'A wonderful man'
The post mortems are way too early (I agree McCain will lose the popular vote but he can certainly still win the electoral college) but still fascinating and this in particular suggests that the weekend will bring some revelations about the McCain mess-up on the VP choice Bloomberg? The party would have rebelled.
This meanwhile from Politico might shed some light on a psychological blow represented by the Powell endorsement:
"POWELL = McCAIN'S "FAVORITE LIVING HERO" -- Politico's Roger Simon brings it: "The scene is the Straight Talk Express, the old Straight Talk Express, in 1999 -- the one stuffed with reporters asking John McCain question after question and getting answer after answer, hour after hour. McCain is enjoying himself, even when the reporters, having exhausted all serious topics, turn goofy and play 'favorites' with him, asking him his favorite tree (cottonwood), favorite breakfast cereal (Raisin Bran) and favorite toothpaste (Colgate). And then there is this exchange that I recorded for history: Favorite word, a reporter asks. 'Principle,' McCain says. Favorite dead hero. 'Uh, Julius Caesar,' McCain says. Favorite dead hero within the last 2,000 years. 'OK, off the top of my head, Lincoln,' McCain says. 'Although the more I read and study, the more intrigued I am by Teddy Roosevelt.' Favorite living hero. 'Colin Powell,' McCain says instantly. 'Served his country. A wonderful man.'"
Hello, I'm 
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
The most tragic part is how the principled man lost his soul while pursuing the presidency..
Complain about this comment
1st....
The Colin Powell endorsement of Obama, put McCain in a tight spot.
The new argument about Obama being tested, is somewhat negated by Powell's endorsement..
Complain about this comment
I just started a thread on my blog,
http://theamericandreamagain.blogspot.com
which you can get to by clicking here.
All comments welcome, especially you, Justin!
Complain about this comment
Since winning the nomination, McCain has felt the need to go more and more to the right to serve his "base".
Part of me wonders how he would be doing now if he had stuck to middle-of-the-road policies and chosen Lieberman. One thing I do believe is that Powell would be supporting him - and I'm sure that McCain knows this as well.
Oh, and one more thing, Justin. You said weeks ago that the Palin bubble wouldn't make it to the election. With polls now saying that she is his biggest liability, I have to say how right you were. (Oh, and could I have some of her $150k clothing budget, please?)
Complain about this comment
then if he thinks so strongly about powell he must really feel hurt he did not get powell's endorsement. I would hope he would do some reflection on himself and his campaign over the past 2 months. I believe deep down he is embarassed by the conduct of his pursuit for power. especially if he ends up losing this election.
#4 I believe the base would have voted for mccain despite not liking him. as patriotic as they say they are i cant imagine them not voting on election day, especially when the democrat they are voting against is Obama.
It was a serious miscalculation. if he chose amoderate he would have won the independents and the base would be their voting against obama. To rally the base just bring up row v wade and the democrt's support for it. (maybe im being too simplistic but i cannot imagine the repub base sitting idly by and not voting against obama or not taking part in a presidential race).
Complain about this comment
You ought to be more concerned about Biden's revelations:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102108/content/01125108.guest.html
that is, if the country comes first.
Complain about this comment
"Biden's been given the briefings. The transition teams have both been briefed with intelligence, foreign policy. They know what's brewing out there 'cause he admitted five possible scenarios. He's been told what's going on. What Biden brought that up for was to specifically beg Obama supporters to hang in and support them when this happens. He is assuring us that Obama's response will not be acceptable, but they don't want the country turning on Obama like the country turned on Bush.
That's why Biden brought this up, to beg Obama supporters to hang in. So he's basically assuring us that we're going to get hit by somebody or one of our allies will and that Obama is not going to do the right thing, but they still want to be loved and adored."
Cut and paste the link in post 6 for the full transcript.
From who's perspective would he not do the right thing?
Complain about this comment
Much as I like to read the online edition of The New York Times, what effect is it going to have on anyone? Its circulation is well below 600,000 outside New York and steadily shrinking. I can't think why Justin bothered to provide the link. The only people who will pick up on the story will be Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly who like to hammer away at the publication and will dismiss it as one more "liberal-elitist" article.
Any psychological blow will only be felt by Mr McCain and his campaign team. I do not believe that voters care about any endorsement; it might have mattered years ago, but not today. Remember, the same organ endorsed Hillary Clinton and, in the long term, very few cared. On November 4th, I really don't believe that voters are going to ask themselves "what did Colin Powell think?"
If indeed Mr McCain should scrape together enough Electoral College votes and the popular vote is substantially higher for Mr Obama (far in excess of Al Gore's margin in 2000) then I see trouble brewing. Last time in a similar situation it was one white man and another; this time it could easily be that young African-American voters in particular would feel cheated out of "their" president - and would be joined by many others who considered the result outrageous. Let us hope that, which ever way it goes, the result is absolutely clear cut.
Complain about this comment
#6
As my history profs in undergrad and grad school stated, "consider the source." "El Rushbo," as he styles himself, makes no secret of the fact that he is an entertainer, not a thinker. He takes pride in it, in fact- his whole agenda has been Limbaugh first.
Any fact that cycles through the machine is turned, twisted, and tweaked til it fits the opinions with which he feels the need to "enlighten" the masses. Anything, anyone in the public arena says can be taken out of context to suit any purpose any demagogue wants, Left or Right, so, have to...
If you cannot come up with anything more intellectually challenging or actually based fact rather than wind, then by all means, please enlighten.
Complain about this comment
When it became obvious that the two presidential nominees from the two major political parties would be Senators McCain and Obama, a lifelong conservative colleague, who favored McCain, and I agreed that the country would be in good hands regardless of who won. We looked forward to a contest between two candidates engaging the nation with their competing ideas on how to address the most pressing issues.
Then things began to unravel in the McCain campaign, which took him far from the principled positions that he defended throughout most of his political career, so far that it seems hard to square the candidate before us today with the one who identified his favorite word as "principle."
I think that it is time that Senator McCain took careful stock of the measured assessment of his campaign, coming from his once "greatest living hero" who remains "a wonderful man."
P.S. My conservative colleague has been working as a volunteer for the Obama campaign, since the nomination of Gov. Palin.
Complain about this comment
3, guns.
I tried to add a comment to your blog, but I guess you have to be registered and I couldn't find a place to do it.
What I said in essence was that comparing Obama to Kennedy demeans Obama. He hasn't got Kennedy's baggage - no mob connections - no father to buy him the election - no Mayor Daiey to fraudulently give him the winning electoral votes - no drunkenness. And that is the tip of the iceberg. Kennedy got by on glamour. Obama will get by on substance.
Complain about this comment
Uh, how exactly does mcCain win the electoral college without the popular vote?
Complain about this comment
Please don't answer my question with Pennsylvania (if McCain wins Pa, it means he has won the popular vote by at least 5 pts) - that way lies madness!
Complain about this comment
Re: the election not being over- I agree, and I'm still not so sure that Obama has the popular vote locked up, either. If the polls had been closer to the actual result in the last two presidential races I would feel easier, but...
Something else to consider: several have posted about their fears of the Democrats controlling both the executive and legislative branches (and maybe the judicial, too.) This is a simplistic argument that assumes that the Dems are a monolithic voting block, rigidly kept in lockstep. Their unity in opposition to McCain-Palin in this election is not only a new phenomenon, but perhaps unprecedented since at least the days of FDR. Will Rogers' cliched witticism from 60-70 years ago was and is true.
Especially with the current mix, which is drawing in independents, Blue-Dog Democrats, and a handful of discontented Republican moderates for the presidential race, don't expect the honeymoon with Congress to last more than a few months...
Time to run... work comes too early, and the psychocats are destroying the kitchen.
Complain about this comment
8, david,
"Any psychological blow will only be felt by Mr McCain and his campaign team. I do not believe that voters care about any endorsement; it might have mattered years ago, but not today."
Yes, and not even Colin Powell matters to the voters. But with Republicans deserting a sinking ship, McCain will lose even more focus. If he has already given up, it will show. The only thing interesting about the next two weeks will be how McCain handles it - or unravels.
Complain about this comment
12, Cart.
We are not a democracy, but a republic. We do not elect the president directly - the states do. The number of electors for a given state equals two for the senators plus the number of representatives. If the popular vote for a state results in a majority for one candidate, all fo the electoral votes go to that party (there are two exceptions to this).
If a candidate wins large states by a small margin and loses small states by a large margin, you can see how the popular vote may not result in a candidate's election.
Complain about this comment
Re:12. At 04:35am on 22 Oct 2008, Cartponybefore wrote:
Uh, how exactly does mcCain win the electoral college without the popular vote?
The electoral vote and popular do not necessarily go together. Democrats traditionally fare well with the popular vote, but fail to get the electoral vote (see Bush v Gore 2000). McCain has to win NV, CO, MO, IN, OH, NC, FL and one other from VA, PA, IA. If he edged all of these states by a margin of around 1% or less, he would be the loser of the popular vote.
Obama currently has a huge lead in states like CA, IL, NY. These are populous states where Obama is taking 60% of the vote. A 60% victory in CA yields more than total votes than a similar result in say WY. Put simply if you win the electoral vote by one vote it is the same as winning by a million votes ie. you can only win x amount of electoral votes-except for NE and ME which can split.
The electoral college system is designed to prevent populous states controlling the election, so each state is weighted accordingly. This system traditionally favors the Republican candidate who can secure more states in the Mid-West and South-usually Republicans secure 28 states to the Democrats 22.
Right now, I do not see this scenario working out. The best polling guide I have found is 270towin.com
That is predicting the electoral college vote to be:
Obama 277
McCain 163
Undecided 98
The question now is can McCain pull out FL, OH and still win back VA? I can see FL and OH going red but I still see CO and NC going blue. I am going for Obama to take 300-315 electoral college votes.
Complain about this comment
Colin Powell is a great support for Obama. It certainly makes me feel easier as a R voting D this year. For years I've wished Powell himself would run for president but he's too smart to do that to himself.
The electoral college always puts my brain in a knot. I figured it out once in my high school US history class, but I've since forgotten how it's possible to lose the popular & still win the electoral vote. It's an outdated system that should probably be done away with.
Complain about this comment
#15. allmymarbles wrote: "not even Colin Powell matters to the voters."
And I think stories like this will make more trouble for McCain than any endorsement by Colin Powell. And for our British readers - you thought Cherie was greedy?
Complain about this comment
12 - see Bush vs. Gore. That's how. I bet you didn't know that Gore won the popular vote. Some of us think he also won the electoral college - but that's a whole different story.
Mr Webb - you just touched on a deep seeded fear. I have lived in some "swing" areas of the country. And I am not confident Obama can win there (see Ed Rendell from the primary - he knows what I'm talking about). Then again, Bush messed everything up so bad I also don't see how he could lose.
That being said, I wouldn't be a true liberal without being completely paranoid about the state of the election. I swear, if he was up 30 points in the polls I'd still be sweating buckets till Nov 5th.
Complain about this comment
#11, Ms. Marbles, I have changed the settings,
please try again!
Complain about this comment
"The post mortems are way too early (I agree McCain will lose the popular vote but he can certainly still win the electoral college.)"
O God don't scare me like that!! Please? Ain't Democracy grand?
David Cunard you forget, that while the New York Times is read by fewer and fewer people outside New York in its printed form each year, the online version, I.E. the article and others such as the one Justin linked to, is probably read by far more people than ever read its printed form at any time in the paper's history. In fact, the BBC just did a story on the "paperless paper." You should look it up if you get a chance.
This Powell thing just keeps getting better! First Powell, then Johnson. It kind of makes you wonder what other prominant conservitives are left to endorse Obama. Doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
#6 jcputn5349
That's rush limbaugh's article. Everyone knows he's an extreme right wing candidate. If he's bothered about biden's health, shouldn't he be also bothered about McCain's?
Complain about this comment
It's the 'mess-up' and the choice of Caribou Barbie as running mate that has me gripped. See my take on it on my blog:
http://homeandotherthoughtsfromabroad.blogspot.com/
Complain about this comment
McCain has served his country admirably. Nobody denies that. But what all Americans want is a leader who can take the country in a new direction where there is real hope for all sections of society through meaningful change. America needs to be governed intelligently and respected abroad. The next President should set the right priorities. The economy, education, jobs, health care, foreign policy are key priorities. Getting embroiled in long drawn out wars are totally unnecessary! The present administration lost its way and that is why change is imperative. Obama offers that vital opportunity!
Complain about this comment
McCain has served his country admirably. Nobody denies that. But what all Americans want is a leader who can take the country in a new direction where there is real hope for all sections of society through meaningful change. America needs to be governed intelligently and respected abroad. The next President should set the right priorities. The economy, education, jobs, health care, foreign policy are key priorities. Getting embroiled in long drawn out wars are totally unnecessary! The present administration lost its way and that is why change is imperative. Obama offers that vital opportunity!Breath of fresh air!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I have a feeling that Powells endorsement of Obama and the reasons he gave may make McCain rethink his approach in the last two weeks. Not tacticaly but ethicaly. His strategies to date have been disastrous and probably based on his advisors insisting that Bushs' successful gameplan against him in the 2000 primaries was the way to go.
If I'm correct, for the first time we might see the real McCain and not some ill advised political avatar.
Complain about this comment
Watch out if the Repubs snafu this election - the conflagrations e.g. Watts could look like a backyard barbeque in comparison.
This election so many DIFFERENT folks - particularly young ones - have committed themselves heart & soul - have sacrificed tremendously financially - and worked like mules for Obama.
That kind of commitment and devotion could be turned into gigantic rage if this election is stolen a la 2000.
Complain about this comment
#22. NoRashDecisions: "while the New York Times is read by fewer and fewer people outside New York in its printed form each year, the online version, I.E. the article and others such as the one Justin linked to, is probably read by far more people than ever read its printed form at any time in the paper's history."
Yes, apparently as of last August, 15 million hits. But that doesn't mean to say that voters across the country will all read the same story - they can read the main head line/s and get a sense of what's happening but "McCain's mess up", if it is published (Justin's link is to the Huffington Post) will likely be read by pro-Obama readers rather than Republicans - who may already know the problems with the selection of Mrs Palin.
I really do not expect that those who have already decided to vote read NYT in print or online; too busy taking kids to school, jamming, freezing, off to Bible class or out hunting to stretch the budget, as some of contributors would have us believe (6)*. There are 205.1 million eligible voters and I suggest that only a very small percentage of them read NYT in depth. If you can find any meaningful statistics, I'd be interested and be more than willing to be corrected.
*I'm told that means "wicked grin"!
Complain about this comment
19, David.
It looks like McCain never investigated her. All these rash decisions add up to some sort of mental problem. For an old-time campaigner, his behavior makes no sense otherwise. And to think we almost got him as president.
I did not make too much sense in our discussion of the hanging. To get a good picture of Iran, go to the previous thread (towards the end) where kecsmar and I talk back and forth. His sister married an Iranian and he goes there on business.
Complain about this comment
28, David de Yong.
Because of the people who work for him McCain may be locked in to his unsuccessful tactics. In any case, it doesn't matter.
Complain about this comment
18, Josephine.
I think the electoral college is a good system. For one thing it protects states' rights. We are a union, after all.
And can you think what would ahppen without the electoral college? The candidates would concentrate on the bigger cities and give the rural areas short shrift. They would not be properly represented.
Complain about this comment
Your link to the NYT story itself links to a series of pics of the Palin baby. At the risk of moderator disapproval, I have to write that I am still uncomfortable at the way this baby is being exposed to political rallies.
There is one pic of Palin on the podium with mic, noisy crowds in the background, showing off the baby like some sort of stage prop.
I did not realise until I saw these pics that the baby was still on the campaign trail, and having seen the evidence I find that my stomach turns at the sheer inappropiateness of the way the little boy is being treated.
Complain about this comment
What I really want is for McCain to lose Arizona. The only polls I could find were old, three from September and one from August. I would also like Palin to lose Alaska, but Idon't think that is going to happen.
I guess I am just mad about the dirty campaign and would like that pair to get their comeuppance.
Complain about this comment
Just using a thin umbilical thread linking the Powell factor here to US Foreign Policy....... a couple of interesting things I have noted in the last x36 hours.
1. Pakistan. I caught the bulk of a piece on BBC World here in the Caucasian trenches being delivered by, who I believe to be, a former high ranking female official in the Pakistani Government. She was articulating views and a nations wish list on how the incoming President and Administration should approach its relations with Pakistan. The rationale and detailed analysis was very calm; very assured; very specific and covered all the elements frankly that have stood out, beacon-like, as regrettable US policy failings in recent times. Loyal ally; sovereignty; huge sensitivity over dealings with India; cultural understanding; respect and more..... Anyone else hear this?
