The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Not At My Table - Political Discussions => National & International Politics => Topic started by: guido911 on September 16, 2008, 10:29:13 AM

Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: guido911 on September 16, 2008, 10:29:13 AM
This story broke yesterday:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/15/did-obama-try-to-scotch-an-iraqi-us-agreement-on-military-forces/

What is unusual is Obama's response, which was analyzed here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/15/did-obama-try-to-scotch-an-iraqi-us-agreement-on-military-forces/

While these are evil conservative websites, the substance of the article in the NY Post and Obama's response is intact.  

If what is alleged is true, Obama is at a minimum a hypocrite on troop draw downs. More likely is that the McCain campaign and most assuredly the 527s will have a field day.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Conan71 on September 16, 2008, 10:37:31 AM
Wow, I might not vote for Obama now, after learning this.

Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: guido911 on September 16, 2008, 10:55:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

Wow, I might not vote for Obama now, after learning this.




Think I will be able to turn FB and IP around with this story as well?
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Conan71 on September 16, 2008, 11:29:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by guido911

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

Wow, I might not vote for Obama now, after learning this.




Think I will be able to turn FB and IP around with this story as well?



Man, I don't know, they are tougher nuts to crack than I am.

Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: FOTD on September 16, 2008, 11:45:21 AM
Iraq is over except for the trillions it cost us and the disruptions to over 100,000 families.
Oh, and the catastrophic view of America by the rest the world.

But vote for the angry sick old white guy who supported Bushco %90 of the time over the smart black guy.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Conan71 on September 16, 2008, 12:01:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD



But vote for the angry sick old white guy who supported Bushco %90 of the time over the smart black guy.



You keep suggesting it.  Must be a good idea.  I might just do that.

Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: rwarn17588 on September 16, 2008, 12:04:03 PM
Taheri doesn't have much credibility. More here:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/noted_bamboozler_behind_latest.php
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: guido911 on September 16, 2008, 12:07:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by FOTD



But vote for the angry sick old white guy who supported Bushco %90 of the time over the smart black guy.



You keep suggesting it.  Must be a good idea.  I might just do that.




McCain has got to overcome the "smart black guy" Obama's 57 state strategy. It will be particulalry tough at Penn State where Obama fired up those "Nittaly" lions with his Muslin faith and in Kansas where they lost 10,000 people from a natural disaster.

Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: FOTD on September 16, 2008, 12:25:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by FOTD



But vote for the angry sick old white guy who supported Bushco %90 of the time over the smart black guy.



You keep suggesting it.  Must be a good idea.  I might just do that.





You liar..."might".....you are too racist to do otherwise.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Conan71 on September 16, 2008, 12:28:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

Taheri doesn't have much credibility. More here:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/noted_bamboozler_behind_latest.php



Well I definitely believe he doesn't have any creds, especially since your article was lifted from the Obama house organ.

Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: guido911 on September 16, 2008, 12:43:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

Taheri doesn't have much credibility. More here:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/noted_bamboozler_behind_latest.php



That's part of the reason why I included the second article. Obama's non-denial denial of Taheri's report is what is exceedingly curious, if not downright double speak. Here is the beginning of McCain's response to the issue:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRmMDAwNDc1ZTMxMDAzNGJlYjA5NWY1MzRlMGJmM2M=
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 16, 2008, 12:49:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by guido911

quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

Taheri doesn't have much credibility. More here:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/noted_bamboozler_behind_latest.php



That's part of the reason why I included the second article. Obama's non-denial denial of Taheri's report is what is exceedingly curious, if not downright double speak. Here is the beginning of McCain's response to the issue:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRmMDAwNDc1ZTMxMDAzNGJlYjA5NWY1MzRlMGJmM2M=



Someone in the U.S. Department of Justice should remind Barack the Redeemer that ONLY the U.S. State Department speaks for the U.S. Government.

Or someone that the U.S. State Department has given EXPRESS rights to negotiate on behalf of the U.S. Government.

Barack could easily be accused of trying to make U.S. Government policy when he is NOT currently so enabled.

Does negotiating with a Foreign Prince constitute TREASON according to the U.S. Constitution?

Answer:  Yes, when contrary to the policy of the U.S. Government.

Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 16, 2008, 12:52:11 PM
What? Another Obama non-denial, denial? His non-denial, denials, stand by and support, not stand by and throw overboard, combinations are getting really confusing. Is there some place I can still buy a box of Obama Waffles? [}:)]
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Conan71 on September 16, 2008, 01:10:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by FOTD



But vote for the angry sick old white guy who supported Bushco %90 of the time over the smart black guy.



You keep suggesting it.  Must be a good idea.  I might just do that.





You liar..."might".....you are too racist to do otherwise.



Hmmm, the brighter the light gets shown on the man behind the curtain, the more your ilk indulge in non-sequiturs.  

Power of suggestion is, well, powerful.  I think I might just vote for Obama since you suggested it.  Besides, old people suck.

Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 16, 2008, 01:15:53 PM
Tell that to your Grandma. In fact, please buy the tee-shirt. It really shows your level of class.

I hope you are joking.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: guido911 on September 16, 2008, 01:16:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by guido911

quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

Taheri doesn't have much credibility. More here:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/noted_bamboozler_behind_latest.php



That's part of the reason why I included the second article. Obama's non-denial denial of Taheri's report is what is exceedingly curious, if not downright double speak. Here is the beginning of McCain's response to the issue:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRmMDAwNDc1ZTMxMDAzNGJlYjA5NWY1MzRlMGJmM2M=



Someone in the U.S. Department of Justice should remind Barack the Redeemer that ONLY the U.S. State Department speaks for the U.S. Government.

Or someone that the U.S. State Department has given EXPRESS rights to negotiate on behalf of the U.S. Government.

Barack could easily be accused of trying to make U.S. Government policy when he is NOT currently so enabled.

Does negotiating with a Foreign Prince constitute TREASON according to the U.S. Constitution?

Answer:  Yes, when contrary to the policy of the U.S. Government.




A lot of the blog chatter has focused on Obama's possible violation of the Logan Act, which provides:

Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

18 U.S.C. § 953.

There appears to have been no prosecutions brought for a violation of this statute (although when Pelosi traveled to the middle east shortly after becoming speaker, there were rumblings of a possible violation).

I think the bigger story is Obama's continued belief that it is a foregone conclusion that he will be elected, which is plainly in doubt and that he would use the lives of our soldiers in Iraq for political gain.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 16, 2008, 01:25:04 PM
I think that Obama and Pelosi should definitely be brought up on charges. Do you think a Republican would get away with this crap if a Dim were in office? Hell, they want to reinstate the "fairness" doctrine to shut down Conservative talk radio. How would they react to this? We can't even go underground to AM radio without being attacked.

They want to silence all opposition and I believe that if they were in total power, they would do whatever it takes to do so, including imprisoning a Republican Speaker of the House or Presidential candidate if they saw any legal and viable option to do so. All Liberalism/Socialsm is, is "Communism Light". Well, that's the Democratic Party.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: we vs us on September 16, 2008, 02:04:57 PM
My new name for Taheri? Curveball.

*rimshot*

Anyone?  Anyone?  Anyone at all?

Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 16, 2008, 02:24:54 PM
How about the Bloviator?

I still don't see any denial that Obama spoke with leaders of a foreign government, regarding foreign policy changes that illegally overstepped his bounds and go against the U.S. government. Illegal is illegal, blown out of proportion or not.

Any updates?
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: we vs us on September 16, 2008, 02:46:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily

How about the Bloviator?






No, no, dude.  Curveball. (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)%22)
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 16, 2008, 02:59:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us

quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily

How about the Bloviator?



No, no, dude.  Curveball. (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)%22)



Wild Pitch, maybe???? I mean, so far it's starting to sound like he missed the plate. I tell you what, give me proof he was at least telling the truth that Obama was illegally meddling in foreign affairs and that's a definite "Curveball", even if he exagerate the extent to which Obama broke the law. If this was ALL just a bunch of made up BS, "Wild Pitch" it is. Maybe even the "Bloviating Wild Pitch". [:D]
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Conan71 on September 16, 2008, 03:08:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily

Tell that to your Grandma. In fact, please buy the tee-shirt. It really shows your level of class.

I hope you are joking.



(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e379/SewerDog/sgthulka.jpg)
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 16, 2008, 03:15:30 PM
Like i said, I hope you are joking. If not, please tell it to your grandma, then I'll lighten up. Deal?

