Obama's Secret War Profiteering Tax
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/obamas-secret-war-profiteering-tax
"I can't make this up:
In a hotel room in Brussels, the chief executives of the world's top oil companies unrolled a huge map of the Middle East, drew a fat, red line around Iraq and signed their names to it.
The map, the red line, the secret signatures. It explains this war. It explains this week's rocketing of the price of oil to $134 a barrel.
It happened on July 31, 1928, but the bill came due now.
Barack Obama knows this."
The evidence to back this up: 2002 Oil & Gas Journal on need for Iraq War to keep Saddam from pumping too much oil when sanctions came off, statements of oil execs after the war started, and in transcripts of Tony Blair & Bush's meetings before the war, Bush sent his assurances to Putin that a successful Iraq War would NOT lower oil prices.
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/03/oil-too-cheap-if-no-iraq-war-says-oil.html
The ENTIRE endeavor of the "No-Fly Zone" scam used for 12 years, from 1991 to 2003 was specifically to keep Iraqi Oil in the ground, to stifle development of it. Iraq has the 2nd largest and best-quality fields outside of Saudi Arabia. And they have been largely preserved until now, the Day of Peak Oil.
And the Attack and Occupation of Iraq have tripled Big Oil profits and screwed the one's who can least afford it.
And that's why they are OK with pipeline bombings and refinery fires. Keep up the random violence, drive away investors, keep Iraq's oil off the market and record record profits and compensation.
This is why it's believable that they'd nuke Iran. So what if we can't get in to get the oil, we keep it off the market (and out of China's reach).
FOTD:
This is why it's believable that they'd nuke Iran. So what if we can't get in to get the oil, we keep it off the market (and out of China's reach).
In the event we were ever to make such a threat against China we should remember China invented the rocket, gunpowder, have nuclear capability and are about thirty minutes from turning half of the US into radio active dust. Under their system of planning and government we had better let the sleeping dog have a long nap. The oil is such case would be the lesser of ours or their worries.
In five years we have failed to bring a country about twice the size Oklahoma and with less than one tenth of our total population to say "Yes Sir"; yet let alone reinstalling its exile government.
ummmm... folks? The paranoid, conspiracy therorists meeting is down the hall to the left. You must have made a mistake getting off the elevator, this is the reality check meeting.
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
ummmm... folks? The paranoid, conspiracy therorists meeting is down the hall to the left. You must have made a mistake getting off the elevator, this is the reality check meeting.
You don't believe that the oil cartels conspire to keep production limited enough that their profit margins stay astronomical? Did you miss the news about the artificial oil price spike? Perhaps you are in need of a reality check.
When I see our economy as we know it being willfully destroyed by those in power, I'm open to study any possibility of why this is happening and how it can be stopped.
So as to say, I might not sign off on what FOTD posts as 100% or correct, but I do not fault or slander him for merely talking about something.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
ummmm... folks? The paranoid, conspiracy therorists meeting is down the hall to the left. You must have made a mistake getting off the elevator, this is the reality check meeting.
You don't believe that the oil cartels conspire to keep production limited enough that their profit margins stay astronomical? Did you miss the news about the artificial oil price spike? Perhaps you are in need of a reality check.
When I see our economy as we know it being willfully destroyed by those in power, I'm open to study any possibility of why this is happening and how it can be stopped.
So as to say, I might not sign off on what FOTD posts as 100% or correct, but I do not fault or slander him for merely talking about something.
Oh, I never said I don't believe that the cartels are minupulating the prices to their own, obvious personal gains. Nor that oil hasn't played a big part in the wars, and the uncertain state of our economy. But in the context that has been delivered, with execs maping off Iraq like claim stakers, insinuating that they were the ones that started the wars just to make money, and using a "no-fly" zone to perpetuate a scam is from way out there in conspirecyvill. The reality here is this, there is a war in Iraq, oil prices are through the roof, oil companies are making off like bandits. Now logical speculations upon other related facts (ie Bush has invetsment in oil, so it is likely that the oil in the Middle East is a strong motivator in his initiation and continuance in the War) are one thing. But when you buy into unfounded stories that start looking like a "cry baby bridge" urban legend, then your stepping past the bounds of reality. Next thing you know, FOTD will be quoting the single bullet theory.