2. Gates - Iraq. Reading the reports on the Robert Gates *take* and irritation re the fact that Iraq is questioning the SOFA agreement banged on the table...... anyone note the 000s of Iraqis on the streets making a point too the other day?
....... give me strength someone please?........ this is PRECISELY the sort of attitude and approach that has led a great nation into the absolute mire of failed Foreign Policy and failed International Relations and failed Global Respect.
It cannot come quick enough.........
Bill
Complain about this comment
Here in NC the election has already started with early voting. The popular vote in NC so far will be with Obama.
The State Board of Elections is releasong the data already .... the party
affilaition of the voter.
You can verify the NC voter counts from the
NC State Board of Elections.
NC also allows straight party voting .... pick the President, then pick the party. As such, Senator Dole should be in trouble.
A brief summary is that over the first six days Democrats are voting at the rate of
2 to 1 over the Republicans. This will no doubt change, but here in NC .... the DEM party is fired up and hitting voters NOW.
If enough of the DEM vote shows up .... which has been a weakness in NC over several elections .... Obama will win here. He could be the first DEM Presidential
candiadate since Jimmy Carter in 1976 to win NC.
A summary of the NC count as a proportion of registered voters on....
http://turningncblue.com/earlyvote.php. It also details the early vote process; citizens in NC can still register to vote.
If states like NC do pick Obama .... he will win the college vote AND the popular vote. In fact, it may not be close if this happens as NC is historically a very SAFE Republican State in Federal Elections (1976 - Jimmy Carter). To win NC he probably wins VA and CO too.
Complain about this comment
#213 (previous thread) Ed Iglehart
We go through a 'credit crunch'. It means a lot of people in developed countries fear a little for their economic well-being. They may have to take a lesser job, live in a lesser house.
I am 61 so finding another job worries me. Selling my house would be very difficult and what would happen to us then is just unknown.
Contrast that with walking out of a tent in a refugee camp in Darfur early in the morning to get wood. You have to go further and further each day because resources close to the camp are being scoured away.
You may well get raped. If men go to protect you, they may be killed. You may have been raped before. Perhaps your husband understands that but there's nothing you can do.
If you have children they may have illnesses. If they haven't, they will. It's all around you. You fear for their lives now, let alone their future. You would like to think that someone, somewhere has the humanity to care about your plight.
Well, no. The Iraq War changed all that. We opposed the Iraq War so the threat of military force on foreign governments is a no-no.
The Sudanese government knows that. They know they won't even have sanctions imposed on them because China want their oil and they will block any such move in the UNSC.
But no-one will drop bombs except those who find my presence in this place inconvenient. What a blessing.
Complain about this comment
#31. allmymarbles
It looks like McCain never investigated (Palin). All these rash decisions add up to some sort of mental problem . . . And to think we almost got him as president."
Don't tempt fate!! The verdict's not in; who at the time of the OJ trial really thought he would be acquitted? Two weeks right now will tell the tale.
34. eightypercent "I did not realise until I saw these pics that the baby was still on the campaign trail"
Go to the link at #19 above and you'll see that she drags them around to everything and, in Alaska, has charged the state for so doing! I wonder if she does the same with McCain campaign? She wouldn't bill them for those kids' appearances would she . . ?
Complain about this comment
The photos of Bristol Palin, Levi Johnston her 'fiance' and little Trig "Sarah & Todd's son" Palin at the RNC are very telling. The photo in which Bristol is holding a sleeping Trig to her breast in the most maternal way, with Levi bending over to kiss the sleeping baby, has convinced me without the shadow of a doubt that Trig is Bristol's & Levi's baby. I don't give a "hoot" [sic] about gossip writers; but I am appalled that Sarah Palin is using her grandchild as a political football metaphorically speaking. Trig is a "special needs child" prop for Palin - but it's clear who really adores and is bonded to Trig: Bristol. Both teenage mom Bristol and her special needs boy are being exploited in the most disgusting way - harmful and heartless exploitation by "Granny Dearest" Sarah Palin. What a contrast to the caring and loving, respectful way that Barack & Michelle Obama protect their girls' privacy and stable home life with an authentic Grandma relationship from Michelle Obama's wonderful mother.
Complain about this comment
Is this what Republicans really stand for?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27312289/
Complain about this comment
# 39 ~ David C.
I am getting to the state where I wouldn't be surprised at anything.
We currently have a juicy little scandal in the UK involving luxury yachts and villas in Corfu, the richest Russian oligarch, the endlessly entertaining Peter Mandelson, a formerly up and coming Tory on the make, political donations, drinks, dinners and huge amounts of gossip.
And the best part of it is that The Times reports that the formerly up and coming Tory on the make left his luxury hols and his super-rich pals to come home to make a speech on POVERTY.
You couldn't make it up.
Complain about this comment
It is amazing how many Americans find excuses for sp abuses of power and cheating the public by charging taxpayers for her childrens travel expenses. If she had to have her kids along then the cost should have been hers personally not the states. This woman is an embarrassment and Europeans see through her vapidity and lack of experience(half-baked Alaskan). Colin Powell said what many must think she was a very bad choice and shows poor judgement from someone seeking the presidency. America show the rest the world you are not just stooges of gwb who is hated in most of the rest of the world.
Complain about this comment
Over the past few weeks we have seen many views on the two candidates, these views vary widely across the political spectrum. Regardless of one's political position, if we view the 2 candidate?s performance from the perspective of coherence and competency there is no comparison.
The democratic candidate has shown that he can manage well, delegate well, surround himself with competent staff, and be an eloquent motivational speaker. On the other hand the Republican nominee has shown that he has no consistent message, is mostly reactive with no clear sense of where he would lead, and his decision making has been found wanting.
All that being said, the contest is still close! Why is that? What does it say about the voting public? How bad must a candidate be, before their behavior cracks the myopic right wing glaze before your eyes? My wife's grandfather once stated, that he would "Vote for the devil if it ran on the Republican ticket".
I'm not suggesting that JM is the "dvl...", but can any one intending to vote for him give me a well thought out rational reason for doing so?
PS. If anyone won't vote for Obama because of his race, please tell me what you are afraid of?
Complain about this comment
#44 malcolmd3111
I've seen some people who absolutely won't vote for Obama. Here's a list of their reasons:
1) He's a Muslim (No idea where they got that from)
2) He's a Socialist (or worse, a communist!!!)
3) The bradley effect. ( I don't know if it still exists).
4) He's an Arab. (So he can't be a decent family man)
5) And oh, he's black.
There are many more reasons, I could think of these for now. Thank the republican political machine for spreading these rumours.
Complain about this comment
38. At 07:27am on 22 Oct 2008, chill0 wrote: reDarfur
"We opposed the Iraq War so the threat of military force on foreign governments is a no-no."
Chill0 is attempting to blame the suffering in Darfur on people who opposed the Iraq war - as opposed to George Bush and Dick Cheney wrecking the international reputation of the USA and its armies. Amazing.
The interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia are worth contrasting with Iraq. The popularly expressed impulse to go in and change a regime was exploited by the neocons to further their world vision. Many Americans - many on the BBC blogs who you would expect to be at least a little itnerested int eh outside world - still believe 9/11 and Iraq to be linked.
The reason intervention in Darfur is now not an option - and certainly not one the US has the authority to carry through - is because the Iraq invasion was based on lies, badly planned, incompetently handled, caused massive suffering, is beggaring the USA itself, and is now caught up in a desparate long haul which at best might end up a bit better than Vietnam.
America is a wonderful country currently led by criminals. If you want a war hero for president - how about Al Gore?
Complain about this comment
# Malcolm
You would only have to scroll through the last few weeks of this blog to see which particular sleaze du jour has been put out by the RNC.
For a couple of days it's Acorn, then a couple of days on Ayers, throw in a bit of "socialism" for a few hours, and then - when they're getting really desperate - the idea that aliens have been grooming Obama as a manchurian candidate since he'was eight years old (and slag off his feelings for his grannie while you're at it).
This is the "whatever" approach to political campaigning and all it proves is that there's no clarity of thought behind it all.
Complain about this comment
McCain choosing Palin as VP took him to the right, to bolster up his "base", but thus leaving much more centre ground to Obama.
If he'd chosen Lieberman (an experienced, respected .... democrat) we could have had some debate, as he would truly have proposed change - a whole new republican idea.
This would have forced Obama to the left ... and the Christian Right would have voted for him anyway out of habit.
I too have reservations about Obama ..... but compared with the risks a McCain/Palin ticket holds they pale to nothing.
Complain about this comment
46. FauxGeordie wrote:
"The reason intervention in Darfur is now not an option ..."
What argument is there for the US to 'intervene' in Darfur anyway? It is an internal matter between two factions fo the country. Is not at risk of spilling over into other neigbors and has no strategic bearing on the interests of the United States. Except for the feelgood factor of helping the needy why should we even think about going there?
As to the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, I certainly don't agree that Iraq was involved in the planning, but they were certainly our enemy at the time as was Al Qaeda. I recall that Zarqawi was receiving emdical treatment in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Kind of funny how he managed to slip in undetected into such a police state for this isn't it?
I don't think that Iraq and Al Qaeda were comfortable bedfellows but can see each holding their noses to deal with the other in having a go at the US/West.
Complain about this comment
47. eightypercent wrote:
"You would only have to scroll through the last few weeks of this blog to see which particular sleaze du jour has been put out by the RNC."
You seem to assume that posters on here, or at least those that disagree with your views, are somehow affiliated with the parties. I am not a member of any party and never have been but I vehemently oppose Obama and his hand-out mentality. I also fear the damage that his doe-eyed optimism in talking to our enemies will do and that he lacks the backbone to actually stand up for the United States' interests for fear of offending foreign sensibilities.
Complain about this comment
# 50 ~ if the cap fits, wear it.
Complain about this comment
Hi Miss Marbles - I have to say I sually agree with your brand of wisdom but not here
#33 allmymarbles wrote:
"I think the electoral college is a good system. For one thing it protects states' rights. We are a union, after all.
And can you think what would ahppen without the electoral college? The candidates would concentrate on the bigger cities and give the rural areas short shrift. They would not be properly represented."
No system is perfect, but a system which then proved to be faulty should be fixed. I would have had a bit of respect for Bush in 2001 if he had said "Look the other guy had more votes, but I won the E.C. - law says I'm prez, but let's fix the system for the future!!!"
Each state should do like Maine and Nebraska and allot its electoral votes according to district votes, not give all to the party who wins overall. You worry about cities being favoured over rural areas. Under the current system whole states are effectively made irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
50. Scwerpunkt
... damage that his doe-eyed optimism in talking to our enemies will do and he lacks backbone to actually stand up for United States interests....
Explain rationale please........
Complain about this comment
#46 FauxGeordie
No reason you should know but I am not American. I am British, not that it matters.
You said:
In fact the neocons promoted the intervention in Bosnia. It was resisted by many European governments for some time. I have no interest in the neocon agenda but you are just factually wrong.
The reason intervention in Darfur is not an option is because it is political suicide in the West.
Iraq could have been seen as the removal of a vicious, genocidal (the Kurds) dictator. Instead it was portrayed by anti-War groups as all about oil. Does that matter anyway if it saves people's lives?
The Bosnian war and the Kosovan war had their political problems - Kosovo was not UN sanctioned any more than the Iraq War was - but the media focussed (rightly) on Slobodan Milosevic and his ethnic cleansing etc.
Saddam Hussein was in a whole different league from Slobodan Milosevic. He murdered people in vastly greater numbers using WMD on his own citizens. Yet somehow, he came out as some kind of hero in parts of the muslim world.
That was caused in part by anti-War groups in the West. They rubbished the Iraq War and with it any humanitarian intervention for the future. Bernard Kouchner, although opposed to war in general, understood this but the anti-War people were driven by a different, left-right agenda careless of those far away from their political needs. In the UK the left hated Tony Blair for his New Labour. In the USA the left hated George W Bush for his neocon friends.
Where did all this Iraqi oil go, by the way ? How come US oil prices shot up like everyone else's if they had Iraq's oil on tap ? And why are there not streets filled with people protesting about the blatant Chinese oil exploitation of suffering in Darfur ?
Anyway, like all anti-Iraq War people I will ask you two questions - first what would have happened in Iraq if Saddam Hussein had remained in power.
Second, what would you do about Darfur and what would you have done about Rwanda if you were president of the USA ?
Complain about this comment
#49 Schwerpunkt
In fact Zarqawi (Ahmed Khaleyleh) was already in Iraq. He worked for Ansar al Islam which terrorised Kurdish areas in the north on the border with Iran.
There is no proven link between him and Saddam Hussein but Saddam probably regarded what he was doing favourably.
Complain about this comment
McCain has proved he will do anything to be President. The respect many of us had for him has disintegrated over the course of an increasingly nasty and bitter campaign. His pick of Palin was the last straw for many, made out of desperation and impulse, but reflective of the style of leadership we could expect from him (and Palin). Thrashing about and betting it all on a toss of the dice again and again is not what we need at this critical time. We need a steady hand at the helm to deal with massive economic problems and wars on two fronts that are costing us billions, one of which was unnecessary and which he seeks to perpetuate.
Complain about this comment
Being in the UK I'm trying to get my head around this electoral college. Doesn't the electoral college put the heavily populated States at a disadvantage to the under populated ones? So if I lived in New York State my vote would worth less than someone who lives in, say, Montana. I know that the US is a federal State but is there a reason why individual States' electoral college votes can't be weighted to it's population size; and the rights of the smaller States be protected by federal law if there is a tranny of the majority? Of course the interests of the weaker States must be protected, but should they really have a bigger pro-rota influence on foreign policy then New York?
Complain about this comment
... damage that his doe-eyed optimism in talking to our enemies will do and he lacks backbone to actually stand up for United States interests....
I, on the contrary, am worried that Obama will give us a mere continuation of the imperialist America that is set to wreck the world. He has said many times that the US "cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran". What right has one country - the US - to "tolerate" or not tolerate? Iran no doubt feels threatened by the country - Israel - which Obama regards as the most worthy and important in the region. Most importantly, why should the US dictate who has nuclear weapons? They've got them!
Ah, but they are responsible and peaceful, and wouldn't actually use the things. Well, only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in a war, and that country is - ta-daaah! - the US of A.
Complain about this comment
Also worrying lower down in the comments on the same Huffington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102477.html?hpid=topnews
Complain about this comment
"I agree McCain will lose the popular vote but he can certainly still win the electoral college."
Sorry, but this is nonsense - as #12 pointed out, and had his irony missed by several other respondents!
People here keep telling Justin to look at www.fivethirtyeight.com - and I thank them for putting me onto it, as I hadn't seen it before - but he obviously hasn't (or he doesn't trust their analysis for some unspecified reason). As they point out there, Obama has a structural advantage in the electoral college which equates to a 1-2% handicap against McCain. Getting the popular vote about equal is therefore an essential precondition for McCain even to be within a shout of winning the electoral college.
In case that is too abstract, let's look at the list of swing states provided by #17:
"McCain has to win NV, CO, MO, IN, OH, NC, FL and one other from VA, PA, IA."
Yes, but what does Obama have to win? Assuming he takes all the Kerry states and NM, which is not on this list for some reason, he only has to take PA and IA (in both of which he has consistently been getting double-digit poll leads) plus one - ONE! - from all those other swing states (except NV which would lead to a tie, which he would probably win due to the House composition). Has nobody here ever done an accumulator bet? I know who my money would be on - without even taking into account the fact that he is going after these states with 2-3 times as much money as McCain.
If either candidate loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college, it will be Obama. But that is unlikely (fivethirtyeight.com puts it at 3.6% chance, as opposed to 0.76% for the reverse scenario for McCain). I can understand Justin wanting to give McCain a fighting chance for the purposes of entertainment - he is in the media business, after all - but a much more interesting question is: can Obama get a landslide, or will it be close?
Complain about this comment
Justin,
this is your 3rd post on Powell's endorsement of Obama. In my mind Liberman's switch is more damaging.
Any comment on Obama's well publicised visit to the bedside of his white grandma?
Complain about this comment
What puzzles me is that Obama is considered a black man. Having a black father and a white mother how come is more black than white?
Complain about this comment
#54 chill0 - nice point about Bernard Kouchner being pro-Iraq war.
I don't think anyone was really against the removal of Sadaam Hussein - and certainly it would be impossible to defend him personally. However if ridding the world of a dictator was the aim, it brings to mind why do we (USA / UK etc) not go and remove other equally unpleasant dictators.
Bernard Kouchner may have been under the impression that some form of exit-strategy or post-invasion planning had been done by the Bush administration.
Ridding the world of a dictator is admirable. Not understanding the region and its history and complex politics when doing so is culpable negligence.