(http://kickas.org/gallery/d/2588-1/smiley_guy_sticking_out_tongue_md_clr.gif)This thing is kinda creepy, isn't it?
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: FOTD on September 16, 2008, 05:45:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily

Like i said, I hope you are joking. If not, please tell it to your grandma, then I'll lighten up. Deal?

(http://kickas.org/gallery/d/2588-1/smiley_guy_sticking_out_tongue_md_clr.gif)This thing is kinda creepy, isn't it?


"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15th."

Ronald Reagan






FYI, Nancy Reagan and her husband thought John McCain had no integrity, exhibited poor judgement, and was dishonest. Crash that quote.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 16, 2008, 05:53:57 PM
I'm not far off from feeling the same way About McCain and I still think he's 100 times better than Obama. Tells you what I think of that waste of good air doesn't it? I've said it before. With John, we get a pig with lipstick, but with Barrack we get candy coated sh*t. Once we're past the lipstick and candy, I'd rather eat bacon.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: FOTD on September 16, 2008, 06:40:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily

I'm not far off from feeling the same way About McCain and I still think he's 100 times better than Obama. Tells you what I think of that waste of good air doesn't it? I've said it before. With John, we get a pig with lipstick, but with Barrack we get candy coated sh*t. Once we're past the lipstick and candy, I'd rather eat bacon.



So, you don't care if McBush's running mate is ilequiped for the job? And what makes you feel 100 times better about McCain? Based on character do you believe McCain desrves the job because of his soldier status? Do you care if our military continues the entrapment in Iraq over what's refered to here as "interference" in Iraq.

Candy coated? It's basic optimisim versus the pessimism displayed through that segment of republicans now dominated, and into the future, by evangelicals. They're the candy coaters.


But you go for the old white sick guy over the smart black guy.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 16, 2008, 08:48:21 PM
I'm not defending McCain. I just think that much less of Obama's character and all he stands for, not to mention HIS experience. I think that Palin is better equipped to lead this country than all three Senators combined, with John being the next best. Obama is a parrot with the least real world leadership experience of the three. If years in the Senate mean something and building coalitions mean something and actually sponsoring bills means something, at least john has that. Sarah is the best person of the options available and Obama is the worst. Obama is on the front of the Dem ticket. Nuff said.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: USRufnex on September 16, 2008, 08:52:13 PM
I think much more of Obama and his character than the republican charade and all it pretends to stand for...

As opposed to cartoonish posts having no basis in fact...

sorry to interrupt your conservative koolaid party.  [:P]

Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Hoss on September 16, 2008, 08:57:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex

I think much more of Obama and his character than the republican charade and all it pretends to stand for...

As opposed to cartoonish posts having no basis in fact...

sorry to interrupt your conservative koolaid party.  [:P]





Better watch it, some of the republican circles I run in get their panties in a bunch if you refer to them as 'koolaid drinkers'.

Haven't seen a lot of that around here (reaction to the phrase) but thought I'd let you know.

In case people start calling you 'libtard' or 'treehugger' or 'bleedingheart' or 'marxist' or 'leninist' or 'communist'....you get the picture, I think.

[:O]
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: FOTD on September 16, 2008, 09:04:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily

I'm not defending McCain. I just think that much less of Obama's character and all he stands for, not to mention HIS experience. I think that Palin is better equipped to lead this country than all three Senators combined, with John being the next best. Obama is a parrot with the least real world leadership experience of the three. If years in the Senate mean something and building coalitions mean something and actually sponsoring bills means something, at least john has that. Sarah is the best person of the options available and Obama is the worst. Obama is on the front of the Dem ticket. Nuff said.



How many concusions have you had?
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 16, 2008, 09:07:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD

quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily

I'm not defending McCain. I just think that much less of Obama's character and all he stands for, not to mention HIS experience. I think that Palin is better equipped to lead this country than all three Senators combined, with John being the next best. Obama is a parrot with the least real world leadership experience of the three. If years in the Senate mean something and building coalitions mean something and actually sponsoring bills means something, at least john has that. Sarah is the best person of the options available and Obama is the worst. Obama is on the front of the Dem ticket. Nuff said.



How many concusions have you had?



