Senator Obama VS Senator Clinton

[Liberty]

Re: PBS' Recent "Bush's War"

Re: last night's (Mon 3-24-08) PBS "Bushes War," though obviously liberal, surprisingly Bush was basically shown incompetant and manipulated by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby (sic), and Tenent, who were shown to have been arrogant, cold as ice and scheming from the get. Their agenda, let Ben Laden escape by thwarting Colin Powell, the CIA and General Franks at every turn while a case against Iraq as an accomplice was falsified.

As I watched I was shocked once more at the heartlessnes of both Cheney and Rumsfeld in the wake 911.

Blair, Powell, Rice, Clark, the CIA and General Franks (these last two shown to have been way more than competant) were shown to have been victim's of the above's manipulations. France was shown to have not wanted a part of it when it became evident the agenda had been set, "even though it will mean alienating the American Public."

Chalabi was shown to have been the snake he is.

Then the piece went really left and started focuisng on the violated "rights" of the terrorists held at Guantanamo. The program was based on interviews with many of those involved, internal memos, conflicting news clips by the culprits, etc. Part 2 tonight. You can watch excerpts here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Looking back at history from this and it's perspective, I'd have to say that in such a sharkfest, Obama, given his inexperience, may not fair much better than Carter, did, even if it turns out Obama truly meant well.

Hilary would be more of the same Cinton lies. McCain? My own verdict (now)is once more "out." Many good qualifications. But his stance on continuing this War is bothersome. Given the above character's scheming, it is obvious going there could not have been for any greater good. Think I'll wait, research, reflect until the "real" run/election rows around, see what else comes out on these individuals running for President, weigh other "candidate" options.

[Liberty]

By way of pacifying some of the rhetoric, what is your position on McCain's war policy if you look at it out of the context of Bush's war?

And how do you propose one do that given he is supported by the very criminals who got us in this mess?

In other words, if you start from right now, with the influences, conditions, risks, and consequences we face today, what would your position be if you were in charge? Why?

Do what general Franks, Powell, and very few others did, distance myself from Bush and company.

Consider the options available, the enemies we face, their ability to exert themselves in a chaotic vacuum, our strategic needs, the need to contain certain enemies and oppositional interests, etc. in developing your response.

Our greatest enemies are not in Iraq - not only are they still in the White House, where they've been all along, but will continue to operate from behind closed doors. Like the war on Organized Crime in America, where the FBI and local State's attorneys continually sabotage one another, in their quest for pwoer at the expense of Americans, until this is somehow put an end to, it will always be one step forward, two steps back, regardless of anyone's good intentions "out of context." Honestly, why is this so difficult to grasp for some here and elsewhere?

Don't come at the argument in terms of the people who were involved in getting us there. Don't look at the people who are up for the vote now. Look at it as if you inherited the whole mess yourself, and really research what the consequences of any measure might mean overall. Would a massive commitment of troops in the short term mean a quicker long-term end? Would a quick withdrawal be seen by an incapable and poorly equipped Iraqi government as "abandonment" by the U.S.? What's going on that's not in the news, and what real concerns should a leader have beyond the media storylines and soundbites?

I'd opt for massive commitment of troops in the short term. But first, I'd pull what Obama has suggested and set things up to ensure those behind closed doors in the White House who'd attempt their criminal ways, would be easily exposed at every step.

I think when you put yourself in the positions of the people we elect and ask their questions of yourself, sometimes positions that didn't make sense before all of a sudden begin to.

Exactly. For when I put myself in the positions of people who stole the last election, I conclude that those in Bush's criminal circle, the last thing they'd pull on themselves is to to put their support behind someone (McCain) who would destroy their years of hard, criminal work against the best interests of the American people. Then again, given McCain's possible good traits, it's a great front for them to appear to support him, as Bush and company so often did before the American public, while sabotaging everyone in the way of their conspiracy, behind closed doors.

Until I can see evidence to the contrary, Mike, well, feel free to fill in the blanks...

[Liberty]

I'm not going to bother with the cut and paste puzzle method. I trust you'll be able to sort this out without such measures.