Look what happened.
Complain about this comment
Romestu
I apologise for not responding to your post yesterday but my wife arrived and I had to break the news of our friends death.
Robben Island will be remembered the longest as it was in the public eye for 27 years and will always be associated with Mandela. In some ways it's sad that the other senior ANC stalwarts like Walter Sisulu (26 yrs) and Govan Mbeki (24 yrs) didn't receive the same attention during their incarceration.
Complain about this comment
6.wrote:
You ought to be more concerned about Biden's revelations:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102108/content/01125108.guest.html
As it is 'Limpbaugh,' I'll not even bother.
Complain about this comment
#61. Parrisia wrote:
"Justin,
this is your 3rd post on Powell's endorsement of Obama. In my mind Liberman's switch is more damaging."
If the GOP thought having an ex-democrat on board was so important they'd have made more of it. Trouble is it doesn't impress their "base"
"Any comment on Obama's well publicised visit to the bedside of his white grandma?"
Please stop this "white grandma" nonsense. You brought this up yesterday in the other blog (your post #353)
and I replied ....
"I would be more critical of him if he didn't take a day or 2 to visit his sick Grandma .... whatever colour she is. He may even have tken this action without a focus group and polls. Perhaps he is just human, and deserves some respect.
Parrisia - Obama is half black/half-white. Are you suggesting he is he being racially motivated for keeping in touch with his white relatives?"
Or do you think Granny is faking it for the publicity
Complain about this comment
1212. , Cartponybefore wrote:
Uh, how exactly does mcCain win the electoral college without the popular vote?
Actually can you please tell me how the US electorial system works. It's sounds converlouted.
What's wrong with, One Citizen One Vote?
Complain about this comment
#62 - exactly ... but if you remember when he first appeared on the political radar before the primaries, the biggest question asked about was "But is he black enough?"
Makes you think, eh
Complain about this comment
My comment about Darfur was in response to Chill0 - who blames the anti-war movement for the inability of the West to do anything about Darfur. I can't accept this is the reason. The world has limited options and no authority to act because Iraq was so comprehensively wrong.
Bosnia/Kossovo and now Afghanistan - which WAS to do with 9/11 without question - are extremely controversial but not fundamentally compromised, retain considerable popular support and have not harmed the standing of the Us in the world.
My opposition to the Iraq war in fact came pretty late as a result of the way it was executed as well as the growing realisation that it was all based on lies - and in particular the chaos that was unleashed on the country by the culpable lack of planning. This irresponsibility is what has wrecked the reputation of the US - god knows the UK went into Iraq and Iran enough times in the 20th century to secure oil supplies.
Of course it was about oil and regional dominance - US domestic consumers might not be paying lower prices at the pumps but the big oil companies and the Halliburtons of this world have made a fortune. They are the paymasters of the US leadership.
Who knows what would have happened if Saddam hadn't been overthrown? The West had him as an ally for decades. Plenty of nasty little deals have been done through history with genocidal dictators - there's one going on now with North Korea. Also in Zimbabwe.
And there are and always were more Al Quaeda operatives in Saudi and Pakistan than Iraq. THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.
Iraq is a mess because the US screwed up.
Complain about this comment
i have noticed a pattern on this blog of people claiming to be what they are not or citing bogus stories about some republican they know rooting for Obama. I even noticed an unsubstantiated allegation on this board about republicans jumping of a sinking ship in droves.
There is an apt word for all this bogus stories, its called PROPAGANDA!! the Nazis were quite adept at it during the second world war. i guess all of us agree we know what happened to the nazis despite their rather efficient and ruthless propaganda machine.
I noticed someone on this board went as far
as to suggest that comparing Obama to JFK was demeaning to Obama. I admired JFK, and that comment is sacrilege and should be expunged from this board. I bet even Obama will be overjoyed if he ever found out that he was being compared to JFK.
I bet that the person that made that comment is a poor student of history.
Complain about this comment
#6 jcputn5349
I wondered why this webpage smelt funny when I logged on to it. Now I know it's because Rush Limbaugh's website is linked to it.
Complain about this comment
# 65 Parrisia
I find your constant references to Obama's visit to his very sick grandmother offensive, in the same way that I find a dentist's drill offensive.
Colin Powell is a world-class statesman and his endorsement of Obama is worthy of debate. By contrast, a flying visit to the bedside of a very sick old lady is a private matter and not one that either you or I can possibly have much to say about.
Unless, unless, there is something you want to tell us - in which case the floor is yours. Go on, what is it that you are longing to say ?
Complain about this comment
#33 allmymarbles wrote:
"I think the electoral college is a good system. For one thing it protects states' rights. We are a union, after all."
Heh , that makes me wonder what different plans the confederacy would have had if they'd won.
re: October surprises I was intrigued to find out, on Fox of all places, that Al-Qaeda may not be playing Reverse Psychology this time and just stating who they want.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/al-qaeda-linked-web-site-backs-mccain-president/
Complain about this comment
No.58
Correct me if I am wrong, this is not my field
Quote:
why should the US dictate who has nuclear weapons? They've got them!
Unquote
Firstly, is this not the work of the UN to put pressure and "diplomatically" dictate and secondly can we then assume that the UN is not doing their job properly .......?!
Thirdly, who should be putting pressure?
Complain about this comment
I want to advise most people on this board to discountenance Colin Powell and not to bother to take to heart much of what he says. he tends to speak from both side of his mouth.
While he wants us to see him as championing the cause of muslims in America,he is the same man that labelled all NIGERIANS as corrupt. The question is, how many nigerians has he met? How many of them does he know to be corrupt? what is the ratio of those he knows to be corrupt to the Nigerian population of over 120 million?
He should give me a break. he is just as guilty as those he claim to be up in arms against, when it comes to tarring with the same brush,tribes & religious sects the American people know little about
Complain about this comment
22. NoRashDecisions wrote:
This Powell thing just keeps getting better! First Powell, then Johnson. It kind of makes you wonder what other prominent Conservatives are left to endorse Obama. Doesn't it?
Boris isn't meant to support any candidate. UK major political figures are meant to stay neutral (that's why you saw Brown with Obama and McCain) - so he may get a slap on the wrist from Parliament, the Political Standers Office, and the Conservative Party it's self.
Complain about this comment
#63 RomeStu
I do not disagree about the post-Iraq-war shambles.
The problem is that that is not what the anti-war people protest. They protest about the Iraq War having happened at all.
You can argue, for instance, that the recognition of Kosovo was a mistake but that does not cause anyone to question the original intervention.
On Iraq, everything is different. It was built from that exquisite spite which the left reserves for its bitterest enemies. They were, by an unlucky coincidence for Iraq, already Tony Blair and George W Bush.
As for removing other unpleasant dictators - you do what you can. Just because you cannot remove one does not mean that you should not remove another. At the time, Saddam Hussein was probably the most unpleasant anyway.
It is best seen in terms of lives saved. Unpleasant dictators have come and gone many times in the 20th century but very few have killed their citizens on the scale of Saddam Hussein.
You have to go to Adolf Hitler; Josip Stalin and Mao Tse Tung - which shows you the league he was in. Omar Bashir is just entering that league now.
...and you say 'look what happened'. I contend that there was a net gain of lives in Iraq. I believe that is true even if you take in all of those killed by the insurgents and Al Qaeda - and why should you do that ? Those groups killed Iraqis for their own political reasons, mainly to do with gaining power or just religious hatred.
The question never addressed by the anti-war people is what would have happened if Saddam Hussein had remained in power.
Saddam governed geographically from the Sunni centre where there was no oil. It was all in the north and the south.
He had already conducted Operation Anphal against the Kurds for that reason (along with 'arabising' Mosul). He had also taken the opportunity of the Shi'a uprising after the first Gulf War to 'punish' that region.
With Iranian weapons, the war in the south would not have ended. The Kurdish war had never shown any sign of ending despite Anphal. Only the no-fly zones had stopped both conflicts. And Saddam Hussein was psychopathically ruthless unlike almost any other 'unpleasant dictator'.
Complain about this comment
6# jcputn5349 wrote:
You ought to be more concerned about Biden's revelations:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102108/content/01125108.guest.html
that is, if the country comes first.
.............................
If the country comes first, the first thing to do is discount anything said by the odious charlatan Rush Limbaugh.
Complain about this comment
Gen. Colin Powell says " ...he's troubled with the direction the Republican party has moved." He wasn't troubled when a Republican administration signed off on his stars. He wasn't troubled when a Republication administration placed him in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He wasn't troubled when he was a Secretary of State in a Republication administration. He's making a calculated choice, based on, what might be a historic election (he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history) and race. Flat out!
Complain about this comment
34. , eightypercent wrote:
I did not realise until I saw these pics that the baby was still on the campaign trail, and having seen the evidence I find that my stomach turns at the sheer inappropriateness of the way the little boy is being treated.
Arrh don't you see it big Neo Con plan.
You see they kidnap Plain's daughter and husband/ partner (are they married yet?), when they they were Kids, so that they would fool around and pro-create at a certain age.
They then engineered a world financial and economic crisis, to ensure that a Viet Vet could be chosen as the Republican candidate.
Lastly they engineered that Palin would be the Veit Vets running mate, and the baby could be used as a good photo opportunity!
Well if you believe that Obama is a Socialist brainwashed by Chevez in Moscow, you'll believe anything!
Complain about this comment
Hello websitejunkie
In 2000, Bush got a total of 50,456,002 votes.
Gore got 50,999,897 i.e. more half a million more.
Which is why the 2000 presidential campaign - and its electoral college outcome - still gives cause for concern.
There must also surely be grounds for concern when voting leads to these enormous queues we read about. It makes America sound more like a third world country where people are exercising their vote for the first time.
Complain about this comment
36. BillTyrone wrote:.
Pakistan. I caught the bulk of a piece on BBC World here in the Caucasian trenches being delivered by, who I believe to be, a former high ranking female official in the Pakistani Government. She was articulating views and a nations wish list on how the incoming President and Administration should approach its relations with Pakistan. The rationale and detailed analysis was very calm; very assured; very specific and covered all the elements frankly that have stood out, beacon-like, as regrettable US policy failings in recent times. Loyal ally; sovereignty; huge sensitivity over dealings with India; cultural understanding; respect and more..... Anyone else hear this?
Alas no but have you got a beeb website url to it? I can probaly catch up on the iPlayer.
Complain about this comment
61# Parissia wrote:
Justin,
this is your 3rd post on Powell's endorsement of Obama. In my mind Liberman's switch is more damaging.
Any comment on Obama's well publicised visit to the bedside of his white grandma?
..............................................
In your mind, maybe, not in anyone else's. Lieberman has been outside the Democrat mainstream for 4 years. Many of us didn't like him even when he was VP candidate. It was odds on that he would endorse McCain. Powell is admired across the USA and his endorsement was not guaranteed.
I have nothing but contempt for your snide second comment. A grandson visiting a very sick grandmother is perfectly natural.
Complain about this comment
Highly unlikely Justin, of course things could change - perhaps Obama may be caught soliciting an endorsement from a Russian oligarch! Meanwhile in the real world the numbers are looking very bad for McCain ... please check out the following for excellent analysis of the polls: pollster.com, fivethirthyeight.com, realclearpolitics.com & others ... google electoral vote.
McCain's campaign strategy has been all wrong, but his hands were tied by the GOP ... it could have been so much closer. My guess as 1 or 2 percentage win for Obama with about 300 ev. There is the small possibility it could be much bigger .....
Complain about this comment
42. , eightypercent wrote:
I am getting to the state where I wouldn't be surprised at anything.
We currently have a juicy little scandal in the UK involving luxury yachts and villas in Corfu, the richest Russian oligarch, the endlessly entertaining Peter Mandelson, a formerly up and coming Tory on the make, political donations, drinks, dinners and huge amounts of gossip.
And the best part of it is that The Times reports that the formerly up and coming Tory on the make left his luxury hols and his super-rich pals to come home to make a speech on POVERTY.
You couldn't make it up.
Good old Peter Mandelson. Hs Grandfather Herbert Morrison must turn in his grave!
Ironicaly at the presnt he is in the centre of the storm, but knowing Mandy things will change!!
Complain about this comment
70. icetayoa
Sorry chum, again, another post alluding to much but offering pretty much zero substance.
If you are noticing *this that and the other* fine, but kindly provide concrete references to present and argue your case.
The fact you support McCain is not an issue.
The fact that when you come on stream you *clog the blog* with rapid fire automatic bursts as opposed to careful rifle shots is doing nothing for the quality of dialogue and debate here, or your credibility.
Please...... do yourself and others here a favour......
Bill
Complain about this comment
Miss Marbles I tend to agree with you about the electoral college, but what if all states did as Nebraska and Maine, would that not give a voice to Dems in Idaho & Reps in New York ...
Complain about this comment
Miss Marbles I tend to agree with you about the electoral college, but what if all states did as Nebraska and Maine, would that not give a voice to Dems in Idaho and Reps in New York ...
Complain about this comment
ooops those dodgy characters again (DC lol), don't seem to be so many around today ...
Complain about this comment
President Bush, President Clinton, Vice President Cheney, Vice President Biden, my fellow Americans and citizens of the free world. We have just finished a long campaign and now embark on a new chapter in the American story. Senator McCain, once hailed as an American hero, is now hated not just by the left but by the right too. To respond to this aggression against Senator McCain, my first action as President will be to clamp down on these vicious right wing attacks by banning Fox News. O'Reilly will be removed from the air waves and exiled to Bermuda, a tax haven which he will surely be able to endure. My new Secretary for Health, Senator Clinton, is already on her way to our friend and lover Great Britain, as we pursue our plan of re-creating their health system on American shores.
This will ensure Joe the Plumber benefits from free health care at last. He will no longer have to worry about paying his insurance premiums and his taxes. From now on, he will only have to worry about paying his taxes.
Alaska's polar bears, my message to you is fear not. The oil in ANWAR stays in ANWAR. It is perhaps with some irony that a country devastated by hurricanes will become the first to rely on them for energy, as we harness the wind to power American homes. By the end of my first term in office, America will be much less reliant on oil from The Middle East. So much so, in fact, that even Suadi Arabia will be in the sights of the next warmongering Republican President.
God bless you all and God bless the United States of America!
Complain about this comment
49. , Schwerpunkt wrote:
has no strategic bearing on the interests of the United States.
Ohh and and I thought the Iraq in vasion was about WMD's and Democarcy. How silly am I!
Complain about this comment
# 76 Websitejunkie
To my surprise I find myself writing in defence of both Matt Drudge and Boris Johnson.
Firstly, Drudge DID put up the Boris Johnson piece on his page. Rather further down that he usually places Daily Telegraph nasties but it's there for all to read.
Secondly, Johnson's piece is cleverly worded. He does not urge people to vote for Obama but he makes it clear that he sees much hope and progress in a possible Obama victory. He also analyses McCain and his campaign in a sympathic manner.
I doubt whether Boris is having his wrist smacked - firstly because he would feel no pain, and secondly because the Smith Square Tories are too much pre-occupied with oligarchs and who did or didn't have drinkiepoos on the decks of luxury yachts.
Complain about this comment
The Bradley effect is a good example of people who are afraid to step into their own power. When an individual is comfortable and confident with their decision making they can proudly explain why they do this or that. Own up to your Shadow, that's a step in the right direction. The KKK rallies in earlier times showed people with their heads covered. Again they didn't have the courage to show their faces.
When are we going to learn that beneath outward appearances we are all the same, with the same hopes and fears. The shared experience teaches us that we are more alike than not!
Complain about this comment
Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote in 2001 election
Complain about this comment
#77 Chill0
I don't think you can pick and choose which dictators you can get rid of by unilaterally invading the country. All you'll do is end up only getting rid of those dictators from weak countries that are not considered to be 'on our side'. This is imperialism dressed up as humanitarianism!
On a separate point, isn't it a bit rich for the USA/UK to denounce Saddam when they supported him, and refused to do anything about his genocide of the Kurds? Didn't the US Govt try to get Iraq to have nuclear capabilities? Saddam made the mistake of 'disobeying orders' (or not understanding them) when he invaded Kuwait.
Isn't the US responsible for many deaths in Sudan re: the Clinton bombing of the region's only pharmaceutical factory? As Chomsky says, it doesn't matter because we did it! It never happened. We are not responsible for thousands of deaths resulting from this bombing because it never happened.
Complain about this comment
61 Parrisia wrote:
Any comment on Obama's well publicised visit to the bedside of his white grandma?
He's gone to see his sick grandmother. That's all the media have said - true they have over analysed it, like they do with everything else, including Powell.