Well, obviously no where near the amount you have. I'd say you're way past punch drunk and moving in to the dementia stage, right along with the rest of Dems. [:P]
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: FOTD on September 16, 2008, 09:21:24 PM
Hey, The devil requested you quit quoting Reagan. The Reagans thought John McCain was a dick with a man hanging off of it. They hated McCain....Show some respect for the Reagans.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: waterboy on September 17, 2008, 08:59:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD

Hey, The devil requested you quit quoting Reagan. The Reagans thought John McCain was a dick with a man hanging off of it. They hated McCain....Show some respect for the Reagans.



He has to quote someone else. Has no thoughts of his own.

If ever a poster deserved to be blocked this one does. Join me in this crusade. I won't dignify his rantings with a response unless I accidentally respond in the Tulsa World. At least IP, Conan, Gas-mask, and the other McCain sympathizers make an effort to prove their assertions and don't consider the opposition as evil Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Fascist drains on society.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: iplaw on September 17, 2008, 09:03:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by FOTD

Hey, The devil requested you quit quoting Reagan. The Reagans thought John McCain was a dick with a man hanging off of it. They hated McCain....Show some respect for the Reagans.



He has to quote someone else. Has no thoughts of his own.

If ever a poster deserved to be blocked this one does. Join me in this crusade. I won't dignify his rantings with a response unless I accidentally respond in the Tulsa World. At least IP, Conan, Gas-mask, and the other McCain sympathizers make an effort to prove their assertions and don't consider the opposition as evil Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Fascist drains on society.

You won't dignify his rantings, but you put up with FOTD's daily racist, and hateful rantings?  Look no further than the post you quoted of FOTD.  Do those kind of statements deserve anything other than your disdain?
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: waterboy on September 17, 2008, 09:26:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by FOTD

Hey, The devil requested you quit quoting Reagan. The Reagans thought John McCain was a dick with a man hanging off of it. They hated McCain....Show some respect for the Reagans.



He has to quote someone else. Has no thoughts of his own.

If ever a poster deserved to be blocked this one does. Join me in this crusade. I won't dignify his rantings with a response unless I accidentally respond in the Tulsa World. At least IP, Conan, Gas-mask, and the other McCain sympathizers make an effort to prove their assertions and don't consider the opposition as evil Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Fascist drains on society.

You won't dignify his rantings, but you put up with FOTD's daily racist, and hateful rantings?  Look no further than the post you quoted of FOTD.  Do those kind of statements deserve anything other than your disdain?



Fair enough.

I don't put this guy in the same category. FOTD knows the difference between all the "isms" and doesn't rely on unsubtantiated charges. His links may be extremely partisan but based on some viewpoint that is defended with fact or logic. For instance the last post is an exaggeration of a sentiment expressed by the Reagans about McCain by an author who researched and reported graciously on the Reagans.

However, posting some illiterate blogger's rantings about Fascism being a Democratic trait is not only innacurate but beneath support by a literate Republican defender like yourself.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: guido911 on September 17, 2008, 02:40:34 PM
Here's more "kool aid" for us "conservatives".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKqHFk-3yQM&eurl=http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/


Kool aid, gosh that's funny. It's almost as if I never heard that before.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 17, 2008, 03:17:39 PM
Wow, Waterboy. Don't get your panties in a wad. Are you menstruating or what? You say I have no thoughts in my head but then defend a person who posts other peoples thoughts 90% of the time, when I hardly ever do so? Yah, you're reaching. I can almost picture your head spinning, with venom or Satan spew, flying out of your mouth. [}:)]

It's sad that you get so uptight about who you and your Party are and what you really stand for. Common man, your gaybies and lezbo's came out of the closet years ago. Grow some cahones!

(http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/pinko-dismal.jpg)
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: waterboy on September 18, 2008, 09:11:40 AM
There's your guy IP. I'll take a clever, insightful, intellectual left wing extremist any day to that.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: iplaw on September 18, 2008, 09:12:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

There's your guy IP. I'll take a clever, insightful, intellectual left wing extremist any day to that.

I'm sorry.  How do the words clever, insightful or intellectual apply to FOTD?
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: waterboy on September 18, 2008, 09:43:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

There's your guy IP. I'll take a clever, insightful, intellectual left wing extremist any day to that.

I'm sorry.  How do the words clever, insightful or intellectual apply to FOTD?