Everyone is supported and opposed at any given time by anyone else. It's dangerous to call the people who approved the war "criminals," Liberty, firstly because it's a lie, and secondly because it shows more of an interest in arguing from a bias than getting to any real answers. For the war to be "criminal," it must have been in violation of statutory legislation. It wasn't. It was approved by the very people who draft and vote laws into existence, and the process followed the Constitution completely. That people regret it or changed their minds later does NOT make it illegal. Again, let's actually discuss the issue instead of playing media propaganda games. The war was legal, and it remains legal. You may not like it, but if that's the case, let it suffice to say that you don't like it. Say it's unpopular or expensive. All of that is true. There's no need to dramatize or lie about it by calling it illegal.

As for distancing yourself, Bush is an absolute non-issue, and so is his entire cabinet. If your solution has to do with Bush, you're living in the past. Those are not solutions - they're blame fixing. They don't take us forward, and they don't resolve any issues. They just attempt to insulate you from the problem rather than actually addressing it. Leaders have to face and fix problems, and the blame is incidental. So what if Bush did everything wrong? We still have a situation with real-world repercussions. Blaming him doesn't solve anything. And if blame is a Presidential candidate's answer? Screw 'em. They don't have the mettle for the job.

Calling Bush our "greatest enemy" is probably the greatest fraud so far. You're being an editorialist. You're spouting opinions that have no basis in fact. If you truly want to back up that statement, then fine. I'll start a new thread and we can compare the effects of America's real enemies with teh effect of George W. Bush. You may hate the man and all he stands for, but again - that's feeling, not fact. What you're doing is playing to people's willingness to join in the insult war because that's easier than solving the tougher but more important issue of what to do from this point forward. I think you probably realize how stupid it is to say that George W. Bush is a worse enemy of America than Osama bin Laden (or any number of others, for that matter), so I'm not going to dignify that remark any further unless you want to start providing proof instead of rhetoric.

What proposals of Obama's are you referring to? Since the war is literally legal, what criminal ways are you referring to? This is more alarmism, Liberty. Argue facts. Argue something you can support. What you're suggesting is that Obama would be able to surround himself with people he could trust not to serve their own interests over the country's. But look at Obama's track record when it comes to choosing "advisors." Not great. Look at his track record when it comes to gaining cooperation even within the Congress. Not great. What you've posted here is also empty idealism with no basis in fact.

Liberty, I in no way mean any offense by this next statement, and I sincerely hope you believe that. But the reason Republicans support McCain is because he is now the Republican nominee for the Presidency, and that's just the way stuff works. They didn't support him one second before he got the nomination. They didn't like the fact that he's so left-leaning on so many of his policies. But when there's a 50-50 shot at the man becoming the boss, you get behind him - especially if he's the leader of YOUR party. Again, politics is all about being able to win influence. It's about being able to get people to agree to a consensus. Most often, that requires give and take. Talk to Arieson. He's a loyal Rush Limbaugh listener. He'll tell you how viscious the attacks on McCain FROM THE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT have been in the past, when he was one of several candidates. It has only been begrudgingly after his actual nomination that McCain has enjoyed any support at all from most Republicans - Bush included! For crying out loud, they ran against one another and Bush tried to burn the man down! If you think Bush's support for McCain has anything to do with "carrying on policies," you're mad. McCain has been vocally opposed to just about every policy Bush has had (with the notable exception of the war), and Bush's support is a matter of protocol, not legacy.

Take some time and educate yourself on these things. If you want, I'll suggest some reading. I'm not saying that to be condescending, either. The reason I take so much time and go into such detail here is because I think this stuff is important. Learning about politics and government will go a long way toward making you tougher to dupe when it comes to the kind of headline regurgitation I see here. You're buying into bad sales pitches because you lack understanding, and it's making you less effective and less able than you ought to be. Not your fault, really, and easily repairable.

Still, work on issues and facts next time. Lose some of the extremist views and sensationalist tag lines and look at what's really there instead of what you "feel." I'll say it again (at risk of it becoming a quote), "Feelings are not facts."

What do you call knowingly Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's having purposely mislead the American public about the existence of non-existent "weapons of mass destruction," as a pretext to invading Iraq, after first having thwarted for a month, the CIA's having wounded Bin Laden in Afghanistan - since when does false evidence agains anyone and or aiding and abetting the escape of a dangerous criminal not a crime?

Obama proposes a youtube in real time of White House goings on along with access by everyday American citizens to the White House and awareness by everyday Americans of Corporate meetings as leverage against Corporate America's hold on the White House. And while I think this is not only insane, given the murderous greed of some in power, perhaps impossible given the probable reliability of those advsing him, and in light of Jimmy Carter's great blunder in attempting to demystify the White House given America's very real worldwide enemies, I've got to commend the guy for at least bringing up some sort of real looking out for fellow Americans.

