan Mujahedeen operated from bases inside Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. One of the leaders that based his operation in Quetta, Pakistan was Usama Bin Laden (The Sheik).
Pakistan was on the banned travel list for US Citizens at the time and all non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business.
The would be only a few reasons a young Westerner of the Muslim faith would travel to Pakistan in 1981:
To Participate in Jihad, which is the duty of every "True Believer".
For religious education in a Wahabbi sect, Saudi funded, Madrassa.
In order to purchase drugs from the drug marketplace.
Pakistan was not a tourist stop nor the place to hang out with someone's family in 1981.
policy
So you think economic policies are the same as voter fraud? As a democrat, I have sat and read those that back Obama just come back with ridiculous questions because they know the facts against Obama are there but they have nothing to defend them, so they ask questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the facts at hand. It's an embarrassment when someone that is dem can't find one fact to defend the man in the stuff he is involved in. Corruption, terrorists....or do you like that?
I asked for someone to refute Obama's involvement with ACORN but since no one can, they bring up an issue that has nothing to do with the question. Now that is true ignorance. I'm so glad many democrats have opened their eyes and realize this is not what they want, which is why Obama has ACORN out there doing his dirty bidding, trying to get fradulent voter applications in there.
According to tax policy institute...
McCain's plan is to lower taxes on all levels, and from this the middle class would see a 3% increase in take-home pay. This also keeps small businesses who employ a great many people in this country, healthy and here, not offshore or folding.
Obama's program would have the middle class (not defined) getting 5% raise in takehome pay by 2012. He also wants $60 billion to give more tax cuts to the lowest income tax bracket...who already pay little or no taxes. And he plans to tax businesses who make over $250,000 a year to pay for that. THAT is exactly where the small businesses in this country fall. So why on EARTH would you hit the small businesses who employ so many people, just to give more breaks to the lowest bracket? All in the world that is going to do is cause small businesses to fail or go offshore or lay people off, so you will have even MORE people sent to that lower bracket, and that will put even more pressure on a slow economy.
McCain = everybody gets a tax break and small businesses stay healthy, and we don't add anymore people to that lower tax bracket. Plus the middle class gets a 3% raise in takehome pay.
To me, that is a no brainer.
When I said "enacting policy" sm
I was referring to his urging Congress to act on certain measures, such as the economic stimulus package, etc. Perhaps my choice of words was a little off, but I think you knew what I meant.
As far as being a "Bushie", I am not, thank you very much, but I believe in fairness inasmuch as fairness can be had in the political world, and I believe that Bush has been given too much "credit" for all the woes of this country. You have to remember that the POTUS is not always the decider, despite what Bush might have called himself. It is also interesting to note that the past 2 years, Dems have been the majority in Congress, which actually plays more of a part in deciding that the POTUS. No rabbits out of that hat!
I'm not criticizing Obama....yet. I am simply stating a fact....that he has jumped to the forefront and has made himself a very vocal player in the Washington arena. He is not the POTUS yet, and he should stop acting like he is. Do I like Obama? Most assuredly not, but I wish the man all the best. I hope he does a splendid job as President and pulls us from the brink of destruction, but it is a very tall order to fill and I do agree with you in that I don't know if there is anyone who can manage this.
In the meantime, I think all you Obama worshippers need to pull the wool off your eyes and realize that he is just a man and not some kind of super hero. He will have his kryptonite, too.
Let me dumb it up for you then.
Original thread, second paragraph:
Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on Friday distributed a statement, A Case for Hearings, that declares, The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
Below are 2 bills I pulled in regards to the articles of impeachment submitted to the judiciary committee.
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 1106
Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 8, 2006
Ms. MCKINNEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all the people of the United States of America, against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that:
ARTICLE I. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION
In violation of the oath of office, which reads: `I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States', George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States has demonstrated a pattern of abuse of office and of executive privilege, and disregard for the Constitution itself.
This conduct includes the following:
Manipulating Intelligence and Lying To Justify War
In violation of the separation of powers under the Constitution and his subsequent obligation to share intelligence with the Congress, George Walker Bush, while serving as President of the United States of America, in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting information by, for example, removing portions of reports such as the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief, and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies to provide intelligence such that `the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy' as revealed in the `Downing Street Memo'. To this end, President George Walker Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld created the Office of Special Plans inside the Pentagon to override existing intelligence reports by providing unreliable evidence that supported the claim that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the United States of America. By justifying the invasion of Iraq with false and misleading statements linking Iraq to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and falsely asserting that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program for which it was importing aluminum tubes and uranium, these assertions being either false, or based on `fixed' intelligence, with the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an informed choice, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.