But they haven't all congregated outside his grandmother's door asking how she is. Is she going to pull through? Is she actually ill?(tell I lie you said that!).They have given her and Obama a little respect and privacy.
If it had been Palin's grandson, you would of been all over us like a shot if we had done this, and rightly so.
Stop trying to make an issue out of someones ill health and have a little respect and dignity.
(I am now waiting for a diatribe from Parrisia for my reasonable comments!)
Complain about this comment
#69 FauxGeordie
You keep uttering this oil motive as though the invasion was a bad thing because the motive was wrong.
The allies in WW2 are generally seen as having done the right thing in large part because of the Holocaust.
When the war started, nobody knew about the Holocaust - it had not started - and it was certainly not the motive for any allied nation's participation.
So what is wrong with seeing the Iraq War as having overthrown a dictator who murdered huge numbers of his people ?
I also seriously doubt that you can show any unusual profit for any US oil company.
First, if that could be done, the media would have found it. I found this story from 3 days ago which is in The Guardian - not famous for supporting the Iraq War - and is about oil exploitation by a Swiss - Turkish oil company.
The story also says the oil 'majors' are waiting for contracts. They include (according to this story) 'Shell, BP, Chevron, Total and dozens of other foreign oil companies'. Chevron and Total are French. They are all negotiating with the Iraqi oil minister, not the Americans.
As to Halliburton - do you really think the US went to war to give Halliburton contracts ? It's a bit of a shift of ground from the oil motive. You might as well say the US went into WW2 to benefit their economy and world standing, because it did both.
Finally, you hint that 'the west' would enter some deal with Saddam Hussein. The French and Russians already had but they were not Saddam's problem.
You think he would have made a deal with the nation whose policy was to change his regime ?
It's convenient to say so. Ludicrous in practice.
Complain about this comment
Re 63 and 77: I was against the 2nd Iraq war. Why? Not because I am some peacenik, but because it was very obvious that Bush and Blair were lying to us! A great deal of the British public knew this at the time. This destroyed Blair's standing in the eyes of many of us. The link between Al Qaeda and Iraq was non-existant. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. I was fully for getting rid of Saddam in the first Gulf war and we should have done it. Leaving him in power then was one of the west's greatest failures of the last 20 years.
PS: I know the mandate was different, but the fallout would have been so much less imho
Complain about this comment
One thing I am surprised most about Sarah Palin. Obviously she must be very talented to become Governer of Alaska and President of Pakistan Asif Zardari was so impressed by her that he was even reacy to hug her which caused a huge furore in Pakistan given his background as a known playboy and also that whatever he has today is because of his late wife.
The thing most intriguing for me is that why did she not go to hospital after her water broke in Texas and instead chose to attend a conference and make a speech there and then boarded a plane from Texas to Alaska with one hour stopover in Seattle and then drive 45 minutes to a small hospital to give birth to her son who was suffering from Down syndrome. Taking her age in consideration - 44- she was a high risk for such a baby.
I want to know the name of the obstetrician who advised her to travel that far and also the name of the airline which allowed her to board on such a long flght. I think both can be sued and the obstetrician who allowed her should have his practicing licence cancelled and the airline should also be sued because they put the other passengers at risk for carrying a womam who was full term and her water had broken. If they say they wouldnt have allowed her to fly then that means she lied it to them. Either way it shows the character and honesty of this lady who is aspiring to become the President of USA.
I am basing all on the fact what she has actually told the press. I am assuming that all the other rumours about her are untrue and the baby is truely hers.
Above all it reflects on her how caring she is as a mother that for the sake of her child who was about to be born instead to going straight to the hospital lest there are any complications she chose to make 10 hour journey. The question now is whether she knew this child is suffering from Down syndrome already because you can based on the chorionic villous sampling and ultrasound and she chose to take the risk because in any case the baby was congentially intellectually impaired. If she can do this to her own child it very well reflects on her how she would do to others.
Complain about this comment
# 85 websitejunkie
Your comment about my comment about Corfugate.
One columnist complained that the only thing missing from the whole saga was sex -but if we hang around for a bit that is sure to come up soon.
Complain about this comment
70. icetayoa wrote:
i have noticed a pattern on this blog of people claiming to be what they are not or citing bogus stories about some republican they know rooting for Obama. I even noticed an unsubstantiated allegation on this board about republicans jumping of a sinking ship in droves.
So you think they are all liars, or have imaginary republican friends?
I'm surprised the mods hadn't blocked that post, because it could be seen as defamation!
Complain about this comment
91. websitejunkie wrote:
"Ohh and and I thought the Iraq in vasion was about WMD's and Democarcy. How silly am I!"
Very apparently, as I was referring to the lack of US strategic interests regarding Darfur.
Complain about this comment
75. , icetayoa wrote:
I want to advise most people on this board to discountenance Colin Powell and not to bother to take to heart much of what he says. he tends to speak from both side of his mouth.
While he wants us to see him as championing the cause of Muslims in America,he is the same man that labelled all NIGERIANS as corrupt. The question is, how many Nigerians has he met? How many of them does he know to be corrupt? what is the ratio of those he knows to be corrupt to the Nigerian population of over 120 million?
He should give me a break. he is just as guilty as those he claim to be up in arms against, when it comes to tarring with the same brush,tribes & religious sects the American people know little about.
I've read this before. Are we on repeats?
Complain about this comment
chill0: 97, you make some very good points but the fact is the grounds for the 2nd war were false and we knew it. Hence Blix not been given the time to do his work and the outrageous lies told to us and the UN. We should have done it the first time. Saddam was pure evil. Perhaps in future we should be more circumspect about who we choose to do business with ....
Complain about this comment
92. ,
eightypercent wrote:I doubt whether Boris is having his wrist smacked - firstly because he would feel no pain, and secondly because the Smith Square Tories are too much pre-occupied with oligarchs and who did or didn't have drinkiepoos on the decks of luxury yachts.
Hey do you think Boris set Osbourne up, to get this threads attention away from him!!
Oh well when Osbourne is sacked, Boris can always recommend chairing a certain satirical news quiz.
With that now my boiler has been fixed I'm off to see my sick mother, if that's alright with you Parrisia? Unless it will cause some huge political left wing media conspiracy!
Complain about this comment
I do not believe that McCain 'selected' Palin, I believe she was selected for him. Another indication that he is no longer his own man is his change in stance and tactics during the campaign, from 'straight talk' to rabid name calling. He did not learn the 'Keating 5' lesson and his behind-the-scenes crew stink of corruption, greed and special interest influences. Powell knows this from the inside out hence his endorsement of Obama, who has pledged to change this MO in DC politics. Good luck to him!
Complain about this comment
82. Websitejunkie
Pakistan URL. Sorry been searching, but not yet! Sent a msg to BBC World to see if they can provide. If so, will revert.
Bill
Complain about this comment
No. 99
The only explanation I can form regarding her behaviour is that anyone born in the state of Alaska has special rights, one we know as having rights to profits from Alaskan oil. What we do not know is if she had a midwife travelling with her.
Complain about this comment
#100 eightypercent
It has already happened- with bristol, though it quickly died down. Here's
something funny.
Complain about this comment
Grrrrrlie (40),
I'm with you! God(s) help us!
Peace and grits
ed
Complain about this comment
Chill0 -
The motive WAS wrong and driven by an ignorant world view - and the execution of the invasion was incompetent.
The second is actually what has done most of the damage to the USA. A cleanly executed invasion - which happened - followed then by peace and reconstruction would have caused endless debate for decades but thats not where we are.
I was not knee-jerk anti war at all. Lots of us were ambivalent about the invasion but have come to profoundly oppose it - the suffering and lies are too great to write off as if in some way it is a matter of breaking eggs to make an omlette.
Do I think Saddam would ever have done a deal with the west. Yes I definitely do. Many many examples of it, now and in the past.
Was WW2 justified? Yes - I agree - at every level and even more so when what had been going on was uncovered. Some pretty horrible deals were done at Yalta and elsewhere though, which have continued to undermine the shining moral clarity of the original causa belli.
Do I think Saddam was a despicable murderer? Of course. Plenty of them around and many supported by Western governments in the interests of 'realpolitik'. He was one of the worst but not the worst the big powers have supported. It wasn't by any means just France and Russia who dealt with him.
Big powers have often acted to a greater or lesser degree of honesty to extend their influence and to secure what they want. The corporations, politicians and military who decide their strategic interests have their own agendas which frequently fail to chime with popular sentiment - dealing with these competing concerns is what a democracy (or at least - representative government) is partly for.
Sometimes these interventions work to the common good, more often perhaps not, but they are a fact of life - not one I like but there is no point being a shrinking violet - it happens.
The point is - was Germany thrown into a vicous civil war by the utter lack of forward planning by the Allies for the peace? In 1939 did the UK government pretend the Luftwaffe and SS were incredibly potent threats to our interests when in fact they knew they weren't?
We were deliberately lied to over Iraq - to con us into at least tepid support for a grotesque adventure by a narrow set of interests at the heart of the current US government. The aftermath has wrecked the reputation of the USA and the Labour Party in the UK.
Complain about this comment
#95 dceilar
You said:
I pointed out that the likely saving of lives could be a qualifier in such operations. Besides that, I refer you to Ed Iglehart and the 'Two Wrongs' fallacy. In short it says you don't fail to right one wrong because of another wrong which you cannot right.
The USA has used the Kurds and the Kurds have used the USA at varying times. It's what political entities do with each other in the international arena. The Kurds have an agenda in Turkey, for instance, which the USA would not ever have approved.
If you're going to make allegations like this about the USA wanting Saddam Hussein to have nuclear weapons you will have to supply evidence because I have certainly never heard of it before.
Saddam invaded Kuwait because he was in huge debt after the war with Iran. Again, if you know something different, please supply evidence.
There is no evidence that 'thousands of deaths' have occurred as a result of the Al Shifa attack. This was just an idea by the German ambassador based on the loss of a phamaceutical facility in the region.
That surely exemplifies the attitude of the anti-war movement. Ignore the elephant - the 300,000 (UN estimate) dead in Sudan - in the corner of the room and shout at the man you can hate more handily.
The American.
Complain about this comment
We have one propagandist here who never tires of revisionist apologetics:
The latest claim being that US oil companies did not make extraordinary profits
and that the US did not attempt to force a contract on the Iraqui government giving an estimated 100 BILLION of benefits to US oil companies
plus, since Saddam might have killed more people, invading to kill him was a valid post-hoc justification for invading Iraq.
___________________-
I cannot imagine the psychology or motivation of someone working so hard to pervert truth.
Someone being a paid propagandist might be a rational motive for such conduct.
Has anyone any psychological explanations to offer?
Complain about this comment
#98 #104 selfevidenttruths
First, there were published intelligence assessments by the CIA and the JIC in the UK which said definitively that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Second, I say the same thing to you as I say to FauxGeordie and others - why does that mean the war was wrong ? It saved lives and prevented any possibility of Saddam Hussein gaining WMD, which he intended to do.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
to RomeStu (#66)
I am not saying that Grandma is faking it (...)
I am just saying that Obama is "over-reacting"
Complain about this comment
It looks like Obama will be elected captain of the titanic. Too bad for him it has already hit the iceberg and is sinking. Only this titanic has and will continue to create a tidal wave that wil sink all of the other boats with it. President Clinton was on the David Letterman show last night spouting more lies about the economy he sheepishly admitted he had a measure of responsibility in destroying. Ben Bernanke testified before Congress on Monday spouting the same. To hear them tell it, in another year or two things will be back to normal after a little pain. But on PBS, an economist and a mathematician had far more dire predictions saying they feared a coming economic collapse which will be worse than the great depression, in fact the worst economic crisis since the American Revolution. This is more in line with my own analysis and for the same reasons. The world's economies are all now effectively bankrupt. Credit failures like the one at Lehman Brothers which was not stopped and those at other institutions which were cauterized for the moment at least at Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, Bear Sterns, Wachovia Bank, WMU, and others will cascade outwards due to enormous leveraging. This means a chain reaction where each failure will generate ten, twenty, fifity times as many losses and failures as the impact expands outwards. Ultimately there isn't enough money in the entire world to contain it. Add to this so many other terrible dilemmas. Global warming is being put on the back burner ironically most of all by the Europeans who find it too expensive now during the financial crisis yet its effect will be unrelenting. Iraq's government is making impossible demands which will give the US further impetus to pull out quickly. This will likely undo what gains have been made towards democracy and could lead to a regional civil war, anarchy, and chaos. Afghanistan is not going well as the Taleban are becoming stronger. Obama knows this cannot be reversed unless there is an end to the sanctuary the Taleban and al Qaeda have enjoyed in Pakistan and he is prepared to take strong action directly and unilaterally if necessary. Iran continues its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, at least that's how most of the world sees it and it is also unrelenting in its desire to not only "wipe Israel off the map" but to create a world without America. Their sudden "peace offensive" will fool nobody at this point. Only a verifiable end to their nuclear program would satisfy most outsiders that the threat is over, something Iran will not agree to even under penalty of far more severe sanctions than it now suffers. And there are others we have not thought abut recently both known such as the possibility of an influenza pandemic resulting from a mutation of bird flu and others yet unknown. Congratulations Mr. Obama. As a tyro in government who has little knowledge of most of these intractable problems, I hope you are a fast learner because you will be dealing with them from day one if you are misfortunate enough to be elected. You may be a smooth talking lawyer but there are far more complex problems than your training as a community organizer has prepared you for. What ensues may make us look back on these last eight years as "the good times."
Complain about this comment
"97. At 11:39am on 22 Oct 2008, chill0 wrote:
#69 FauxGeordie
Of course it was about oil and regional dominance - US domestic consumers might not be paying lower prices at the pumps but the big oil companies and the Halliburtons of this world have made a fortune. They are the paymasters of the US leadership.
You keep uttering this oil motive as though the invasion was a bad thing because the motive was wrong. "
Well it is fairly axiomatic that bad causes lead to bad outcomes.
"The allies in WW2 are generally seen as having done the right thing in large part because of the Holocaust.
When the war started, nobody knew about the Holocaust - it had not started - and it was certainly not the motive for any allied nation's participation. "
But no one has erver said that this was the cause.
"So what is wrong with seeing the Iraq War as having overthrown a dictator who murdered huge numbers of his people ?"
Because it resulted in the deaths and injuries of hundreds and thousands of other people.
No doubt this is a sacrifice that the well protected advocates of war were willing to make - but they were not being asked to pay the price.
Stalin was a murderous dictator, a case can certainly be made that he should have been removed violently.
However if that meant Hitler and his minions then ruled from France to the Pacific, some of us would argue that the price would have been too high.
"I also seriously doubt that you can show any unusual profit for any US oil company. "
Perhaps, but that does not mean that they hoped for profits and worked to get them.
Failure of a strategy does not mean such strategy did not exist.
"First, if that could be done, the media would have found it. I found this story from 3 days ago which is in The Guardian - not famous for supporting the Iraq War - and is about oil exploitation by a Swiss - Turkish oil company.
The story also says the oil 'majors' are waiting for contracts. They include (according to this story) 'Shell, BP, Chevron, Total and dozens of other foreign oil companies'. Chevron and Total are French. They are all negotiating with the Iraqi oil minister, not the Americans."
Whatever, see above. Plenty of German businesses backed Hitler and saw the war as an opportunity for profit, that they were ultimately wrong does not invalidate the fact.
"As to Halliburton - do you really think the US went to war to give Halliburton contracts ? It's a bit of a shift of ground from the oil motive. You might as well say the US went into WW2 to benefit their economy and world standing, because it did both."
Not quite because the US was attacked in WWII, it did not actually start the conflict. Halliburton profited mightily from this war and the corruption with which it was surrounded defies belief.
"Finally, you hint that 'the west' would enter some deal with Saddam Hussein. The French and Russians already had but they were not Saddam's problem.
You think he would have made a deal with the nation whose policy was to change his regime ? "
Depends on the offer surely. He had dealt successfully with the US before.
Your basic problem as with all pro-war advocates is the fact that you beleive that an Arab people are incapable of changing their rulers without enlightened western help - whihc usually comes in the form of killing.
It is a deeply rascist idea.
SH was not superman and immortal. Rulers of Iraq had changed before, and they could do so again, without the necessity of a brutal invasion.
The Iranians might have been useful in this regard.
Instead we have a government propped up by the West (again) which if history is any guide, will prove to be ultimately unstable, precisely because it is imposed.
The so-called democracy will also ultimately go by the board as Iraq's rulers lack any real legitimacy - they rely totally oin western support for even their own security.
Complain about this comment
#111 FauxGeordie
I did not say the west. I said the USA - which had a law requiring the government to change the Saddam Hussein regime.
What 'shining moral clarity' of the casus belli ? We went to war because Poland was attacked. I believe these days that would be accompanied by stories along the lines 'why are we bothered with this far awy nation'..