In contrast with descriptions of Crash and Burn.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: iplaw on September 18, 2008, 09:49:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

There's your guy IP. I'll take a clever, insightful, intellectual left wing extremist any day to that.

I'm sorry.  How do the words clever, insightful or intellectual apply to FOTD?



In contrast with descriptions of Crash and Burn.

Thanks for not answering my question.  I think you and Hometown are the only ones left on this forum who actually defend that pariah.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: waterboy on September 18, 2008, 11:38:19 AM
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

There's your guy IP. I'll take a clever, insightful, intellectual left wing extremist any day to that.

I'm sorry.  How do the words clever, insightful or intellectual apply to FOTD?



In contrast with descriptions of Crash and Burn.

Thanks for not answering my question.  I think you and Hometown are the only ones left on this forum who actually defend that pariah.



That's too bad. I defend you too. But not someone who jumps in with both feet, no understanding of history and refers to Democrats as a group in terms less than human. If that's the level of discourse you enjoy, he's your man.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: iplaw on September 18, 2008, 11:45:25 AM
Ugh.  Why bother.  If you want to pretend that FOTD adds something to the dialogue around here go for it.  90% of the threads he starts have one and only on participant in them because engaging with him is j##$king off with a cheese grater.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: guido911 on September 19, 2008, 03:09:26 PM
More kool-aid:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/19/new-mccain-ad-meet-the-guy-obama-wants-to-chat-with/
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: pmcalk on September 19, 2008, 09:36:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by guido911

This story broke yesterday:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/15/did-obama-try-to-scotch-an-iraqi-us-agreement-on-military-forces/

What is unusual is Obama's response, which was analyzed here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/15/did-obama-try-to-scotch-an-iraqi-us-agreement-on-military-forces/

While these are evil conservative websites, the substance of the article in the NY Post and Obama's response is intact.  

If what is alleged is true, Obama is at a minimum a hypocrite on troop draw downs. More likely is that the McCain campaign and most assuredly the 527s will have a field day.



Still more lies. (//%22http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/undermining-mcc.html%22)  In addition to Obama and Republicans Lugar and Hagel saying that this story is simply not true, members of the Bush administration, who were present, collaborate Obama's version of the story:
quote:

A Bush administration official with knowledge of the meeting says that, during the meeting, Obama stressed to al-Maliki that he would not interfere with President Bush's negotiations concerning the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, and that he supports the Bush administration's position on the need to negotiate, as soon as possible, the Status of Forces Agreement, which deals with, among other matters, U.S. troops having immunity from local prosecution.




Hmmm.  Wonder if Palin even knows what the Status of Forces Agreement or the Stratgic Framework Agreement is.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Hoss on September 19, 2008, 09:45:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:
Originally posted by guido911

This story broke yesterday:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/15/did-obama-try-to-scotch-an-iraqi-us-agreement-on-military-forces/

What is unusual is Obama's response, which was analyzed here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/15/did-obama-try-to-scotch-an-iraqi-us-agreement-on-military-forces/

While these are evil conservative websites, the substance of the article in the NY Post and Obama's response is intact.  

If what is alleged is true, Obama is at a minimum a hypocrite on troop draw downs. More likely is that the McCain campaign and most assuredly the 527s will have a field day.



Still more lies. (//%22http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/undermining-mcc.html%22)  In addition to Obama and Republicans Lugar and Hagel saying that this story is simply not true, members of the Bush administration, who were present, collaborate Obama's version of the story:
quote:

A Bush administration official with knowledge of the meeting says that, during the meeting, Obama stressed to al-Maliki that he would not interfere with President Bush's negotiations concerning the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, and that he supports the Bush administration's position on the need to negotiate, as soon as possible, the Status of Forces Agreement, which deals with, among other matters, U.S. troops having immunity from local prosecution.




Hmmm.  Wonder if Palin even knows what the Status of Forces Agreement or the Stratgic Framework Agreement is.



Wait for it...wait for it....wait for it...

Someone will claim that ABC News is really a shill for liberals (or possibly even calling them libtards) in ...

3....

2....

1....
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: we vs us on September 20, 2008, 04:36:31 AM
ABC News is nothing but a shill for the libtards.


Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 20, 2008, 08:10:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us

ABC News is nothing but a shill for the libtards.