ARTICLE II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
In violation of his oath to `faithfully execute the office of President of the United States', George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States, has consistently demonstrated disregard for that oath by obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office.
This conduct includes the following:
Failure To Uphold Accountability
In abrogation of his responsibility under the oath of office to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, by which he agreed to act in good faith and accept responsibility for the overall conduct of the Executive Branch, a duty vested in his office alone under the Constitution, George Walker Bush, failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people.
Those whom George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America, has failed to hold to account include but are not limited to the following top-level officials in his administration:
(a) RICHARD CHENEY- In violation of his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, played a key role in manipulating intelligence in the interest of promoting the illegal invasion of Iraq by pressuring analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency to `fix' their intelligence estimates of the danger posed by Iraq in relation to weapons of mass destruction, whereby Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.
(b) CONDOLEEZZA RICE- In violation of her Constitutional duty to share and provide accurate and truthful intelligence information with the Congress, as former National Security Advisor to the President, did play a leading role in deceiving Congress and the American public by repeating and propagating false statements concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program, including false information that the purchase of aluminum tubes demonstrated that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, false information that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium and false information that Iraq sought help in developing a chemical and biological weapons program; whereby Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States of America, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.
By neglecting to superintend the conduct of these officials and to hold members of the Executive Branch responsible for their negligence or violations of law, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.
Wherefore, by their aforementioned conduct, George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice warrant impeachment, trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE III. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED
In violation of his duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed', George Walker Bush, during his tenure as President of the United States, has violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law.
This conduct includes the following:
Illegal Domestic Spying
In violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [50 U.S.C. Chapter 36], George Walker Bush did clandestinely direct the National Security Agency and various other intelligence agencies, in secret and outside the lawful scope of their mandates, for purposes unrelated to any lawful function of his offices, to conduct electronic surveillance of citizens of the United States on U.S. soil without seeking to obtain, before or after, a judicial warrant, thereby subverting the powers of the Congress and the Judiciary by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal (ACLU vs. NSA); he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit as on April 20, 2004, when he told an audience in Buffalo, New York: `any time you hear the United States Government talking about wiretap, it requires . . . a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so', whereby said George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.
In all of this, George Walker Bush has repeatedly and unapologetically misled the American people and has sought to undermine the system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers. Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, and in the interest of saving our Constitution and our democracy from the threat of arbitrary government, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
<BGCOLOR=#FFFFFF"
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display
Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to... (Introduced in House)
HRES 333 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 333
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 24, 2007
Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:
(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:
(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad AL Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.
(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.
(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.
(F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.
(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts.
(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.
(3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.
(A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'.
(B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'.
(C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'.
The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article II
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:
(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:
(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.
(B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.
(C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ྖs, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney ཀ Fundraiser in Iowa.
(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.
(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.
(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:
(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'.
(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'.
(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'.
The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article III
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:
(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:
(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.
(B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.
(C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.
(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:
(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.
(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:
(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.
(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.
(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.
(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.
(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.
(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.
(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.
(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.
(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.
The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
Did I say they were dumb?
I just have a problem with women (even Oprah) demeaning themselves for a pageant that is really just for men to drool over women. Oooh, look at me - I'm purdy.
I suggest some of you go to the following link and read what the people are thinking. I read just about all of them and the one that strikes me is a Canadian making a comment about this election.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/29/1307122.aspx
I may be dumb s/m
but I'm smart enough to read the handwriting on the wall.
VOTING FOR LOU DOBBS FOR PRESIDENT!!!! Add T. Boone Pickens for VP!!!!!
now you are just being dumb
You are putting words in my mouth. You know nothing about me. I asked for some backup when people post things. You finally provided it, after whining in 3 other posts. I never ever claimed to be an ACORN fan. I just was trying to get the point across that if you post backup, you look a little smarter, but I guess it took you a while to get that ... Big shock.
How could someone so dumb
do so many good things for her state? If she was that stupid, her state would be bankrupt like California is.
Not when it is publishing policy statements
the joke's on you. Hundred of others where that came from.