Add me to the list that think these aren't way out conspiracy theories. Corporations are not very flag loyal (they even locate out of country for tax purposes!)and the CEO's are notorious for feeding their egos with power plays. They rationalize it with claims of self sufficiency and domestic security. I still remember the phrase one titan used, "What's good for GE is good for America" ...or was it GM? Same difference. Its not like they need the money or that oil companies are greedy. Its just "bidness".
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Add me to the list that think these aren't way out conspiracy theories. Corporations are not very flag loyal (they even locate out of country for tax purposes!)and the CEO's are notorious for feeding their egos with power plays. They rationalize it with claims of self sufficiency and domestic security. I still remember the phrase one titan used, "What's good for GE is good for America" ...or was it GM? Same difference. Its not like they need the money or that oil companies are greedy. Its just "bidness".
And here I was thinking you would underdtand what I was saying better then this. I know the oil companies are out for only themselves, and that they will turn a profit no matter who it hurts. I'm just saying that the scenario laid out above is just a bit from left field.
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
ummmm... folks? The paranoid, conspiracy therorists meeting is down the hall to the left. You must have made a mistake getting off the elevator, this is the reality check meeting.
Didn't I say that the new city hall, intertwining public and private businesses, would take a guide to tell one which floor they were looking for.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
ummmm... folks? The paranoid, conspiracy therorists meeting is down the hall to the left. You must have made a mistake getting off the elevator, this is the reality check meeting.
Didn't I say that the new city hall, intertwining public and private businesses, would take a guide to tell one which floor they were looking for.
umm... excuse me, I need to go check to see if the sky is falling. Shadows just posted something that I liked. Heck, I even chuckeled. Does this mean that I am haveing a mental breakdown?
Senate intelligence committee says in a long-awaited report that Bush and his top aides repeatedly exaggerated Iraq's impact before the war. "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even non-existent," committee chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501523.html
"The conclusions were sharply criticized by several key Republicans"
Exagerated or lied? Same in the one.
President Bush blamed faulty intelligence for invading Iraq.
Yes, DNA is a b*tch.
When the war first began the mantra was "No war for oil" and the left was constantly *****ing because we were supposedly going to "steal" oil from the Iraqis. Now that it's been proven uneqivocally that we NEVER took oil from the Iraqis, nor did we have plans to, the conspiracy theory has changed. Bravo! Nice job having it both ways folks...
We went into Iraq to suppress the production of oil? Conspiracy theorists are all the same...
Not mention that oil EXPORTS from Iraq are above 2003 invasion levels, but hell, don't let the facts get in the way of a good yarn.
Hard to produce when everything is broken.....
Broken promises too....
Iraq is increasing production to 3 million barrels per day by the end of this month. Kirkuk is online and they have begun revenue sharing with the Kurds.
Too bad you have to rely on international news sources (Reuters) to report this rather than our major networks.
But this is still all bad news right?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Hard to produce when everything is broken.....
Broken promises too....
What the hell are you even talking about? Click on this link: www.google.com and search for the terms "Iraqi oil production" and take some time to educate yourself about the topic before you talk about it anymore. The world will thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
President Bush blamed faulty intelligence for invading Iraq.
Yes, DNA is a b*tch.
Wow....how clever. Did you make that up all by yourself or were you and FauxTurd working together on that one?
Are you really ready to defend President Bush?
I know you love to argue, but that one will take most of your time.
Depends on what you're talking about? The intelligence leading up to the war was conclusive and fully corroborated by at least 6 of the top information gathering agencies worldwide (MI6, CIA, Russian Intelligence, and Massad just to name a few). Failing to act on the information he was given would have been negligent.
I can argue with many things the man has done in office, but this isn't one of them.
--Edit-- typos
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
President Bush blamed faulty intelligence for invading Iraq.
Yes, DNA is a b*tch.
I've never once heard you comment on Bill Clinton saying there was no doubt that the day he left office there were un-accounted for WMD's in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html
"Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.
"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"
Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." "
Democrats were just as complicit, including the Clinton Administration in promoting the idea Iraq posed a genuine threat. If Iraq had been a 1 year milk run, this would be a non-issue today. I'm willing to bet Sandy Burglar and Madeleine Albright advised the Bush admin on Iraq when the WH changed hands in 2001.