Agree with you 100%.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Hoss on September 20, 2008, 11:29:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by we vs us

ABC News is nothing but a shill for the libtards.






Agree with you 100%.




Knew it was coming.

But haven't you noticed how the responses have been quite tame from the right as of late?
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: MH2010 on September 20, 2008, 01:15:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by we vs us

ABC News is nothing but a shill for the libtards.






Agree with you 100%.




Knew it was coming.

But haven't you noticed how the responses have been quite tame from the right as of late?



Football has started for the weekend. We'll get back to you Monday or Tuesday......
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Hoss on September 20, 2008, 01:23:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010

quote:
Originally posted by Hoss

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by we vs us

ABC News is nothing but a shill for the libtards.






Agree with you 100%.




Knew it was coming.

But haven't you noticed how the responses have been quite tame from the right as of late?



Football has started for the weekend. We'll get back to you Monday or Tuesday......



Didn't stop you guys last week...but then again, the gubmint didn't just give failing companies a $700 billion crutch either.

[:O]
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 20, 2008, 01:26:49 PM
ABC, NBC, CBS, The NY York Times, TIME Magazine, USA Today, The Tulsa Whirrled, they are all in the tank for the left. I can't even get a local paper with the integrity to be objective and unbiased.

Of course it's going to come up. You know it's going to come up because it's true. Setting up that little count down didn't make it any less true.

I'm just amazed Libs haven't yet found a way to ban FOX News and talk radio. Oh wait, you have. It's just a matter of time if you commies get total control, before the "Fairness" doctrine gets re-instituted and we become the People's Republic of America.

Now it's time for the response about how all those media outlets are unbiased and Fox News is extreme right wing, even though university studies have actually shown that they are the most Fair and Balanced, only being slightly tilted to the right. As I keep saying, the left is so far out there, they can't even recognize the center any more.

Wait for it...., Wait for it.

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: we vs us on September 20, 2008, 01:30:59 PM
All those media outlets are unbiased and Fox News is extreme right wing.  





























Paaaaahahahaha, I couldn't help myself.  Actually, all those media outlets are biased towards the right.

Fox news is still extreme right wing, though.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: pmcalk on September 20, 2008, 01:31:46 PM
Cite your sources--what university studies?

So you think that ABC is making up the fact that they have a document that proves that the Governors office authorized the trip?
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 20, 2008, 04:09:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk

Cite your sources--what university studies?

So you think that ABC is making up the fact that they have a document that proves that the Governors office authorized the trip?



I don't know if ABC is making it up or not. I don't know if they are stretching the truth or not. I do know the main stream media has jumped on false documentation in the past, being so rabidly against the right, that they throw proper vetting of documents, that attack the right, out the window. Or they will exaggerate the importance of documents, in hopes of getting traction. i know you don't want to hear it and have obviously have political amnesia, when it comes to these media tactics

Careful what you wish for. When you ask, you will receive. Of course, these studies are factual and truthful, so I doubt any Liberal will give them a second look or thought.

http://www.twoorthree.net/2008/01/another-univers.html (//%22http://%22)

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664 (//%22http://%22)

http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf (//%22http://%22)

http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/20786_americans_slam_news_media_on_believability.cfm

Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: akupetsky on September 20, 2008, 04:55:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily

quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk

Cite your sources--what university studies?

So you think that ABC is making up the fact that they have a document that proves that the Governors office authorized the trip?



I don't know if ABC is making it up or not. I don't know if they are stretching the truth or not. I do know the main stream media has jumped on false documentation in the past, being so rabidly against the right, that they throw proper vetting of documents, that attack the right, out the window. Or they will exaggerate the importance of documents, in hopes of getting traction. i know you don't want to hear it and have obviously have political amnesia, when it comes to these media tactics

Careful what you wish for. When you ask, you will receive. Of course, these studies are factual and truthful, so I doubt any Liberal will give them a second look or thought.

http://www.twoorthree.net/2008/01/another-univers.html (//%22http://%22)

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664 (//%22http://%22)

http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf (//%22http://%22)

http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/20786_americans_slam_news_media_on_believability.cfm





The 2005 study shows a slight bias to the left on some of the major news organizations, but a number of their reports (plus the Hume Report, which was slightly to the right) close to the center.