The USA and Soviet Union entered the war because they were attacked after many months of ignoring - and in the Soviet case joining in with - nazi hegemony. Hardly 'shining moral clarity'.
The de-Ba'athification program in Iraq was an echo of the de-nazification program after WW2 which was similarly disastrous.
For those in East Germany who were not raped or murdered by Russian soldiers I'd say the peace was not an unqualified success either.
I contend that you were not lied to at all. I believe that WMD was seen as the 'excuse' to be used by the UK govt in the UN for the war in Iraq but they believed it was a 'given'.
Note that David Kelly - one of the foremost experts in the world on biological weapons and part of defence intelligence - believed that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons, i.e. WMD.
Complain about this comment
#113 Xie_Ming
As ever, you supply no evidence to support any of the claims you make.
Complain about this comment
"112. At 12:43pm on 22 Oct 2008, chill0 wrote:
#95 dceilar
You said:
I don't think you can pick and choose which dictators you can get rid of by unilaterally invading the country. All you'll do is end up only getting rid of those dictators from "weak countries that are not considered to be 'on our side'. This is imperialism dressed up as humanitarianism!
I pointed out that the likely saving of lives could be a qualifier in such operations. Besides that, I refer you to Ed Iglehart and the 'Two Wrongs' fallacy. In short it says you don't fail to right one wrong because of another wrong which you cannot right."
But creating another wrong is no answer either.
And the two wrongs idea is more complicated. By righting one and ignoring another you create more problems.
As far as many people in the ME can see the US has only one policy as regards non-israelis- violence and oppression.
On a separate point, isn't it a bit rich for the USA/UK to denounce Saddam when they supported him, and refused to do anything about his genocide of the Kurds? Didn't the US Govt try to get Iraq to have nuclear capabilities? Saddam made the mistake of 'disobeying orders' (or not understanding them) when he invaded Kuwait.
The USA has used the Kurds and the Kurds have used the USA at varying times. It's what political entities do with each other in the international arena. The Kurds have an agenda in Turkey, for instance, which the USA would not ever have approved.
If you're going to make allegations like this about the USA wanting Saddam Hussein to have nuclear weapons you will have to supply evidence because I have certainly never heard of it before."
The nuclear weapons issue was a complete red herring and is admitted to be so by nearly everyone.
"Saddam invaded Kuwait because he was in huge debt after the war with Iran. Again, if you know something different, please supply evidence."
Well this is hardly evidence, merely an assertion. Here's another Kuwait used to be part of Iraq, Saddam was merely reasserting an age old claim.
"Isn't the US responsible for many deaths in Sudan re: the Clinton bombing of the region's only pharmaceutical factory? As Chomsky says, it doesn't matter because we did it! It never happened. We are not responsible for thousands of deaths resulting from this bombing because it never happened.
There is no evidence that 'thousands of deaths' have occurred as a result of the Al Shifa attack. This was just an idea by the German ambassador based on the loss of a phamaceutical facility in the region."
Well people in the facility were killed, and their lives matter do they not?
"That surely exemplifies the attitude of the anti-war movement. Ignore the elephant - the 300,000 (UN estimate) dead in Sudan - in the corner of the room and shout at the man you can hate more handily.
The American."
What has that got to do with anything? When has the US ever taken an African conflict seriously? Didn't Clinton apologise for the genocide in Rwanda?
Play it as you will, the fact remains that saving human lives payed no role in the decision to invade Iraq - if that was the main consideration one is entitled to ask how Iraqi lives are more important than Darfuri, or Congolese or Haitian ones.
Complain about this comment
"114. At 12:52pm on 22 Oct 2008, chill0 wrote:
#98 #104 selfevidenttruths
First, there were published intelligence assessments by the CIA and the JIC in the UK which said definitively that Saddam Hussein had WMD."
They did not say this definitively (how could they, there was nothing to be defintitive about), both judgements were manipulated -this was admitted.
"Second, I say the same thing to you as I say to FauxGeordie and others - why does that mean the war was wrong ? It saved lives and prevented any possibility of Saddam Hussein gaining WMD, which he intended to do."
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead and injured and dispalced - are you seriously saying this does not matter?
What because they are Arabs their lives are disposable?
Does human life has some meaning for you?
Oh and the possiblity of more being killed and the country continuion its collapse are still there.
Complain about this comment
If there is one man I respect more than any other in this country(US) is a man who lives by his principles. That man is Colin Powell.
After Bush used him in front of the UN as his puppet of bad information. The man removed himself from the Bush administration.
As an American, I can offer only apologizes, and a promise that America is changing it's world view. Yes America made a mistake letting an evangelical Christian into the White House.
Make no mistake about it though, America is not going to become weak if Obama is elected. Instead, he will be fair, but to anger a man who resist negative emotions, would be a mistake. For when angered into action, he will know who his enemy is, and will not go into action lightly. Obama will not have only 40% of the population behind him, he will have 100% support, if war becomes our only choice.
My opinion to Iran and Israel...and all who think killing, war, and expansion is a good idea. Obama is not to be taken lightly. To be his enemy is one mistake you wont want to make.
Time to draw permanent borders for Israel. The world is tired of the Holy War. We got more important things to worry about.
Get to the table and hammer out a workable deal. Support the Peace parties, or face a wrath of rightous anger. Make Jerusalem an independent community, a city state with a joint commitee. Sharing the holiness of all three religions, instead of seperating it. Make it a city of tolerance.
I was once angry, and felt justified than any action I took would be justified. I realized my mistake in thinking this way before I made a mistake. That the action defined who I was. If I became a killer, I would be a murderer. Not a hero, but a failed rebel. There is a better way.
Complain about this comment
# 76 websitejunkie
"Boris isn't meant to support any candidate. UK major political figures are meant to stay neutral (that's why you saw Brown with Obama and McCain) - so he may get a slap on the wrist from Parliament, the Political Standers Office, and the Conservative Party it's self."
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect - if you have any sources I'd like to hear them.
No doubt it's the general practice that leading figures in either main party will tend not to express a preference in another country's election, and particularly not if it's an election in a country that's an important ally, such as the US. But that is simple pragmatism - you don't want to annoy one side, in case they win and you have to deal with them. The Major government allegedly assisted the Republicans in 1992 against Clinton - they gave details of his stay in the UK at the time he was eligible to be drafted to Vietnam - and received a v frosty response from Clinton when he was elected.
So - Boris may get a 'slap on the wrist' from the Tories - but I suspect they'll say 'That's just Boris'....
Complain about this comment
"117. At 12:59pm on 22 Oct 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
It looks like Obama will be elected captain of the titanic. Too bad for him it has already hit the iceberg and is sinking. Only this titanic has and will continue to create a tidal wave that wil sink all of the other boats with it. President Clinton was on the David Letterman show last night spouting more lies about the economy he sheepishly admitted he had a measure of responsibility in destroying. Ben Bernanke testified before Congress on Monday spouting the same. To hear them tell it, in another year or two things will be back to normal after a little pain. But on PBS, an economist and a mathematician had far more dire predictions saying they feared a coming economic collapse which will be worse than the great depression, in fact the worst economic crisis since the American Revolution. This is more in line with my own analysis and for the same reasons. The world's economies are all now effectively bankrupt. Credit failures like the one at Lehman Brothers which was not stopped and those at other institutions which were cauterized for the moment at least at Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, Bear Sterns, Wachovia Bank, WMU, and others will cascade outwards due to enormous leveraging. This means a chain reaction where each failure will generate ten, twenty, fifity times as many losses and failures as the impact expands outwards. Ultimately there isn't enough money in the entire world to contain it. Add to this so many other terrible dilemmas. Global warming is being put on the back burner ironically most of all by the Europeans who find it too expensive now during the financial crisis yet its effect will be unrelenting. Iraq's government is making impossible demands which will give the US further impetus to pull out quickly. This will likely undo what gains have been made towards democracy and could lead to a regional civil war, anarchy, and chaos. Afghanistan is not going well as the Taleban are becoming stronger. Obama knows this cannot be reversed unless there is an end to the sanctuary the Taleban and al Qaeda have enjoyed in Pakistan and he is prepared to take strong action directly and unilaterally if necessary. Iran continues its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, at least that's how most of the world sees it and it is also unrelenting in its desire to not only "wipe Israel off the map" but to create a world without America. Their sudden "peace offensive" will fool nobody at this point. Only a verifiable end to their nuclear program would satisfy most outsiders that the threat is over, something Iran will not agree to even under penalty of far more severe sanctions than it now suffers. And there are others we have not thought abut recently both known such as the possibility of an influenza pandemic resulting from a mutation of bird flu and others yet unknown. Congratulations Mr. Obama. As a tyro in government who has little knowledge of most of these intractable problems, I hope you are a fast learner because you will be dealing with them from day one if you are misfortunate enough to be elected. You may be a smooth talking lawyer but there are far more complex problems than your training as a community organizer has prepared you for. What ensues may make us look back on these last eight years as "the good times."
Well the people of New Orleans, woulnded veterans might not see the last 8 years as good times.
And here's another thought - just a punt but it is possible Obama reads newspapaers and is just as informed as you are.
And finally Iran, again here's a thought but threatening to bomb a nation, directly or by proxy, is geenrally not a good way of persuading them to give up weapons they perceive needed for their self defence.
Complain about this comment
# 116
How on earth do you know that Obama is "over-reacting". Have her doctors been on the phone to you with a special diagnosis and prognosis all for you ?
Nobody wants to write that this may be his last opportunity to see her, but anyone with a sick elderly grandparent (particularly one who broke a hip last week) recognises the reality of our "mortal coil".
Complain about this comment
Just a thought but given the standard used to judge the Iraq War, i.e. no WMD found therefore George W Bush and Tony Blair were lying...
...Does that not mean that if no western oil company can be shown to have made unusual profit out of Iraqi oil, then the anti-war people have been lying ?
Complain about this comment
Post #62; AgnosticRelativist wrote: "What puzzles me is that Obama is considered a black man. Having a black father and a white mother how come is more black than white?"
I might be out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that people call him a black man on the basis of his skin colour, which is (and follow me closely here), black.
We can quibble ad nauseum about his precise ethnic designation, but for all practical purposes, Obama is a black man.
Complain about this comment
Just so you know, I've only read Justins lead in, I read up through the day.
On point, "A Wonderful Man", got to love Reagan,... but do you love Powell? Wasn't he the 'WMD' and 'Intelligence' behind the scene? I'll bet above me here on this post, some are saying 'he did what Bush told him to do', all I can say to that is "Bull".
The man was a 'Four Star General' and 'US Secretary of State', not someone who is 'told' anything, but is his own man, and as such responsible for his actions.
That said, his falling in line with Obama is more of the same, alot more of the same that we are voting Obama into office against.
I used to say to make my Republican friends mad the GW was the best damn Democrat President since Clinton, spending and growing government, and now it is looking like Obama is going to be the best damn Republican President since Bush,... OMG!!!
Add to that his VP pick is sssoooo much more of old school politics and "International" experience that the difference in government I'll get by voting for Obama has dissappeared. I thought GW could put his foot in his mouth, chriminey, Biden just a heartbeat away from the presidency??
Complain about this comment
#118 Simon21
I have answered almost all of those points in other posts which you do not appear to have read. Sorry but I cannot be bothered to re-key them.
The missing point is the change of Arab leadership and my racism.
Apologies for your perception of my racism but please tell me of an Arab regime which has changed recently without anyone's death being involved ?
Rulers of Iraq had changed before only by coup, which is how Saddam Hussein came to power.
Incidentally, if Iran had changed Iraq's leadership (and God knows they tried) do you think Saddam Hussein would have survived the experience ?
Complain about this comment
Post #99; liqahussain wrote: "The thing most intriguing for me is that why did she not go to hospital after her water broke in Texas and instead chose to attend a conference and make a speech there and then boarded a plane from Texas to Alaska with one hour stopover in Seattle and then drive 45 minutes to a small hospital to give birth to her son who was suffering from Down syndrome. Taking her age in consideration - 44- she was a high risk for such a baby.
I want to know the name of the obstetrician who advised her to travel that far and also the name of the airline which allowed her to board on such a long flght. I think both can be sued and the obstetrician who allowed her should have his practicing licence cancelled and the airline should also be sued because they put the other passengers at risk for carrying a womam who was full term and her water had broken".
I have read an article (can't remember the source; I think it was the Huffington post) which said that this was her husband's decision. It quotes him as saying that he wanted the baby born in Alaska for the sake of family heritage.
Complain about this comment
chillO @ 54 said:
" What would have happened in Iraq if Saddam Hussein had remained in power."
We shall never know, but you seem to forget that when the US and UK decided to plow right on into war, the UN was in Iraq looking for non existent wmd's AND by default preventing Saddam from terrorising his own people. That scenario would not have continued indefinitely but there were plenty of potential solutions other than war. As it is the only justification that pro-war supporters have is that the numbers of people being needlessly killed after Saddam is less than before. Whatever the truth, in both instances it was far too many.
Unfortunately that is not all. The situation we have now, that didn't exist before the invasion, is that there are a substantial number of people world- wide who consider the US and it's supporters to be anti anything that has the word Islam attached. When connected with poverty, the loss of loved ones to Western attack, and/or the influence of a handful of evil, hate filled Mullahs, this becomes a breeding ground for terror far more fertile than existed before the war. The US and it's allies had several responses that they could make after 9/11. They chose absolutely the wrong one.
The other situations you mention, Darfur, Kosovo etc, are/were all different cases. Iraq was such a big mistake that it has the US has ruined it's status as a respected role model for other countries, possibly forever.
If you think the world is a safer place after the Iraq war then I think you must be a little delusional.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile,
Deceased felines lose elasticity....
Peace and grits
ed
Complain about this comment
Post #119; chill0 wrote: "Note that David Kelly - one of the foremost experts in the world on biological weapons and part of defence intelligence - believed that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons, i.e. WMD".
Originally he did, yes. But after taking part in the UN WMD inspection team and failing to find any evidence of WMD in Iraq, he concluded that there was no basis for this suspicion.
He was also highly critical of the infamous "dodgy dossier" and its misrepresentation of military intelligence (particularly the "45-minute claim").
It was for this perceived rebellion that he was publically crucified by the Britsh government before a House of Commons Committee.
Complain about this comment
SCTrippin,
Well said!
And my best wishes to Obama's grannie. Goood to have your family near.
Peace to all
ed
Complain about this comment
#112 Chill0
Many thanks for your thoughtful reply. There are several issues I disagree with you though.
Did the invasion of Iraq save more lives then if we did nothing? This war is not over yet and may still descend into tribal and ethnic civil war. Do you have evidence?
I see that you don't dispute the west's inaction at the time over the Kurdish genocide by Hussein.
The US was helping Saddam ascertain nuclear energy until Israel destroyed the power station. As Iran is trying to ascertain nuclear energy but is being accused by the West of trying to gain nuclear weapons I'll stand by my ascertain that the US helped Saddam achieve 'nuclear capabilities'. If not then can we agree that Iran is not trying to ascertain Nuclear weapons?
The German Ambassador, and the Near East Foundation, who had field experience in Sudan, ran separate investigations ? both estimate several tens of thousands of deaths. Moreover, it is obvious that destroying the region's only pharmaceutical industry would result in further deaths as a consequence. It doesn't sound like rocket science to me! I think there's more evidence on this than your argument that the Iraq war saved lives!
The US State Dept knew in advance about the Kuwait invasion because Hussein told them. The lack of a clear reply from the US was thought by Hussein as a green light. He was wrong.
BTW I'm no pacifist. There has been no justifiable war since WW2. Don't you think the USA's concerns about the many deaths in Darfur sound a bit hypocritical to the Sudanese government, to the African Union, to other Arab countries. Again, I worry about this humanitarian imperialism - it's us killing peoples from poorer nations. Shall we liberate China next?
Complain about this comment
Of course Iraq had chemical weapons, and used them against the Kurds, and reportedly, Iranians.
Did Rumsfeld and his chemical firm supply
them as well as many other weapons?
Was US policy not to strengthen Iraq as a foil to Iran?
Someone abnormally seeking attention might insistently claim that a chemical weapon is a "weapon of mass destruction"
and that, ergo, the aggression against Iraq was justified in self-defense.
________________________
However, there are some intelligent and rational posters on this thread and it is a shame to have their observations diluted by such neurotic attention-seeking nonsense.