"Sandy Burglar"
that's good........[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
President Bush blamed faulty intelligence for invading Iraq.
Yes, DNA is a b*tch.
I've never once heard you comment on Bill Clinton saying there was no doubt that the day he left office there were un-accounted for WMD's in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html
"Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.
"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"
Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." "
Democrats were just as complicit, including the Clinton Administration in promoting the idea Iraq posed a genuine threat. If Iraq had been a 1 year milk run, this would be a non-issue today. I'm willing to bet Sandy Burglar and Madeleine Albright advised the Bush admin on Iraq when the WH changed hands in 2001.
Amazing. When confronted with documented history, nothing but crickets. The campaign of '04 is what set in motion so many co-conspirators of all parties running for cover on this war. Thanks alot John Kerry for the lack of unity you helped foment.
Facts and statistics are kryptonite to people on the Internets.
and meanwhile the smell of rotting bodies fills the air while thousands more lives are continually being uprooted and destroyed by this unnecessary and immoral war...and the media acts like it just made a new discovery and tries to distance itself from it's own complicity in getting us in this quagmire...
The New York Times? Isn't that where this shi'ite all got started? - I hope they mention themselves and Judith Miller in there.
The Truth About the War
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06fri1.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1212780674-AlLOeWUz+4+WKz5lh9ua6g
"The committee's dissenting Republicans attempted to have this entire section of the report deleted — along with a conclusion that the administration misrepresented the intelligence when it warned of a risk that Mr. Hussein could give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups. They said Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney never used the word "intent" and were merely trying to suggest that Iraq "could" do those terrible things."
" We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq. But when the president withholds vital information from the public — or leads them to believe things that he knows are not true — to justify the invasion of another country, that is bad enough."
POS editorial. They don't even know the definition of a lie!
The Bush admin should have borrowed from the Hillary book when confronted and said "We mis-spoke".
Which basically they did after the SOTU address, but it's since been majorly blown out of proportion by his enemies to taint Bush's legacy. There are a whole lot of co-conspirators including Democrat legislators, NYT, WaPo, CNN, and all the other news outlets who didn't question much of anything. It became unpopuar to have been for the war once jobs were threatened in the '04 election.
"I was for the war before I was against it."
"If I knew then what I knew now, I would not have voted for it."
Brutal honesty- just what we all need.
Legislative intel committees had the opportunity to ask harder questions and request more verification. Ostensibly, they were privy to the same intel the State Dept. and the WH had. A lot of people and institutions had the option of digging deeper, if they chose.
The fact remains that from 1991-on no one knew for certain what Saddam could or could not do, nor what all was or was not being hidden in Iraq. What's all but disappeared from the media is the bellicose threats and taunts by Hussein and his repeated refusal to allow UN-mandated inspections. If a nuclear war-head had sailed out of Iraq and hit Tel-Aviv or western Europe in 2005 or so, everyone would be blaming Bush for not doing enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The Bush admin should have borrowed from the Hillary book when confronted and said "We mis-spoke".
Which basically they did after the SOTU address, but it's since been majorly blown out of proportion by his enemies to taint Bush's legacy. There are a whole lot of co-conspirators including Democrat legislators, NYT, WaPo, CNN, and all the other news outlets who didn't question much of anything. It became unpopuar to have been for the war once jobs were threatened in the '04 election.
"I was for the war before I was against it."
"If I knew then what I knew now, I would not have voted for it."
Brutal honesty- just what we all need.
Legislative intel committees had the opportunity to ask harder questions and request more verification. Ostensibly, they were privy to the same intel the State Dept. and the WH had. A lot of people and institutions had the option of digging deeper, if they chose.
The fact remains that from 1991-on no one knew for certain what Saddam could or could not do, nor what all was or was not being hidden in Iraq. What's all but disappeared from the media is the bellicose threats and taunts by Hussein and his repeated refusal to allow UN-mandated inspections. If a nuclear war-head had sailed out of Iraq and hit Tel-Aviv or western Europe in 2005 or so, everyone would be blaming Bush for not doing enough.