The other study was done during the Primaries, where, of course, Fox was in the middle (Obama v. Clinton, McCain v. Huckabee and Romney).  

Besides, the comparison of coverage itself assumes a moral equivalence between liberal and conservative.[;)]
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 20, 2008, 05:23:09 PM
The media bias to the left has nothing to do with moral equivalence and not all studies were done just during the election cycles, although, during election cycles, it really shows their bias, ten fold. That is the time it counts most, so it is most relevant.

There was a study by Michigan, that I can't find. It totally removed the argument regarding moral equivalence. They just counted negative/positive articles and stories, regarding Liberal vs Conservative issues and negative/positive articles and stories on Republicans and Democrats. Once again Fox was just slightly right of center and the rest were way left, as usual. Not "slightly" left.
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Hoss on September 20, 2008, 05:47:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily

The media bias to the left has nothing to do with moral equivalence and not all studies were done just during the election cycles, although, during election cycles, it really shows their bias, ten fold. That is the time it counts most, so it is most relevant.

There was a study by Michigan, that I can't find. It totally removed the argument regarding moral equivalence. They just counted negative/positive articles and stories, regarding Liberal vs Conservative issues and negative/positive articles and stories on Republicans and Democrats. Once again Fox was just slightly right of center and the rest were way left, as usual. Not "slightly" left.



And how very convenient you can't find the article now.

[:O]
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: Crash Daily on September 20, 2008, 06:22:04 PM
What, I didn't reply with enough articles already? That Michigan study is old, but I'm sure it's out there somewhere. I've already supplied enough to make my point. Find it yourself. Thanks for giving me credit for coming up with the study though. [;)]
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: pmcalk on September 21, 2008, 10:06:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
quote:
So you think that ABC is making up the fact that they have a document that proves that the Governors office authorized the trip?



I don't know if ABC is making it up or not. I don't know if they are stretching the truth or not. I do know the main stream media has jumped on false documentation in the past, being so rabidly against the right, that they throw proper vetting of documents, that attack the right, out the window. Or they will exaggerate the importance of documents, in hopes of getting traction. i know you don't want to hear it and have obviously have political amnesia, when it comes to these media tactics

Careful what you wish for. When you ask, you will receive. Of course, these studies are factual and truthful, so I doubt any Liberal will give them a second look or thought.

http://www.twoorthree.net/2008/01/another-univers.html (//%22http://%22)

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664 (//%22http://%22)

http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf (//%22http://%22)

http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/20786_americans_slam_news_media_on_believability.cfm




Thanks for responding.  

The first cite you post is Two or Three net—don't know much about them, but I tend to be a bit suspicious, since below that it says "Christian commentary."  They cite to Center for Media and Public Affairs, an organization whose objectivity is questionable.  Having said that, I agree that, at the beginning of the campaign, Obama received much more positive coverage than Hillary as CMPA reports.  Fox, surprisingly, was not as hostile to her.  I don't know how this shows liberal vs. conservative bias, though.  If a station was hostile to Hillary, but favorable to Huckabee, does that mean they were liberal or conservative?  So I would say the CMPA cite proves very little.

Incidentally, the most recent study (//%22http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%207_29_08.htm%22) on the election from CMPA says that Obama is faring much worse than McCain on the news.  There's your liberal media for you.

As for the UCLA study, I find the methodology very odd.  Can you explain how they determined what was liberal versus what was conservative?  

Finally, your Sacred Heart reference—that study did not find that one station was more/less liberal than another.  It was a study of perceptions of the media.  The fact that 45% of Americans surveyed believe the media is liberal does not make that so.  And that 27% of those surveyed trust Fox doesn't mean they are right.  
Title: Obama's Interference in Iraq
Post by: pmcalk on September 21, 2008, 10:40:58 AM
I would add for each study showing bias, there are studies showing either no bias:

http://www.lclark.edu/cgi-bin/shownews.cgi?news_item=1170440100.0


Or a conservative slant:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?lb=brusc&pnt=102&nid=&id= (Americans who rely predominantly on FOX news for information were the most misinformed about the facts on IRAQ)

The bottom line, IMO, is that all media has one bias--what will make them the most money.  Therefore, they cater to their audience.  This has been shown:

http://www.chicagogsb.edu/news/2008-04_shapiro.aspx