Firstly, he CANNOT enact policy, and he
is trying to get the economy stabilized ASAP. Bush has let go of the prez's office, he just wants to take his marbles and go home. He has not been acting prez since before the economic crisis; i.e. he came out for about all of a minute and a half to "explain" the economic crash in Sept. So he is not acting as prez, nor does he want to. Therefore, Obama is trying to get the economic issues in place so he can DO SOMETHING about it!! Why is that so hard for you to understand? "Bush given too much credit for woes of the country" Bush is given much of the credit because HIS policies made this mess. When these policies were enacted, Reps were in power. Bush is responsible for every little thing that happened during his tenure, as I am sure Obama will be responsible for everything he does PLUS what Bush has caused because he is the one who has to unravel the mass of strings all knotted up in a big ball, caused by Bush, and it will be a tough road to hoe for Americans, thanks to Bush. "He is not POTUS yet, and he should stop acting like he is." Well, that's funny that you keep bringing that up. He was elected POTUS, Shrub doesn't want the job, so somebody has to answer the questions, like "how's he going to fix this mess?" the press keeps putting to him. As an Obama worshipper which gets my ire because I only worship Jesus Christ, thank you very much, but if you must call me an Obama worshipper and tell me to pull the wool off my eyes, I will tell you that my eyes have been wide open for years, way back, darlin', probably as long or longer than you have been on this earth. I know my history for one, and you better get to know your history. My eyes are wide open, open yours. This country is no longer "home of the free," no longer the democracy I grew up in or even the democracy we had just a few 8 years ago, and you're telling me to pull the wool off my eyes. Incredible.
I said this weeks ago........
Dan Tacredo came on TV many times letting us know that in his state alone thousands of loans have been given to illegals. In order to do this, real estate companies had to doctor documents so banks perceived these folks as legitimate borrowers. They lied about so much it is sickening. Now, he is demanding an investigation into those corrupt real estate companies who falsified the documents and the banks who gave the loans. No one forced these guys to loan to illegals. They did it out of greed and I hope to heck they pay dearly. But then, it all got real quiet about the illegals and all their garbage they're unloaded on us. You heard a little blurb about how thousands of homes have just been left/abandoned overnight by these illegals cause they "lost their jobs"....jobs I might add they should not have had in the first place, let alone an illegal mortage to boot.
Where is all the hooplah about that? And yes, you add the free medical care, free education, and even scholarships awared to illegals, taking spots from legal citizens, and all the food stamps, free housing, etc., they get and you better believe everyone who thinks it was no big deal...lets all feel sorry for the poor illegal, I hope they're happy, now that they're going to be footing the bill for their sorry butts for the rest of their lives!!!
Well, looking at what O has done in just 3 weeks....
I think maybe even YOU would have been better. LOL.
dumb statement
she gets what she deserves? All the woman wants is to meet with the person who is supposed to be our servant, the person WE put into office. That is not asking too much, in my opinion. It is not like he is a king or dictator. He is supposed to be working for US. If he had met with her, she would have went home and none of this shooting guns, crashing into crosses, etc., would have happened. He is the reason she is getting all this press coverage. Gets what she deserves? What a dumb statement. He should get what HE deserves, impeachment, a criminal trial and imprisonment for this illegal immoral war of his.
I felt dumb because
I had to look up officiousness. But then I found this:
"Officiousness is used about 3 times out of a sample of 100 million words spoken or written in English" and then I did not feel so dumb. LOL
It is perfect though.
More dumb stuff.
x
Really dumb, 57 states out of 58!!
xx
No, I am not dumb, and I am not "assuming"
the same things you obviously are. How do you explain starting at the bottom? Do you think he thinks the middle class is the bottom? You really think that?
I think we are beating a dead horse here. You have your opinion, not going to change. I have my opinion, not going to change. I do regret that you think someone must be "dumb" to have my interpretation, or that I am acting "deliberately dumb." Thank you so much for that assessment.
Thank you! Maybe America isn't so dumb after all.......nm
x
If you want to vote personality over policy and substance
nm
In the last couple of weeks,
I've received several envelopes in the mail that were sealed with a few inches torn open at the top of the envelope. One of them was a check from my part-time employer, and it was easy to see through the envelope that it was a check folded in half. (At least they didn't remove the contents like they did with you.)
I've never experienced anything like this in my life, and I wonder if this has been happening to any other liberals out there. 
He said that he would veto it weeks ago.