Man, you're good at CYA. "If" is old hat. Now "if" these goons had been responsible..... There is no doubt this was instigated by a mental case who won not one but two elections. And you no doubt along with others here in Rome voted for the morons not once but twice. Good judge of character. The manipulation starts at the top and is now proven. This episode in American History will play out over time but the US needs to get the hell out of that region.
You're so sheepish, aren't you Conit?
It's Con-Man, not Conit FOTARD.
Looking at the percieved threat to national security by the American public after 9/11, at the time it seemed more prudent to err on the side of taking out an asshat instead of allowing him to possibly shift weapons and money around to terrorists.
Personally, I would have kept him on a short leash and a presense in the Persian gulf to keep an eye and pressure on him.
Did Bush ultimately **** up on this? Yep. At the time, everyone thought this would be a one year milk run and we'd have a rotation of 20 to 50K troops going in and out helping with the clean up and keeping insurgents down within a year. Based on how quick we kicked the Taliban's donkey in Afghanistan, it was assumed Iraq would be just as simple.
Remember wars are good business for the CIA the military, and donors to Congressional and Senate campaigns both D and R. Don't under-estimate pressure coming from those angles as well.
No.
God forbid anyone listen to the veterans I talked to off of 31st Mingo back in 2003... dunno... maybe I'm a few blocks off...
EVERYONE at that bar... everyone to a "t"... told me that this war would last YEARS LONGER than the Bush admin told us....
These are veterans... Tulsa veterans ......... not Jane Fonda.
AP: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki says U.S. troops should leave Iraq "as soon as possible," according to a magazine report, and he called presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion of 16 months "the right timeframe for a withdrawal." Uh, John McCain and George W. Bush, are you going to Stand Down when the Iraqis assert their Liberty and Freedom to End the Occupation? Not until the Bush/Cheney crowd gets bases to protect U.S. and European Oil "Concessions" in the offing.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/07/19/6206886-ap.html
Obama Would Be `Strong' Afghan Partner, Karzai Spokesman Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adc_LxrvDVkM&refer=home
Suck on that Bush/Cheney/McSame!
Full transcript of that interview:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852,00.html
It relays a very different message. He speaks very favorably of both the invasion (pointing our that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands in wars and gas attacks and tortured many more than the militants have) in general and President Bush individually.
The gist of it is correct, he thinks a short time frame is more realistic than a Germany type time frame for occupying troops. But he does not share your war-for-oil crap that you are using his words to support. Read the interview, he is a very reasoned individual - or a great politician anyway.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/372.html
"Take off those yellow ribbons. They're a fraud."
Maliki Wanted To "Squeeze" Bush, The Administration Wanted A "Clarification"
http://blogs.dw-world.de/acrossthepond/tim/1.6835.html
Ask and ye shall receive. Earlier Sunday, I questioned Nouri al-Maliki's motive in both praising Barack Obama's 16 month timeline for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq and in offering a quasi-retraction. Later Sunday, the Associated Press answered the first and The Washington Post answered the second.
According to the AP, Maliki's interest wasn't in influencing the U.S. election, but, rather, using the U.S. election to influence the Bush administration's commitment to removing troops. "Let's squeeze them," Maliki reportedly told advisers. The maneuver came with a side of electoral politics, the AP reported.
Why the semi-retraction? According to the Post, which quoted a White House press secretary, that move came after the Bush administration called Maliki's office "to express concern and seek clarification of the remarks."
It's still unclear if Maliki has any sense of how much impact his comments might have had on the U.S. election, or how much pressure the Bush administration put on Maliki's office. But since I raised the questions, I felt obligated to report back after they were essentially resolved, assuming the reporting is accurate."
We will withdraw the "combat troops" and use the current bases for the new "Armed military Advisors". Just like Vietnam, only the other way around. Changing the definition of role of the troops changes only the semantics, but you are supposed to be conned into thinking the situation has changed.
Support our troops. Vote Democratic.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Full transcript of that interview:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852,00.html
It relays a very different message. He speaks very favorably of both the invasion (pointing our that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands in wars and gas attacks and tortured many more than the militants have) in general and President Bush individually.
The gist of it is correct, he thinks a short time frame is more realistic than a Germany type time frame for occupying troops. But he does not share your war-for-oil crap that you are using his words to support. Read the interview, he is a very reasoned individual - or a great politician anyway.
You're either a SUCKER or a sheeple.