Tell me something, if the war was legal, then why all the manipulation of the American public, why the manipulation and thwarting of those who stood to capture Bin Laden the first few weeks of 911? Sorry, Mike, I greatly respect you, but in this, you remind me of those who supported Johnson during Vietnam. How many Americans have to die only to come to the same conclusion as that hideous war - what another 65,000?

I'm aware of great Republican opposition to McCain prior to his having ended up the only one left standing.

Mike, we just will not see eye to eye on this. It is what it is. Nothing moves me more then the sight of the American flag. Nothing. "My country tis of thee" as full of it as it is, gven the history behind it, nevertheless means the world to me, and I would fight tooth and nail should a war hit our shores. But I'll be damed if I'd go off and fight and lose my life for Corporate greed on some distant shore. And anyone who promotes that is beyond my vote. If that is a feeling you have trouble with then so be it.

[jubaji]

What do you call knowingly Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's having purposely mislead the American public about the existence of non-existent "weapons of mass destruction," as a pretext to invading Iraq.

BBZZzzzzzt! Thanks for playing.....

[Ghost]

BBZZzzzzzt! Thanks for playing.....

Did you find Iraq on the map yet Jubaji

[jubaji]

I've known and worked with Iraqis for years. How 'bout you?

[Ghost]

I've known and worked with Iraqis for years. How 'bout you?

Im from london, ive grown up with iraqis, iranians, turks, kurds, and everything else you can think of.


Would you like to compete ethnic minority friend list sizes with me. Who ever has the longest one wins...not really

In what context did you work with iraqis out of interest, a boss at a place i used to work at when i started years ago was an Iraqi refugee. He was part of a the rebellion when the americans told the kurds to rebel against Saddam and they would help them then the americans didnt cos they werent in place so he fled the country, lost his family poor sod. was a great guy though very funny.

[jubaji]

Would you like to compete ethnic minority friend list sizes with me. Who ever has the longest one wins...not really.

Good for you, 'cause you'd lose. Is there some reason you'd think I would have any trouble finding Iraq on a map?

[Ghost]

Good for you, 'cause you'd lose. Is there some reason you'd think I would have any trouble finding Iraq on a map?

No id win, you always lose, youve never won at anything.
RIght first we compare our ethnic minority friends. - win
THen we have to compare women we have slept with from ehtnic minorities, I DEFINITELY WIN as i am not a virgin.
Then we have a pissing contest, which i win, and then we have a penis measuring contest....yeah you WISH....but id win...


No seriously tell me about you working with iraqis, is this via school? when i was at secondary school my class was probably 1/3 kurdish iraqi refugees 1/3 black(somalian, jamaican, other african..) and the rest was a mix of indian/greek and a few white kids of which i was one. i think we had about 3 white people in my class lol including me.

[jubaji]

No id win, you always lose, youve never won at anything.

Wrong again, as on all your other points.

[jubaji]

And if you must know I have, and still do (though less regularly than a few years ago), work with refugees from all over.

[Ghost]

Wrong again, as on all your other points.

oh just answer the question jubaji about working with iraqis stop being of the gay.

If you dont answer properly i will no choice other than to assume you are forcing illegal iraqi immigrants into slave labour. Working for you day and night sowing shoes in a sweatshop you have made in the basement of your house.

[Ghost]

Liberty, answer just one question:

Did Congress approve the war?

If so, then it is legal.

WHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Now, now mike, thats not how it works. Its all about the UN. That be the rules.

[Liberty]

I've known and worked with Iraqis for years. How 'bout you?

So has John McCain. Or is that Sunni's? Wait a minute - Shiite. Darn it - I hope these people don't figure out they're all the same to me... I know what, I'll drag it out a hundred years - who'll know by then? Yeah.. Wait a minute, that's the economy they're leery about my understanding - whew, close call!

[Liberty]

Liberty, answer just one question:

Did Congress approve the war?

If so, then it is legal.

You mean like when it approved extending Vietnam due to Johnson's coverup (new it was a lost cause and that we were just losing Americans lives), or when Congress approved Iraq's invasion based on the false information the Bush administartion lead, manipulated it into believing? Since when does "legal" justify an unjust cause? Have at it Mike, continue to try to corner this into any corner that hold your view. That's exactly how we got into this mess.