Complain about this comment
Simon21 #125
As usual, your analysis is badly flawed. As contemptable a society as Iran is, it does not need nuclear weapons to defend itself. Without them, it has never been and never would be under threat of attack. By appearing to attempt to acquire them, it is now potentially under threat of attack by not one but at least two nuclear powers, possibly more. That is the same kind of dumb thinking that got Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded and him and his henchmen executed. Iran's actions are more than stupid, they are suicidal on a national level. A full scale nuclear attack on Iran will not be a Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Iran would cease to exist forever. What could be more stupid than to invite that possiblity?
As for the people of New Orleans and wounded veterans, as much suffering as they've gone through, their plight could be even worse if the US government had no money to provide any help to them at all. Don't kid yourself. The so called bail out was a plug in a hole in a shaky dyke that had it burst would have resulted in a freeze up on all capital markets around the world. It's not clear at all that in the long run, it won't prove to merely delay the inevitable. Reading in the newspaper that the ship hit an iceberg won't stop it from sinking. It seems to me to be in far graver jeopardy than a lot of economists, Congressmen, a former president and the current president seem to think it is? Am I wrong and they right? I hope so for all our sakes.
Complain about this comment
117. At 12:59pm on 22 Oct 2008, MarcusAureliusII
Okay, what can I say,.. but to Agree. I think you just left out the hyperinflation that the printing billions of faux dollars will bring as early as February.
Complain about this comment
#121 Simon21
'...merely an assertion...'
I fear that everything you post is 'merely an assertion' you offer no links at all nor any other quoted evidence.
Here's a link to reasons for Saddam Huseein to invade Kuwait, primarily debt arising from the Iran-Iraq War.
...and the intelligence agencies did say it definitively, I have quoted their documents in other posts. Please look them up.
Complain about this comment
Why the bewilderment about the US collegiate system? This is in effect no different to the UK system. MPs are elected and the party with the most MPs wins. The party with the fewer total votes can and has won.
As for darfur, I think you'll find that the US administration were prominent in calling for action early on. I recall the then secretary of state being very vocal about it, being one of the first to claim genocide was being committed. Now who was that man?
Complain about this comment
I agree that McCain still has a real, if fading chance, but disagree about his electoral vs. popular standing. You never know, but it's looked all along that the electoral math continues to favor Obama, that he'll certainly win if he's even with McCain in the popular vote, and probably even if he's 1-2 percentage points behind.
A great deal depends on which, if any polls, are reliable. Three say McCain needs a huge rally. One say he needs a modest bounce.
I've felt the McCain campaign has gone wrong insofar as it's made Obama the issue of the campaign and been negative. Obama talks mostly about Obama. McCain talks mostly about Obama. Advantage Obama. Clinton's rule of politics seems to be at work here. If you have a choice between someone who tells you to hope, and someone who tells you to fear, you'd better choose the one who tells you to hope.
Complain about this comment
#132
"We shall never know, but you seem to forget that when the US and UK decided to plow right on into war, the UN was in Iraq looking for non existent wmd's AND by default preventing Saddam from terrorising his own people. That scenario would not have continued indefinitely but there were plenty of potential solutions other than war.
I agree with this. I still can't work out... that if our special intelligence and secret services were so great, why they simply couldn't go in and assassinate the man..?!
Instead our leaders opted for a costly unnecessary war and the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people on all sides. There are no winners in this situation, least of all the families and loved ones of lost sons and daughters fighting for an unjust cause which is unnecessary.
Complain about this comment
123. SCTrippinUSA
"After Bush used him in front of the UN as his puppet of bad information. The man removed himself from the Bush administration."
Knew it, what is this blind love of this guy, he left long after his 'statement', is very smart, knew what he was doing and laid low and picked his place based on earnings.
As he waited till he got behind the 'winner' and is hoping to reinstate himself with the power brokers of Pennsylvania Avenue. He had little to no cred left, puppet my butt, he lied, people died.
Complain about this comment
Do any of our sane and informed posters doubt that US oil companies made great excess profits out of the Iraq War?
Of course not, all reasonably informed people are aware of the payoffs to those holding such company shares.
Now, every effort was made to protect the Iraq oil facilities. (Wolfowitz had promised the exercise would be paid for out of Iraq's oil revenues). Did the NeoCons convince everyone that it would be a free imperialist ride?
Unfortunately, the effort to protect the oil shipments was a fiasco, also--but the profits of the oil companies soared.
When the Americans sought to force the Iraqui government agree to 100 BILLION in benefits for US oil firms, those Iraquis had the temerity to stall and object!
Presumably, these facts have long been known by responsible adults posting here.
Complain about this comment
Our Washington leaders persist in alarming the general public every other day instead of offering calm leadership. Over the weekend, Biden warns of a potential 9/11-type attack somewhere in the world. He mentions five or six places, but only names the Middle East and Pakistan. Are the other three Locust Grove, Any-State, USA? Houston, Texas? The White House? Biden doesn't say. I guess he wants us to fill in the blanks.
Biden also says that if O is the president, O's response to this 9/11-type attack will be unpopular, and people will not think the decision is the right one. He doesn't say with whom it will be unpopular. Unpopular with terrorists? Their Anti-American supporters? Locust Grove's citizens? I guess Biden wants us to guess, again.
Apparently, running for the highest office doesn't mean you have to explain your positions IF you are a Democrat. You can alarm the general population of an impending terrorist attack on innocent civilians just after receiving high level security briefings and not have to explain yourself (because it might be bad for your campaign?)
I want to know how an O president would have responded to 9/11. I want to know the five or six places where we can expect an attack.
If O plans to do NOTHING when we are attacked (and Biden guarantees that we will), we will have chaos in the US; instability; forget defending the right to achieve for our grandchildren; nevermind stopping socialized health care and the gov't take-over of American industry; and put it on the back burner fighting Pelosi, Reid, and Obama to prevent small businesses going out of business. We'll be too busy patrolling our neighborhoods for terrorists in order to defend our lives if the US government refuses to do one of the only tasks the US Constitution specifically tells them to do, and therefore does well. I can see O sending troops against these Locust Grove civilians, but not just any troops because 68% of American military personnel support John McCain for president. The sons of Locust Grove would never arrest or shoot their own parents and Sunday School teachers.
No matter what you have thought of Bush in the past, he passed the 9/11 test. Not one American civilian has lost her life since that attack. Between 1979 and 2001, ten-thousand American civilians lost their lives to the terrorists. We are obviously returning to those days if O is President, and I guarantee you, Biden, now that we know we don't have to be sacrificed on the altar of "peace," we are not willing to go back on the altar without a fight.
Obama and Biden owe us an answer to the q's they raised, and, if elected, they owe the American people a continuation of the unparalleled safety record of President George W. Bush.
Complain about this comment
"119. At 1:10pm on 22 Oct 2008, chill0 wrote:
"Note that David Kelly - one of the foremost experts in the world on biological weapons and part of defence intelligence - believed that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons, i.e. WMD."
But not definitely and he was not the only expert on this matter in the world
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
#132 potatoman65
I do not consider the world a safer place after the Iraq War. The difference is that I do not blame the US/UK, I blame the anti-war groups that have endlessly propagandised about - among other things - those you have mentioned, e.g. that the UK and USA are anti-muslim.
The UN weapons inspectors would eventually have had to stop because they would not have found anything. There were oil contracts with Lukoil at least (and there were several others noted in the ISG report post-invasion) which were contingent on the lifting of sanctions. Saddam had created that condition deliberately to pressure the west into setting him free of constraints.
List the 'potential solutions other than war' please.
A net gain in lives strikes me as a good thing. If an armed policeman has to shoot someone who is about to kill two others, should he do it ?
I don't disagree that the numbers of people killed are 'far too many' but nobody in the west started the killing, Saddam Hussein did.
What do you think should be done about Darfur ?
Complain about this comment
Palin has run afoul of the fashion police
Wal-Mart not on the shopping list...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#118 Simon21
I have answered almost all of those points in other posts which you do not appear to have read. Sorry but I cannot be bothered to re-key them."
I don't think you have, You seem to confuse speculation with facrt.
The missing point is the change of Arab leadership and my racism.
Apologies for your perception of my racism but please tell me of an Arab regime which has changed recently without anyone's death being involved ?"
Not sure what the point your making is. The UAE states have changed governments reltively peacefully. Certainly there have been plenty of changes of government in the arab world without hundreds of thousands being killed.
"ulers of Iraq had changed before only by coup, which is how Saddam Hussein came to power."
Yes and as far as Iam aware this has not resulted in deaths of many thousands.
"Incidentally, if Iran had changed Iraq's leadership (and God knows they tried) do you think Saddam Hussein would have survived the experience ?"
Not sure, again what is the point being made?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
133. At 2:17pm on 22 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart
Depressing isn't it, pun intended.
This is just a ray of freakin' sunshine
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#151 Simon21
I am afraid that once again all of this is assertion. You offer no evidence of any kind.
Complain about this comment
#145 Xie_ming
More unsubstantiated allegations. Please supply evidence for this '100billion' claim.
Complain about this comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/matthewprice/2008/10/here_comes_the_s_word.html
Complain about this comment
140. At 2:30pm on 22 Oct 2008, chill0 wrote:
"Here's a link to reasons for Saddam Huseein to invade Kuwait, primarily debt arising from the Iran-Iraq War."
Loved the link and it is funny/factual/fantasy and all the more reason to understand the need to know the canidates ability to pick his friends and associates. Picking a Supreme Court appointee is no laughing matter.
Complain about this comment
Oh, but what did it have to do with Hussein
Complain about this comment
#6 jcputn 5349 and #65 website junkie
I am most grateful to you both for referring
me to the site:
http://www. /rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102108/content/01125108.guest.html
I would recommend it most earnestly to all
U.S voters-I am from north of the U.S border-to know the hidden agenda, and the
'forked tongue' pretensions of contender(s) of patriotic McCain. The person who 'let the cat out of the bag' (maybe unwittingly) was no less a person than the Democrat VP nominee.
Complain about this comment
#136 dceilar
I have offered a number of links in the previous thread to estimates of deaths in Iraq along with Saddam Hussein's track record of killing and incentives to do more of the same.
This obituary refers to Saddam Hussein visiting Paris "...to visit the plant that was to supply Iraq with its first nuclear power station...". The French supplied it.
The German ambassador called it a reasonable guess. Hardly research.
There is no reason for instance why other nearby facilities should not have increased production or the aid agencies involved should not have shipped in more medicines.
I repeat the question - what would you do about Darfur ?
Complain about this comment
#146 jcputn5349
"they owe the American people a continuation of the unparalleled safety record of President George W. Bush."
Unparalleled safety record? that's the biggest joke I've heard all day. What did you do, place your brains in the deep freeze for the last eight years?
Complain about this comment
Doug, You should't hang out with such bad company.
Schade!
ed
Complain about this comment
To DougTexan
Once again I write more in sorrow than in anger but I have complained to the moderators about your posts at 150 and 152.
Not every reader might see the products from the mind of Philip J. Berg Equire as the hoax that they are.
Complain about this comment
to 80percent (#72)
"Unless, unless, there is something you want to tell us - in which case the floor is yours. Go on, what is it that you are longing to say?"
Oh yes! I want to make the following very important and aclusive revelation: Sen. Obama is not the son of black man and a white woman, he is actually an ET from Krypton and his middle name is Steve.
On a more serious note, there is nothing, I repeat, nothing private about the life of a man that aspires to become President of the USA. His aides are worried about this campaign break, the BBC reports. Do you think they too think as you do that this is a "private" matter?
Complain about this comment
Is it my imagination or is this site being overtaken by overlong posts on historic issues.
A blog should be a conversation not a student lecture.
Complain about this comment
Powell' Palin comment enough for me...
"That's been my forte as the governor of an energy producing state and as a former chair of the, of the energy regulator -- entity up there in Alaska," she said.
...can't remember the name of it but it's her 'forte'. Apparently she also still does not know what the Vice President job actually entails - OMG you would think that by now she would have looked that up.
Complain about this comment
I couldn't -er- di disagree - er - agree more!
Peace and senility
ed
Complain about this comment
Youtube piece, will show another point of view that others will find interesting to say the least.
Complain about this comment
61. At 09:54am on 22 Oct 2008, Parrisia wrote:
Justin,
this is your 3rd post on Powell's endorsement of Obama. In my mind Liberman's switch is more damaging.
Any comment on Obama's well publicised visit to the bedside of his white grandma?
--------------------------------------
R U a segregationist.
"Obama seeks radical surgery to see if his white Granma can be turned Black because he does not want people to think something about him visiting with the white folk"
You spelt your name wrong Pariah
Complain about this comment
"no Mayor Daiey to fraudulently give him the winning electoral votes "
In fact, while Dailey did fraudelently deliver Chicago votes to Kennedy, and Illinois with them, it turned out to be unnecessary, as Kennedy won the electoral college comfortably, even though he barely edged the popular vote.
In some Chicago districts, Kennedy got upwards of 95% of the vote with upwards of 95% turnout. North Korea had very little on Dailey.
Electoral College:
Electors are divided by state according to population (so big states don't suffer here--only in the senate, where both Alaska and California have two representatives!). But all a states electors go to the winner of the state's popular vote. So you can win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote if you tend to win close state votes and lose lopsided ones.
To me, all impediments to one person, one vote should be ditched.
Complain about this comment
"148.
List the 'potential solutions other than war' please.
Negotiation?
A net gain in lives strikes me as a good thing. If an armed policeman has to shoot someone who is about to kill two others, should he do it ?"
Well if the gunman is standing in a crowd of schoolchildren should the PC open fire egardless?
Or to make the analogy closer, if someone merely tells the policeman somelse has a gun, should he ignore all advice to the contrary and start shooting?
"I don't disagree that the numbers of people killed are 'far too many' but nobody in the west started the killing, Saddam Hussein did."
What? Saddam did not invade himself, this is a bizzare comment.
Stalin killed large nuimbers of his people, are you saying this licensed others to kill them too?
What form of morality is this?
Complain about this comment
Polls are highly inaccurate in that there is a large number of older voters who do not blog or go online.
One example is my 68 year old mother-in-law: she doesn't even touch a computer, and she doesn't answer her phone unless her kids get on the machine and say "Hey Mom! It's me! Pick up the phone!" When she's watching her game-shows and the political ads come on she says "I like McCain.? No pollster has gotten her opinion.
My wife likes to tell people she doesn't vote and that she doesn't like our political system,
But she voted for Bush in 2004 and she says she'll vote for McCain.
My own mother is also functionally computer illiterate, but she'll answer her phone and tell anybody who cares to ask everything that's passing through her mind at the moment.
I don't think that Pennsylvania is a sure thing for Obama, and there are a few other states, that the Democrats think they have in the bag, that are actually very close like New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Missouri, to name a few.
The explanations I've seen here about popular vote vs. electoral college have pretty good.
My home state historically votes 60% democrat, so conservatives like me don't have much effect on the results of a National Ellection. I consider my vote more of a measure of demographics than any thing else. But when the candidate I didn't vote for wins, I can say "Don't blame me, I vote for the other guy!"
I'm sure alot of liberals enjoy being able to say that now.
Complain about this comment
Wheeee!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NLVSURlFoQs
Time for your nap, Sir.
Complain about this comment
"161. At 3:26pm on 22 Oct 2008, chill0 wrote:
#136 dceilar
I have offered a number of links in the previous thread to estimates of deaths in Iraq along with Saddam Hussein's track record of killing and incentives to do more of the same.
These are totally irrelevant. The point is the Coalition, the ruling force in Iraq, is responsible for the death and injury of over 100,000 people.
End of story
Whatever Saddam Hussein might or might not have done is completely irrelevant and is mere speculation.
"I repeat the question - what would you do about Darfur ?"
What? Solve a problem in five minutes. Darfur is a deeply complex situation whihchneeds proper study and a considered policy not driven by half digested intelligence and fueled by an anti-semetic belief that Arabs are pushovers.
Something must certainly be done - but not the wrong thing.
Complain about this comment
As Al Gore could tell you, the VP job isn't that demanding; except for Darth Cheney, the VP just stands around impersonating a tree, and praying that they will not have all the responsiblity of POTUS suddenly dropped on him or her.
Complain about this comment
# 165 Parrisia
OK - you didn't have much to say. The visit to Hawaii has been very publicly announced but presumably none of us want TV cameras to follow BHO to her actual bedside. That part of it will be private.
Complain about this comment
McCain's their man
Terrorist endorsement
Complain about this comment
# 166
I am not interested in conversation,
but in ideas and facts.
Most seem to view the campaign as a sporting event and focus on the personalities of the players and tactics of the teams.
And, there are the dedicated fans.
Few have addressed the issues involved by responding to "Where do we go from here?"
______________________
If, as seems likely, the Shia government in Iraq rejects the U S forces proposal, could we see a massive pull-out and transfer to Afghanistan?
Would this be the best result?