Because I read the entire interview instead of excerpts?
Got ya'. Unless you take what is told to you at face value your an idiot. Don't look for direct sources and don't worry about what was said in full nor in context. Just take the story as given and run or your a "sheeple."
Makes perfect sense.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Because I read the entire interview instead of excerpts?
Got ya'. Unless you take what is told to you at face value your an idiot. Don't look for direct sources and don't worry about what was said in full nor in context. Just take the story as given and run or your a "sheeple."
Makes perfect sense.
You aren't a sheeple Cannon, just a resident of Dumbf*ckistan.
McSame is toast. He'd foul up the world worse than Bush. That he doesn't have a clue about these and many other things or that he just gets confused at times and misspeaks. As time goes on, it becomes increasingly clear that Senator McCain is not all that well versed in foreign affairs and isn't all that knowledgeable about domestic policy either.
You go believing the Whitewash House as well.
I wish I could wake up everyday at 11am and start posting on here in my underwear, must be nice.
[}:)]
Why is it %90 of the time you're dead wrong.
You should learn not to assume everything, Conan. It might help you out of your gloom.
My uncle recently retired (to Florida). He met up with a group up us in Canada for a fishing trip. He had a stock answer for "so what do you do every day?"
He would reply:
"Not a f***king thing, and that doesn't start until noon."
Classic. I hope to be there someday.
McCain camp reacts to Maliki's call for withdrawal: Voters don't care what Iraqi leaders say.»
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/19/mccain-camp-reacts-to-malikis-call-for-withdrawal-voters-dont-care-about-iraqi-leaders/
A "prominent Republican strategist" who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said more candidly, "We're f*cked."
McCain Owns First Foreign Policy Gaffe During Obama's Iraq Trip (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/mccain-owns-first-foreign_n_114013.html
If he gets elected, which he won't, but just if....we call him either McAirhead or McGaffe.
Great Prezidential material huh?
"WHAT I REALLY SAID WAS THAT BUSH AND McCAIN SHOULD WITHDRAW THEIR HEADS FROM THEIR ASSES ... PREFERABLY WITHIN THE NEXT 16 SECONDS." Maliki
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Why is it %90 of the time you're dead wrong.
You should learn not to assume everything, Conan. It might help you out of your gloom.
You are Mr. Doom and Gloom, "we are all ****ed"
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Why is it %90 of the time you're dead wrong.
You should learn not to assume everything, Conan. It might help you out of your gloom.
You are Mr. Doom and Gloom, "we are all ****ed"
Right. That's why the devil worships me.[8D]
McCain Knee-Capped by Maliki
by Jim Lobe
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=13178
sweet.
Please tell me you are just pressing an issue and not trying to make an actual point FOTD. We have gone over this. It is reports like this that cause me to hate the far left (other's cause me to hate the far right). It isn't news, it isn't reporting, it's just blatantly taking whatever pieces you want and ignoring the rest to deliver your political message. That's a step above spin into the realm of propoganda:
quote:
FOTD's source said
Maliki's endorsement in an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine came on the very eve of Obama's visit to Baghdad has made things even worse for the McCain camp
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=13178
quote:
SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November?
. . .
Maliki: . . . Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852-2,00.html
See how I went to the "source" that your "news" cited and then quoted what was actually said?
It's clear your "source" either didn't read the interview or didn't care what it said. Likewise, you are either totally ignorant of the fact (which I pointed out earlier) or totally lack integrity. Maliki basically said Obama's plan is the general direction he wants to see but refused to endorse him. Why isn't that good enough? Why do you feel the need to lie about what was said?
Let's deal with the facts for a change.
Huffingtonpost
aniwar.com
ourfuture.com
professorsmartass
thinkprogress
These are PARTISAN sources. Do you seriously not understand the difference? It's like citing to Rush Limbaugh to prove that Democrats are all idiots, but-for the fact that Rush at least doesn't just make things up that fly in the face of a referenced interview.
Now change the subject or call me an idiot for using my own brain instead of some talking head. More likely just ignore it, since you've got nothing. And never have.
Der Spiegel seems to be a bit partisan too, CF. Sorry if you missed Maliki's translation from Arabic to German and to English but the essence of which says McBush wants their oil and it's not up for grabs.