It was a waste of time. Congress should have done better at being creative in making some changes. He told them he wouldn't pass it. Little putz. Anyhow, I am not crazy about the increased cigarette tax. Not that I smoke, just don't agree with the method. I think Congress better figure out pretty quick that they need to reduce spending or trim the fat off somewhere else before they will get funds for SCHIP. They are just being stubborn (that's ALL of them).
You know, they should have told us this two weeks ago....sm
but I suppose it took that long for it to make sense to Bush (yes, and I did vote for him, bash away).
But someone, anyone....should have explained this before.
And I agree. They need to give us the entire details once they know them, so we know what's really going on, not just innuendo and fear tactics....from both sides, really.
They are going to need to explain more about the return on investment part of it in another article I read here the other day. If they play it right, there should be no raised taxes, and this will help the economy tremendously.
Two weeks of unemployment once.
That's it.
The rest of my life as a single mom was spent working two (sometimes three) jobs at a time in order to support us.
Now, it's getting really difficult for me because I couldn't afford my health insurance any more, my car was repossessed, and even my phone was turned off because I can't work like I used to since becoming ill almost three years ago with pancreatitis (which was finally found to be caused by cystic fibrosis). So my pancreas is a wreck, and my lung function is getting progressively worse. I've filed a claim for Social Security disability, but I very well may have passed on by the time I receive a hearing date, since I'm getting sicker, and my disease is incurable.
Only 2 weeks in office and already
By what criteria? What he may or may not do? The stimulus package is only in the debate stage at this point, so no one can say what it will end up looking like. Before passing judgement and handing out indictments, suppose you at least wait until the verbs move from the subjunctive into the indicative moods and while you are at it, don't forget to factor in by way of comparison 8 years of lies, corruption, enrichment of corporate America and the wealthy on the backs of the middle class, scorched earth foreign policy, circumvention of the Constitution at every turn and that teeny-tiny thing we call torture
Well, I did quit for a whole 3 weeks
one time. After that, I went downhill the next couple times I tried.Made it a whole 5 hours.
I posted a few weeks ago about
an article I read at this link: http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Real-Bailout-Needed-is-by-Steven-Leser-081227-715.html
and there is a follow-up where some of the responses to the first article are addressed by the author at this link: http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Real-Bailout-Needed-is-by-Steven-Leser-090104-322.html
Personally, I am not for giving anyone a free ride, but least of all the lenders that are largely responsible for the housing/financial crisis we are all faced with. I pay my mortgage and other bills on time, but with the economy the way it is, I fear that I may not be able to continue doing this (my husband is one of the many whose companies are now requesting employees take one day off per week without pay, and I have been less than fully employed for too long now, mainly due to some family issues that arose a while back, but now with the job market not so hot). Anyway, with the idea proposed in the above linked articles, it would help many, many Americans who are having a hard time, as well as those who made s t u p i d/greedy mistakes, etc., and at the same time the banks/creditors would be getting their money in the form of consumers paying their debts with bailout money (opt in or out), but paying it back, at least partially. IMO, it is a much better plan than what is currently being debated, but with the prospect of much of the money being paid back (by the taxpayers who accept bailout money as well as taxes paid by banks/creditors on the money they receive), allowing for many of the things that the government is proposing to still be done.
Where have you been the last 2-3 weeks, out of town??? sm
Janet Naplitano and the FBI and another alphabet soup group sent out a document to the president on what groups they considered "domestic terrorists." The list included returning war vets, people who oppose abortion, people who oppose gay or other similar ideas, etc. Basically it was anyone who did not agree with what the "Anointed One" and his party line. She also included the TEA party people.
Google DHS Domestic Terrorism memo.
Why do those who call others dumb object so much...
..to having their own dumbness actually demonstrated in an undeniable way? You start that nonsense, it's going to come back and bite you on the butt. And usually, it's just too easy to make that happen.
Oh and by the way, who's avoiding the issue by launching a personal attack on someone else? Oh my, the very person who is complaining about someone else skirting the issue? Very typical. In fact, I didn't skirt anything. I was actually alive during the Gulf of Tonkin incident and my brother was in line for the draft at the time. My family was following events quite closely and even now continue to read and research the events of the VN war. You, my dunderhead, are out of line - and as usual, display a regrettable lack of character and credibility.
This whole thing is dumb and idiotic
you just go back several months and pull out an obscure post from somebody passionately talking about their support. She didn't sign any dotted line for you. You all are OBSSESSED to the point it's scary. Maybe she will go back...gosh this is sooooooo freakin' stupid.
|