[Note, one plan involves a "pull-out" to what is effectively Kurdistan within Iraq]
Complain about this comment
chill0 @148 wrote:
#132 potatoman65
I do not consider the world a safer place after the Iraq War. The difference is that I do not blame the US/UK, I blame the anti-war groups that have endlessly propagandised about - among other things - those you have mentioned, e.g. that the UK and USA are anti-muslim.
I don't believe that the US/UK action was specifically anti-islamic. But it could easily look that way to the victims and to the wider Islamic community, which is one of the many reasons why the invasion as well as being illegal was incredibly foolish. The propaganda you speak of came, and continues to come, from Al Quiada and it's offshoots. The fuel for this propaganda comes from the Iraq war. It played into the terrorists hands completely. To blame the anti war protesters for any of this is ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
80%, in #164, wow, so censorship is OK after all. It's a funny old hypocritical world.
Complain about this comment
"155. At 3:10pm on 22 Oct 2008, chill0 wrote:
#151 Simon21
I am afraid that once again all of this is assertion. You offer no evidence of any kind."
I am unsure to what you are referring, you seem to be confused about what evidence actually is.
I am simply stating known facts, not speculation. Thousands have died in the Iraq conflict due to the coalition, who denies it?
And yes "Arab" countries have changed government's peacefully - again another, faily obvious, fact
What is it you are disputing?
Complain about this comment
#166, what's with this. More censorship? Isn't a blog merely for peoples' thoughts? Or should we just stick to soundbites? Headlines, but no substance?
I don't always read through every over-long post, but then that's just me making a choice. We all actually have that choice, feel free to decide.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu (#52), the only system "proved to be faulty" in the 2000 election was the Florida ballotting system. They have since reworked their system to correct the problems that arose in 2000, and we will see if it has been fixed.
The electoral college may be peculiar, but it is not "faulty" and there are advantages to it as well as disadvantages. In any case, it cannot be abolished unless the small states agree to give up political power, which isn't going to happen.
Complain about this comment
Chill0:
Your 'the anti-war movement propagandists have made the world unsafe' argument is completely illogical. Without an invasion by the US/UK in the first place there would be no anti Iraq war movement. The war itself was the starting point not the subsequent opposition to it.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu (#52), I do like the "Maine plan," however (also used by Nebraska). It would have to be done by Constitutional amendment. Large states are not likely to adopt the rule on their own.
Complain about this comment
I do not understand why Mr Webb is wasting his time talking about McCain and his feeble hopes for winning the presidency. I have been watching this blog for a few months and it is clear which candidate he favors. However, this is one instance where the politically driven news agenda is not going to sway popular opinion.
Complain about this comment
#134 Sankari
David Kelly believed Iraq had biological weapons (WMD) right up to his death.
In post #154 I also refuted your other claim about the British govt and the House of Commons committee.
The explanation is here.
Complain about this comment
dcellar (#57), you write: "Doesn't the electoral college put the heavily populated States at a disadvantage to the under populated ones?"
Yes. In fact, that is precisely what it was designed to do. It is part (along with the Senate) of the "Federal Compromise" which led to the formation of the United States under the US Constitution. Had it not been agreed to, the small states would not have ratified the Constitution.
Complain about this comment
Ronald Reagan might have been speaking about this election in this speech.
Complain about this comment
I think McCain was just being a politician and by picking Colin Powell he was reaching out to the African American voters who are almost all exclusively going with Obama (at least in Texas and on TV it looks like it). I believe he was just doing politics with those answers.
Complain about this comment
#143 sudohnim38
They did.
Saddam Hussein was one of the great survivors of the twentieth century.
Complain about this comment
Parrisia (#61), "Liberman" [sic] is yesterday's news. The next we hear about Lieberman will be when the Democratic majority in the next Senate applies some appropriate punishment for his apostasy.
Complain about this comment
Thank God, this is not a boarding school, where the house master forces down points on his/her student without allowing for intelligent discourse.
my position is that, since we cannot empirically verify who we claim to be or what we claim to know or not, its safest and sensible to assume that we are all posturing and thus engaging in one form of propaganda or the other. afterall this is the world wide web.
the only person i can assume to be real is Justin. Most commentators here, could, all well be members of Obamas campaign team.
I must say, they are doing a heck of a job, Goebbels would be proud of you guys
Complain about this comment
AgnosticRelativist (#62), this point has been explained more than once in earlier threads in this forum.
Complain about this comment
#172 Simon21
Negotiation ?
With whom ? He had weapons inspectors in Iraq whom he constantly thwarted by the designation of 'presidential palaces' etc. All he needed to do was help them.
Complain about this comment
#175 Simon21
I've discussed the first part of your post at length elsewhere.
You still offer no suggestion about what to do in Darfur.
Complain about this comment
Post #70 is an irony! It was "icetayoa" himself who was exposed as having submitted a post twice under two different names.
Complain about this comment
#161 Chill0
The German ambassador called it a reasonable guess. Hardly research.
What about the Near East Foundation's field research then? Do you really believe that no-one died as a result of this bombing? Why did it galvanise support for Al-Qaeda in the region?
There is no reason for instance why other nearby facilities should not have increased production or the aid agencies involved should not have shipped in more medicines.
This was the region's only pharmaceutical factory. Sudan itself is huge.
Why do you show contempt to those Sudanese that died as a result of US bombing at Al-Shifa? Why do you care now about the Sudanese in Darfur? There are other things in the world going on or have gone on recently that merit action. Is it because Sudan is not 'one of us'? This all stinks of an humanitarian imperialism.
Complain about this comment
164. At 3:34pm on 22 Oct 2008, eightypercent wrote:
To DougTexan
Once again I write more in sorrow than in anger but I have complained to the moderators about your posts at 150 and 152.
Not every reader might see the products from the mind of Philip J. Berg Equire as the hoax that they are.
You are the "True to the Style" nanny government democrat, here to protect us from ourselves. Who are you to judge the intelligence of those who post here, exchange ideas, agree that occasionally or often we will disagree. You have violated the 'right' of each of us from unfair and biased moderation and should be removed from this post.
I myself like to hear from those with a different idea, belief or possible overlooked fact/fiction, and I resent your action, not with anger, but with sorrow that I can longer respect you or your post.
Good Day Sir
Complain about this comment
169. At 3:44pm on 22 Oct 2008, DougTexan wrote:
Youtube piece, will show another point of view that others will find interesting to say the least.
---------------------------
This man obviously understands nothing of immigration and naturalisation.
There is not reason Obama would have had to give up US citizenship when He moved abroad i as a Kid.
A parent was still american.
To swear an oath of marriage to another does not mean one has sworn an oath to another country.
There fore there is no taking away of citizenship.
As to natural born, how does one become un -natural born.
You example might as well be you making your own video.
Miranda decision. Is the case that stopped women from losing their nationality when they got married,maybe.
spelling may be wrong .
Complain about this comment
"I repeat the question - what would you do about Darfur ?"
What? Solve a problem in five minutes. Darfur is a deeply complex situation whihchneeds proper study and a considered policy not driven by half digested intelligence and fueled by an anti-semetic belief that Arabs are pushovers.
Something must certainly be done - but not the wrong thing.
This would be funny if it wan't so sad. How long has Darfur been a serious issue? As I posted earlier, a certain Colin Powell spoke out when he was SOS. This was quite some time ago. Yet in response to the question on what to do, Simon wants time to reflect on it.
I know, why don't we wait until the genocide is all over, then we won't need to do anything. And best of all, we can say that we didn't kill anyone, it was all someone else's fault.
Complain about this comment
Jon Stewart superbly lampoons the GOP "them and us" strategy. When they talk about "real America" and "real Virginia" that does not seem to include minorities and educated whites.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/21/jon-stewart-clarifies-pal_n_136484.html
Complain about this comment
114, chill0 wrote:
First, there were published intelligence assessments by the CIA and the JIC in the UK which said definitively that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
_______
I admit hindsight is always 20/20, and there was evidence of possible WMD.
However , not only was the evidence proved wrong later, it was forged in cases.
There has been strong doubt of said evidence by the UN controllers, and numerous international experts.
The UN and the majority of the world's leaders have vehemently opposed starting the war.
Saddam was getting weaker by the hour back then, and eventually a change would have happened, without using the worst possible method, a unilateral war started by a Western army.
________
?Second, I say the same thing to you as I say to FauxGeordie and others - why does that mean the war was wrong ? It saved lives and prevented any possibility of Saddam Hussein gaining WMD, which he intended to do.
________
First, I admit I don't have the numbers ready of the Hussein regime victims.
People have been killed, tortured and wrongfully imprisoned.
Now , after 5 years of war, and counting, people have been, and still are being killed, tortured and wrongfully imprisoned.
- Casualty estimates vary, but 1 million , give or take a couple 100k, seem widely accepted.
- Iran's influence in the region stronger, elects a fairly extremist president in 2005. Starts talking about the nuke.
- Extremist movements in other Muslim countries reportedly stronger as well ( Syria, Libanon, Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria, SE Asia, etc. ), limiting the power of governments and moderate forces.
- Also reported, terrorist organizations , namely the taleban and Al Quaeda, recruit more new members than ever before the invasion.
I addition to that, independent cells based on Quaeda ideology and methods start spreading all over Europe, the Middle East and SE Asia.
Major Islamist attacks in the UK, Spain, Russia, India, etc....
Where did those all come from ?
Someone tell these people it's Iraq where terrorists fight !
- Meanwhile, most of the Iraqi people are still living with a desolate infrastructure, a provisional governement, sectarian violence, bombings, and whatnot.
Petraeus himself describes the situation as 'fragile' - after the surge.
------
All that said, the Iraq war is saving lifes ?
Saddam would have had to get up really early in the morning to get all that done.
Besides, who exactly would have been threatened by Iraqi WMD ?
Complain about this comment
Oh, U12831485, that would be Fritz Kraut ;).
Complain about this comment
Following this election as best I can from here in Spain, logic and even common sense says Sen. Obama. But who says the average voter in any country applies cold logic and common sence to amke their choice.
At the booth emotion takes over, even if the choice is later justified one way or another. Every good polition knows very well that he has to sell him or herself on both logic and at the emotional level.
The is is very clear cut. Will the positive emotion being generated by the Obama campaign over come the negative emotion being evoked by the McCain compaign. We will only know when the result are in.
Complain about this comment
Dear Doug # 200
You are putting up some seriously batty conspiracy theories - which is unlike you (post 201, after yours seems to agree).
If I am concerned about them, I can only go through the procedure of asking the moderators to have a look. It is up to them.
I would hope that we can return to our usual civilised dialogue.
Complain about this comment
201. At 5:08pm on 22 Oct 2008, SodemWhosSane
So true, I put out there as food for thought and to point to the extreme measures being used to thwart a fair election.
Kind of like 80%s desire to thwart varied and diverse ideas.
On that site they are trying to question his right to citizenship. They challenge to where he was born and wether he is actually a citizen of Kenya, born and a citizen there.
Personally, don't buy it for a minute, no more then the proclaimation that 911 was an inside Government job done by 80%. LOL
All right, all done.
Just words, just speeches
Complain about this comment
"True to the Style" nanny government democrat, here to protect us from ourselves.
There's broad bipartisan support for protecting us from ourselves in the form of victimless crime laws. The libertarian point of view would be to let anyone do anything they want. It would certainly save a lot of money and put organized crime out of business, as well as denying funding for countless illegal wars. Intuitively, one might expect an increase in drug use. I wonder. It seems to me that when opium use was tolerated in the US (pre-1905) drug addiction was probably rarer and certainly more easily treatable than it is now.
As to other paternalistic state measures, both Republicans and Democrats have their preferred forms and venues of censorship. But in determining what is and is not acceptable in the bedroom and concerning a marriage license, abortion, etc. it's difficult to argue that the Democrats favor a more paternalistic government than the Republicans.
Complain about this comment
Chillo, posts #54, #77 and a few others, i think you are missing an essential point. If the US & UK had stated "we are going to invade Iraq because Saddam is an dictator and is murdering people, we have a plan to remove his regime and afterwards nuture a stable, fair government in its place" i, and i suspect many others, would have supported the invasion. Our Governments didn't do this, they fed the public a pack of scarmongering lies that any thoughtful person could see through at the time. Given this a thoughtful person has to be suspicious of and question the motivation and / or competence of said Governments. T
Complain about this comment
Post #188; chill0 wrote: "#134 Sankari
David Kelly believed Iraq had biological weapons (WMD) right up to his death".
Fair enough. The Independent's story looks legitimate, so I'll acknowledge that Dr Kelly's views weren't so black and white after all.
"In post #154 I also refuted your other claim about the British govt and the House of Commons committee".
What claim? I had said:
"He was also highly critical of the infamous "dodgy dossier" and its misrepresentation of military intelligence (particularly the "45-minute claim")".
This is demonstrably true; indeed, it is a matter of public knowledge and public record.
From Wikipedia:
>>
Although not responsible for writing any part of the dossier, Kelly's experience of weapons inspections led to him being asked to proofread sections of the draft dossier on the history of inspections.
**Kelly was unhappy with some of the claims in the draft, particularly a claim, originating from August 2002, that Iraq was capable of firing battlefield biological and chemical weapons within 45 minutes of an order to use them (commonly termed subsequently as "the 45 minute claim").**
>>
See also other points made here: http://tinyurl.com/5khnxc
I also said:
"It was for this perceived rebellion that he was publically crucified by the Britsh government before a House of Commons Committee".
This is also true. It is a matter of public knowledge and public record.
Wikipedia again:
>>
When he appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on July 15, 2003, Kelly appeared to be under severe stress, which was probably increased by the televising of the proceedings. He spoke with a voice so soft that the air-conditioning equipment had to be turned off on one of the hottest days of the year.
His evidence to the committee was that he had not said the things Gilligan had reported his source as saying, and members of the committee came to the conclusion that he had not been the source.
However, some of the questioning was extremely pointed and appeared disrespectful to Kelly; the MP Andrew MacKinlay, in particular, adopted an aggressive and confrontational tone in his own cross-examination.
For example, when asked to list the journalists that he met, Kelly requested that the list be supplied via the MoD, which brought the riposte: '[...] This is the high court of Parliament and I want you to tell the Committee who you met. [...] You are under an obligation to reply.' and 'I reckon you are chaff; you have been thrown up to divert our probing. Have you ever felt like a fall-guy? You have been set up, have you not?'
Kelly had been deeply upset by his treatment before the Committee and he had privately described MacKinlay as an 'utter bastard.'
>>
Source: http://tinyurl.com/5khnxc
Why do you think he was dragged before the Committee in the first place? It wasn't for a game of tiddlywinks!
It was because he had shared his grave doubts about the "dodgy dossier" with a BBC journalist in an unauthorised interview which was immensely damaging to the government's credibility.
For this he was duly punished.
Complain about this comment
Losing it
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
re. 57. dceilar:
Not just the electoral college but the whole US constitution is based on a balance of interests. The House of Representatives is elected from districts of a set size. If the population increases, the state is supposed to be redistrict-ed and increase the number of districts, if the census warrants it. Each state gets two senators, in contrast. That's balance populous states with a chamber where every state gets an equal vote.
In a similar way, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are intended to be co-equal, each serving as a balance and a brake on the others. The idea is to make it difficult for any one interest group or branch of government to run away with the government. Not impossible, but difficult.
The electoral college follows that model. Each state gets electors based on the total number of senators and representatives. Each state gets to decide how it's total number of votes is cast: proportional to the popular vote or winner-take-all.
The allocation of electoral votes is supposed to provide a counterbalance for small states to the populations of large states, although the US population (especially in some states) has grown to the point where it takes a lot of smaller states to cancel out a big one. But in the 2000 and 2004 elections, for example, Bush won by carrying a lot of western and southern states (which are less densely populated) and a few big ones. It may be unsettling, but it worked the way the framers of the constitution planned it. In the current election, Obama and the Democrats will probably have enough of the popular vote to overwhelm any combination of smaller states. Again, that's the way it's supposed to work.
Complain about this comment
Icetayoa.
your comments on Collon Powell are a joke.
All secretaries of state say Nigerians are criminals.
the CIA says it,the FCO says it.
every african I have met (in Brixton) says it
So he said Nigeria way a bad place to deal with.
Guess what He is right.
Every major countries diplomatic missions will tell you.
There are more scams out of Nigeria than anywhere.
"hi I'm so and so and if you send me some funds I will be able to make you rich"
Now most of Nigeria is getting reamed by their leaders and the west.
But he amount of international fraud and crime there is HUGE.
MASSIVE.
So as many other africans say "beware a nigerian ".
Though most I met trying to escape seem to be real nice and honest, Guess that did not wear off on you" Icetayoa".