It Was Maliki's own interpreter who translated the remarks that Maliki supported Obama's timetable plan: "But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki's office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki's interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama's position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence."
Condemn these sources if you so desire but they beat what comes from the Whitewash Press room, or the Faux Newzy agencies, or the especially stupid rad eee oh talkers, or even the McLame campain.
I got Moe's editorial which you can't find in Dumbf*ckistan except through the internets or here at TNF!!
Is 'The One' Cocky or Commander in Chiefy?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: July 23, 2008
JERUSALEM
Barack Obama wrinkles.
Just slightly, and just when he has to wear a flak jacket over his blue oxford shirt.
The media behemoth slouching after the senator is scouring his every word, expression, bead of sweat, basketball shot and accessory — are those hiking boots too Bremer? Are the sunglasses too rapper? Will he leave enough time for his glittery groupie, Carla Bruni? — for hints of imperfection that would foretell lacunae in presidential judgment.
The One, as McCain aides sardonically call Obama, glided through Afghanistan, Iraq and Jordan, girding his messianic loins for the inevitable kvetching he would face in Israel as skeptical Jews "try to get a better sense of what's in Obama's kishkes." So said Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, in The Daily News, defining "kishkes" as Yiddish for gut.
The king of Jordan personally drove the prince of Chicago from the palace to the airport on Tuesday night to catch his flight to Israel, leading a motorcade in his slate Mercedes 600 across the tarmac and right up to O-Force One, as The Chicago Sun Times mockingly calls the candidate's freshly branded 757, with the captain's chair embroidered with "Obama-'08/President." As the senator got out of the passenger seat, King Abdullah jumped out to chat some more, as though the two, who had only met in passing on the Hill, were old pals.
Obama finally found a Muslim with whom he's willing to be photographed.
At moments, Obama was acting as though he were already "on a coin," as Jon Stewart would say. But cocky or not, he needs to swoop up to conquer so Americans can picture him in the role.
The One left them swooning in Jordan. A member of the king's inner circle who attended the chicken-and-rice dinner with King Abdullah and Queen Rania said that Obama had gone a long way toward assuaging their fears that he would be so eager to run away from his paternal family's Muslim roots and to woo skeptical American Jews that he would not be "the honest broker" they long for after W.'s crazed missionary work in the Middle East.
"The guy gets it," the Jordanian official said after dinner with Obama. "Sharp, aware and a very good listener. He doesn't seem stuck in preconceived positions. He said he would get straight to the Palestinian issue as soon as he becomes president."
That old skill that Obama honed at the Harvard Law Review of listening until everyone at the table felt they had been heard (and agreed with) is coming in handy on his presidential dress rehearsal.
Soon after his sweet parting with King Abdullah, Obama spoke on the Tel Aviv tarmac about the special relationship between Israel and America that he vowed to "actually strengthen in an Obama administration." Ominous signs showed up in Jerusalem, including a construction vehicle attack near his hotel before he arrived and a dozen Americans holding McCain signs as he walked into the King David Hotel.
The smoother his trip has gone — from sinking a 3-pointer with the troops in Afghanistan to presenting the Obama-Maliki withdrawal plan for Iraq — the more panicky Republicans back in Washington have become.
The image of John McCain in a golf cart with Bush 41 in Kennebunkport — with Poppy charmingly admitting that they were "a little jealous" of all the Obama odyssey coverage — was not a good advertisement for the future, especially contrasted with the shots of Gen. David Petraeus and Obama smiling at each other companionably in a helicopter surveying Iraq. (Asked by a Democratic lawmaker a while back why there weren't more Democrats in the military, General Petraeus smiled slyly and said "there are more than you think.")
A foiled and frustrated McCain — trying to get covered when the entire media world has gone fishin' for Obama stories — took the Hillary tack of mocking the press for having a "love affair," as his campaign said, with the senator. McCain is hopping mad that the surge that he backed, and Obama resisted, has now set the stage for the Bush puppet Maliki to agree with Obama's exit strategy. But Obama has a better batting average with his judgment on how we shouldn't have gotten into Iraq, we should have gone after Osama and we should talk to Iran and other foes, if only to better assess their psychology. Then we might have deduced that Saddam had the "Beware of Dog" sign up without the dog.
It doesn't work for McCain — and his foreign policy guru Henry Kissinger — to keep insisting that timetables will lead to defeat.
The Angry One can try to paint The One as having bad judgment. But who is being advised by Kissinger, the man who helped keep us in Vietnam and get us into Iraq?"
Once again, she's spot on. There is a sea change and we'd rather see intelligence supercede stupidity this time around.
Cannon, thanks for attempting to defend the lies of the fright wing! Keep it up. We need devil's advocates around here![:P]
BTW, just because you use your own brain does not make it truthiness or right. Maybe right wing but not necessarily correct.
Cannon Fodder.....the last hold out to fright wing MSM.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/072208.html
"In a Feb. 2, 2002, speech to the Munich Conference on Security Policy, McCain said the United States and its allies needed to concentrate on overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
"The next front is apparent, and we should not shirk from acknowledging it," McCain said. "A terrorist resides in Baghdad, with the resources of an entire state at his disposal, flush with cash from illicit oil revenues and proud of a decade-long record of defying the international community's demands that he come clean on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.
"A day of reckoning is approaching."
McCain's speech, with the ambitious title, "From Crisis to Opportunity: American Internationalism and the New Atlantic Order," laid out the aggressive neoconservative agenda that President George W. Bush would pursue in the months that followed.
Bush soon was diverting U.S. intelligence resources from Afghanistan to the new front – Iraq – undercutting efforts to track down Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key surviving al-Qaeda leaders, who had sought refuge in the rugged Pakistani tribal areas.
By late summer 2002, the Bush administration had begun its propaganda campaign to stoke American war fever toward Iraq. In the fall, Bush stampeded Congress into approving a use-of-force resolution. One year after McCain's speech, the U.S. military was putting the final touches on invasion plans.
On March 19, 2003, Bush fulfilled McCain's dream by launching the invasion of Iraq, succeeding in ousting Hussein's government in three weeks but then finding a large U.S. expeditionary force tied down by a stubborn insurgency for the next five-plus years."
Cannon Fodder, do you have a problem connecting the dots or are you so gilded to believe that the devilish blogs and internet sites posted twist historical facts?
McCain's day of reckoning is coming.
Argh. So the SOURCE of the interview is biased? Therefor we can pick and chose from that source the scraps of the interview that we want. That makes sense.
Someone mistranslated "this is not an endorsement" from "I endorse Barrack Obama" and no one in the world caught on to that?
And nothing in the interview suggests Bush is trying to steal their oil. It wasn't even discussed in the interview. Where did that even come from?
You're either a fool or have no integrity. I'll let you tell me which it is.
I'll say it 12 more times in case your just dense:
1) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
2) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
3_ Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
4) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
5) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
6) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
7) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
8) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
9) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
10) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
11) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
12) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
Here is the link again to the actual interview:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852-2,00.html
Here is a NY Times article about how so many people are taking the interview as an endorsement when it was not, and the problems that is causing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html
Here is a Reuter's news story that says the remarks were not meant to back Barrack Obama nor a specific plan:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_maliki_obama_dc
I cited to one of the largest publications in Germany that did the actual interview, the very liberal New York Times, and the international news agency Reuter's who spoke with Iraqi government officials. You again cited crap.
- - -
If you are still somehow confused, let me know.
Honest to god, read the interview, go find various translations, learn Arabic. You can make translation excuses all you want, but it's a pathetic excuse to TOTALLY alter the meaning and insert parts of the discussion that never even happened.
Honestly, you create your own world and do all you can to reinforce it. Try reading SOURCE material instead of propaganda. You're nothing more than a repeater, just doing what you're told. The irony is you accuse people who do research, view source material, and question what they read of that exact offense.
Stop and think, which is the better course of action: reading the interview and determining it's meaning OR reading partisan blogs attributing their own meaning to the interview and repeating it as fact?
[edit]The last post links to a source sponsored by and run by the author of "Neck Deep, the Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush." It is a yet ANOTHER blantantly partisan site pushed off as news. And for fun, doesn't address the matter at hand anyway. Thus, it was not responded to.[/edit]
I don't care if the oil was not discussed. It's well understood what this final stage is for...a trillion dollars of taxpayer money down the drain and saving face? The biggest loss would be no oil for all our efforts. Bad strategy, lousy execution, and obvious thievery got us here and now.
The Busheviks were in this for oil from the get go.....now you go.
FOTD: Maliki said Bush wants his oil and endorsed Obama.
Me: Reading the interview, that's entirely not true. [cites sources]
FOTD: I don't care what he REALLY said. It's not important. Bush lies!
- - -
What's the point? Reality, logic, and truth mean nothing to you. Even after admitting that your source was totally wrong you still assert the fact of the matter.
Then, just for fun, you continuously turn the subject as your position becomes unsupportable.
Pathetic.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
FOTD: Maliki said Bush wants his oil and endorsed Obama.
Me: Reading the interview, that's entirely not true. [cites sources]
FOTD: I don't care what he REALLY said. It's not important. Bush lies!
- - -
What's the point? Reality, logic, and truth mean nothing to you. Even after admitting that your source was totally wrong you still assert the fact of the matter.
Then, just for fun, you continuously turn the subject as your position becomes unsupportable.
Pathetic.
Turnabout when dealing with liars IS fair play. Get it? Sometimes Cannon Fodder, one must read between the lines. Hell, we must even resort to irony to understand the hypocrisy and lies of our leaders.
How is my position that this is a war for oil unsupportable?
Is there honor amongst these thieves?
Integrity. You have it or you don't.
Again:
FOTD: Maliki was mad at Bush for stealing his oil and endorse Barrack Obama.
Reality: Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
- - -
Thus, your statements are totally unsupported. You admit as much. In response you try to go back to an overall "war for oil" discussion. When you've been proven wrong you just change the subject and pretend it never happened.
Unless of course you "read between the lines" of what was actually said and just make crap up. Of course, in the really real world people aren't allowed to do that in a logical discussion. It's not a mere assumption or logical correlation, you and your sources just completely made up a part of the interview that didn't exist and misconstrued another part.
At least you admit you readily lie to support your position. Sadly, the willingness to ignore the truth when attempting to further your position is pretty much the definition of a lack of integrity. A dumb move when a lie is not needed to support your position, but to each his own.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Again:
FOTD: Maliki was mad at Bush for stealing his oil and endorse Barrack Obama.
Reality: Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.
- - -
Thus, your statements are totally unsupported. You admit as much. In response you try to go back to an overall "war for oil" discussion. When you've been proven wrong you just change the subject and pretend it never happened.
Unless of course you "read between the lines" of what was actually said and just make crap up. Of course, in the really real world people aren't allowed to do that in a logical discussion. It's not a mere assumption or logical correlation, you and your sources just completely made up a part of the interview that didn't exist and misconstrued another part.
At least you admit you readily lie to support your position. Sadly, the willingness to ignore the truth when attempting to further your position is pretty much the definition of a lack of integrity. A dumb move when a lie is not needed to support your position, but to each his own.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...."
Bob Dylan (Brady 8-27)
So does that mean:
1) You are not interested in actual discussion
2) I don't need facts when i can make crap up
or 3) Another change of subject?
You have yet to either admit that your statements were fabricated or that you were ill informed. It's one of the two. But if you ignore it perhaps no one will notice.
/change subject
Oo look, bunnies.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
So does that mean:
1) You are not interested in actual discussion
2) I don't need facts when i can make crap up
or 3) Another change of subject?
You have yet to either admit that your statements were fabricated or that you were ill informed. It's one of the two. But if you ignore it perhaps no one will notice.
/change subject
Oo look, bunnies.
It means, the devil knows the motivation of the crazy baldheads who took us down the tubes through Iraq hoping to secure their oil for our gluttonous society. The Iraqi's understand and want us gone before we create more Muslim hatred towards America by grabbing their goods.
"JAH would never give the power to a baldhead
Run come crucify the dread
Time alone, oh! time will tell
Think you're in heaven, but you living in hell
Think you're in heaven, but you living in hell
Time alone, oh! time will tell
You think you're in heaven, but you living in hell"
Bob Marley
Translation: I have no proof or good source, but I know better than everyone else with their silly sources. That's why I make stuff up, to convince the masses that don't know the twoof like I do!
I said nothing of the bigger picture, we've gone over that 1,000,000 times and my position is very clear. Focus. Again, your sources were wrong. Deal with it.