Complain about this comment
#202 seanspa
"And best of all, we can say that we didn't kill anyone, it was all someone else's fault."
It was. The boundaries drawn to define the colonial territories (not nations - what we call "tribes" are the nations) were drawn deliberately by the European colonialists across tribal boundaries to nake it easier to subjugate the populations.
Stalin did exactly the same thing in the Soviet Union - hence the Ossetian/Georgian problem. (It it weren't so serious, it would be amusing to see Americans keen to maintain the boundaries drawn by Stalin.)
I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better if outsiders kept out, and let the ex-colonial areas determine their own national structures - as Europe did in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In historical terms the number of deaths might be smaller.
Complain about this comment
I must say this is the flimsiest post I've read on this blog, and I'm very bored. I cannot make out whether Biden really said what he said, if he said any of it to this detestable Limbaugh, or indeed if any of it makes any sort of sense at all. It's all Greek to me.
And the new 'instant book' is no better. A 'series of narratives', indeed. A series of mess-ups, and that's all it is.
I can't see any of this is worth spending any time on at all.
In the meantime, I hear (and read) that another bailout is going to be needed pretty soon, since (obviously) the last one has failed to properly address any of the problems effectively; that Congress has 'suspended' operations, and nothing is going to be done about anything until some time later in November.
I keep smelling something burning, and hearing the faint sound of a violin in the midst of the crackling fire.
Using a very old-fashioned clinical term, it all looks to me more and more like 'general paralysis of the insane'. . .
Complain about this comment
From that crazy left wing publication, The Wall Street Journal:
Obama on the moneyMeanwhile... Meeeeeeoooooooowwwww!Fed endorses Obama
Peace and hominy
ed
Complain about this comment
Websitejunkie (105)
Sure, go ahead : )))
Shodemwhossane (170)
I appreciate your kind words - I only hope that you are as open-minded as you claim to be and vote for Barack Obama on 11/4
Complain about this comment
doug:
"leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause"
That's true of all politicians isn't it? (Except perhaps for "openly and publicly" declaring it.)
I simply can't understand why any president (JFK for example?) or candidate for the presidency (McCain) should have either morals or principles attributed to him or her.
Or credited with either as seems so often to be the desire of many contributors here. If you want morals or principles in a president maybe you need a mullah?
(Could be it's now time for Obama to make more use of his historic middle name.)
But then, I'm a a half-Brit-half-Italian and worse, was one of the despised meedjah once upon a time, so on all those counts I suppose I'm a cynic.
Complain about this comment
;-)
Complain about this comment
You couldn't make it up!
Peace, and let's make uped
Complain about this comment
123,
thank you,
well stated.
Complain about this comment
Re: #185 - It is true - the proof was in a Star Trek episode - Capt. Kirk travelled back in time and saved a lovely anti-war activist's life and when he returned the earth was Nazi!
As to Iraq, Darfur, Sudan...the US is not the arbiter of human rights in the world - this is delegated to the UN - US erred in acting without the UN. US now violating human rights in Gitmo, and by use of torture and secret prisons, and US leaders accused of war crimes over Iraq (I believe justifiably).
As to motive for Iraq war, look to US actions immediately after - funds and resources applied to construction of pipeline and restoration and security of oilfields first - Turks free to attack Kurds - social infrastructure still a disaster.
Complain about this comment
#194 icetayoa
I am real. I am an independent thinker, whose values and principles transcend political lines, and political dogma. I cannot be put in a box and simply described as liberal, conservative, socialist, etc. I am all of those things, as are you probably.
All I yearn for is a political leader who is intelligent, cares for the American people and does his best to change a broken and corrupt system. for my money I think BO is that person.
I may end up being disappointed, I sincerely hope not. If I felt that John McCain would be a better President I would vote for him. Unfortunately, he has shown by his choices and behavior that he doesn't have the ability, nor the wisdom to assume the position.
I have had quite enough of unwise leaders for the past 8 years.
Complain about this comment
timohio (#213), the states may decide how to allocate their electoral votes, but when the "unit rule" is not used, it still isn't "proportional." The "Maine plan" assigns electoral votes to the winner in each legislative district, with two more going to the state-wide winner.
Complain about this comment
McCain may not be the best choice to run for POTUS on the republican ticket, but he is our best hope to prevent the U.S. from falling into recession and double digit unemployment. Obama's platform is exactly the same platform Carter ran under, only with different rhetoric. And those of you who post on this site who read something other than the NYT and watch other news besides MSN should at least agree (if you are honest with yourself, and bother to do some research) that the Carter Administration was a total disaster for our economy. Remember double digit inflation? Double digit unemployment? Gas lines?
Yeah, go ahead and paint me as a racist for not being in the tank for Obama. Big deal. The race card has been thrown around so much by Obama's campaign, it is silly, meaningless, and boring.
Complain about this comment
#204, U-Boat, I agree with what you said.
The only positive development out of the whole
thing was that Libya was turned around, otherwise,
there are very few positive consequences to the
Iraq invasion.
Certainly, it would have been much better to just
concentrate on destroying Al-Qaeda and the Taliban
in Afghanistan, and then getting out.
Complain about this comment
http://www.236.com/video/2008/sarah_palin_vlog_14_demon_9613.php
the real person with the agenda
the same "not if it were me running" backstabbing Gorilla from Wassilla
Complain about this comment
97. At 11:39am on 22 Oct 2008, chill0 wrote:
"The allies in WW2 are generally seen as having done the right thing in large part because of the Holocaust.
When the war started, nobody knew about the Holocaust - it had not started - and it was certainly not the motive for any allied nation's participation."
chillo, this is simply untrue. Not long ago I read a very interesting book, "The Fate of Homo Sapiens" by H.G. Wells, published in 1939. There is a whole chapter about the Nazis, in which Wells describes Hitler as insane, showing "all the symptoms of a recognised form of sex mania, the jealous fear and hate of the great raping black man - who in his case becomes the Jew." Later he refers to "the peculiar filth and malignity of the Nazi concentration camps" and describes his meeting with Stefan Lorant, a former prisoner in Dachau who had already published a book entitled "I was Hitler's Prisoner". If Wells knew of these things in August 1939, it's surely safe to say the British and allied governments knew, even if the general population did not. And as for that, remember that Wells was still a major figure, and the book went through three printings in that month of August, so plenty of people must have read it, and maybe Lorant's book.
Whether the Holocaust was a motive might be asked, but to say nobody knew of it is incorrect, and it had certainly started.
As for the motive for invading Iraq, the US government's motive was political. The US people's rage at the Trade Center attack was unassuaged by the Afghanistan invasion, which was supposed to produce Osama's head on a platter, so the government had to appear to be doing something. Saddam Hussein was a convenient target. As for Tony Blair's motivation I fear it was vanity, the desire to look like a strong international figure. He ended up looking like Bush's poodle.
Complain about this comment
Didn't you hear McCain Palin are the only Christian non-communist, non-terrorist candidates who have God or the Real America or the prayer warriors on their side?
In an interview posted online Wednesday, Sarah Palin told Dr. James Dobson of ?Focus on the Family? that she is confident God will do ?the right thing for America? on Nov. 4.
?It is that intercession that is so needed,? she said. ?And so greatly appreciated. And I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power of prayer, and that strength that is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation. And I so appreciate it.?
The Lord works in mysterious ways-Vote Obama
Complain about this comment
218 Voting
Already have.
it felt good.
ohhhh so fulfilling
Pariah what is your issue with Obama visiting a white person.Not his grandmother but his "WHITE grandmother".
Come now don't be shy
Complain about this comment
I've gotten the sense in recent times that McCain is uncomfortable with his campaign. In the primaries, he could be who he wanted - but when he was the 'Republican' nominee, the Republican apperatus weighed in behind him. The same apperatus that elected the Bush's, and used the same tactics for him.
Not to lay into McCain too much - but surely a President should demonstrate the ability to stay on-top of things. Obama's campaign is wildly out-performing him, and from the perspective that campaigns are run from the top-down, this is an indictment on McCain.
Running an adminstration is far more challenging than a campaign, so a candidate ought to be able to meet the lesser of these two challenges.
Complain about this comment
226. At 6:43pm on 22 Oct 2008, justpam wrote:
McCain may not be the best choice to run for POTUS on the republican ticket, but he is our best hope to prevent the U.S. from falling into recession and double digit unemployment. Obama's platform is exactly the same platform Carter ran under, only with different rhetoric. And those of you who post on this site who read something other than the NYT and watch other news besides MSN should at least agree (if you are honest with yourself, and bother to do some research) that the Carter Administration was a total disaster for our economy. Remember double digit inflation? Double digit unemployment? Gas lines?
Yeah, go ahead and paint me as a racist for not being in the tank for Obama. Big deal. The race card has been thrown around so much by Obama's campaign, it is silly, meaningless, and boring
---------------------------------------------
The racists are silly meaningless and boring to.
Bit like you.
Have a broke day
Complain about this comment
justpam (#226), It's a little late to be trying to convince anyone here how to vote. In fact, I've already cast my vote (by absentee) for Obama. At this point, all of the action is in a few tossup states.
Complain about this comment
#219, british-ish, what the heck is a "meedjah?"
I'm used to hearing people use long words that
I don't understand, but over time, I get more
and more surprised when people use short
words that I don't understand.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat, #215, my last paragraph in #202 was not meant to be serious. I can't believe that I have to point this out. If I need to expand fully on everything then I fear I'll be reported for posting more than a brief point. It's all the Plantagenets' fault.
Complain about this comment
The Palin pick for V-P still confuses the hell out of me. It makes sense in that it was supposed to appeal to women voters and independents-I never believed disenfranchised Hilary supporters would switch in any significant numbers.
So picking a woman made sense, but surely there were other candidates? Meg Whitman, Condoleeza Rice, Elizabeth Dole etc.
But even then you at least vet your choice and think 'if I were a Democrat how would I attack this choice?' I think this boils down to McCain's inability to forgive and forget and work with past opponents, obviously I think of Mitt Romney. You have to question if McCain is paranoid about having a strong vice-President because it seems like he has picked someone who is weaker and less threatening. I could envision a McCain White House where the V-P is excluded from anything important but kept busy cutting ribbons and attending many overseas functions.
Complain about this comment
Sean's pa and Oldnat,
I just love it when two ironists cross purposes!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
The meedjah is newspapers and tv and websites.
Kind of like a Merkan is someone from the USA and Yurp is the continent on top of Africa.
Complain about this comment
Birds of a feather?
Schade!
ed
Complain about this comment
Oldnat is spot on. Most of the world's trouble spots are in places that had their boundaries redrawn in the 20th century (much if it done by the Brits). We've got a lot to answer for.
Complain about this comment
#236 seanspa
I wasn't taking your point seriously (I should have included the "tongue in cheek" phrase, I originally meant to).
My point, however, was serious. Unless there is understanding that many state boundaries were imperially drawn, then solution of problems such as Darfur become much more difficult.
Plantagenets? - I blame the Merovingians! :-)
Complain about this comment
Ed ~ 240
That explains why someone wrote on this site yesterday that Liberal Democrats scare the hell out of them.
Which was surprising to a Brit because Liberal Democrats this side of the pond are regarded as the pussy cats of the political world (comparatively speaking)
Complain about this comment
I am a lifelong Democrat and I voted for Obama yesterday because I consider him the best candidate. I like his domestic and foreign policy proposals, excellent education, command of domestic and international matters, and his calm demeanor.
In addition to my hero - FDR - I consider Republican Presidents Lincoln and Eisenhower among the best in our history, and I have no problem with the George H. W. Bush Administration, even though I think he could have been more cautious before launching the first Gulf War.
I have admired Sen. McCain for many years and always thought he would have made an outstanding President. His choice of Sarah Palin, his flip flops on important issues, and the barely contained rage he showed during the debates made me change my mind about him. Frankly, I would not vote for him now if he ran for dog catcher in my city.
Complain about this comment
Okay Ed, quizz time, who gave this speech?
My, how time and issues stand still.
just words, just speeches
Complain about this comment
#239, StephenDerry, I get it. That's like saying
"all" is $70 a barrel, and that we need to prevent
"eye-ran" from acquiring "nuculur" weapons.
Complain about this comment
Ref 233
"Obama's platform is exactly the same platform Carter ran under, only with different rhetoric."
There is no similarity whatsoever between Obama's domestic and foreign policy proposals (available for anyone who cares to read them on his website) and those proposed and implemented by President Carter.
It is also important to remember that President Carter inherited not only high inflation, but a moral crisis of unprecedented proportions on Inauguration Day. Yes, the Fed raised interest rate to 16% to bring inflation down, which it eventually did, but that was not Carter's doing. His demise was the result of the Iran hostage crisis and the disastrous rescue effort. To a great extent, he was a victim of his religious convictions, and the uncharateristic compassion he exhibited throughout his presidence. I believe his post-presidential conduct should serve as a guide for other Presidents to emulate.
If you want to establish a more realistic parallel between Obama's proposals and those of other Democratic Presidents you may consider Clinton, arguably the most successful POTUS the past 60 years.
Complain about this comment
@shodem 170+218
do you even know the meaning of the word "pariah"? how does that relate to your racist charge?
Complain about this comment
237. tigermilkboy wrote:
"The Palin pick for V-P still confuses the hell out of me."
Not all that surprising actually, every atheist is betting on Government morality, given honestly and fairly by people just like them.
Obama has your vote,.. possibly because he wants your sexist vote after all.
The Speech, by Ronald Reagan
Complain about this comment
#245, Ronald Reagan, 1964.
Complain about this comment
#239. StephenDerry: "The meedjah is newspapers and tv and websites.
Kind of like a Merkan is someone from the USA and Yurp is the continent on top of Africa."
And 'garridge' is somewhere a car is parked or petrol/gas can be purchased. these days the English rarely can pronounce their own words. No doubt the Scots, Welsh and Irish do better.
Complain about this comment
#189 Gary_A_Hill
#213 TimOhio
Many thanks for your replies to my post #57 re: the electoral college.
So it seems then that the electoral college is going to stay - given its role in the 'federal compromise' that ratified the constitution. This compromise is certainly not something the English (in the UK) would have used when forming the Union - when the Celts didn't like something the English invaded and killed some until they surrendered! So its something the Americans can be proud of.
I suppose the individual States can introduce some form of Proportional Representation, which I think Maine and Nebraska do of sorts, so no-one's vote is wasted. However, we may see more of the close results similar to 2000!
Complain about this comment
DT (#245), the irony is that it is the author's policies which have caused the huge increases in the national debt, turned the United States into a net debtor nation, and put the US economy into the toilet.
Complain about this comment
#253, please don't confuse GWB with a Reaganite.
At least Reagan could pronounce his words properly.
Complain about this comment
GnR How right you are, hope you don't mind but I'm following your blogspot,.. Kudos
Complain about this comment
#251 David_Cunard
If we pronounced garage "gar-raaj" we'd sound too French and no-one would vote for us (Kerry, 2004).
If you're a Real American you should buy your all from a garridge.
Complain about this comment
Ref 180
"I blame the anti-war groups that have endlessly propagandised about - among other things - those you have mentioned, e.g. that the UK and USA are anti-muslim."
What are people to conclude when our own President referred to the invasion of Iraq as a crusade?
Complain about this comment
Sarah Palin a simple ol' hockey mom? This is more likely to antagonise swing voters than help the McCain-Palin campaign - and do more damage than any endorsement.
Complain about this comment
#254, I'm not offering any opinion of GWB. The problem, in my opinion, is Reaganomics and the dominance of the Republican Party for most of the last quarter century, not any particular president.
Complain about this comment
It has begun: (Headline on MSNBC)
"Machines change Dem vote to GOP vote Oct. 22: Some West Virginians voting on electronic machines are seeing their Democratic choices turn into Republican votes."
So dear Republicans, do not give lectures about morality and Christian ethics. The Republican party is rotten to the core and it will stop at nothing to win this election.
Any American citizen should be appalled at this kind of news. It makes the ACORN noise of the other day look pathetic.
Voting should be under the aegis of the GAO a non partisan government group. Diebold and others are in with the fix. Please realize this election could go to McCain and Palin! Not because of voting but of vote rigging.
Complain about this comment
249. At 8:14pm on 22 Oct 2008, DougTexan wrote:
237. tigermilkboy wrote:
"The Palin pick for V-P still confuses the hell out of me."
Not all that surprising actually, every atheist is betting on Government morality, given honestly and fairly by people just like them.
Obama has your vote,.. possibly because he wants your sexist vote after all
I do not quite get your point. If you are calling me sexist, then that is bizarre. Despite the name I am feamle and I was proposing that McCain pick a better qualified female V-P. You know someone who might not cost you the election.
Secondly, Obama has not got my vote, but neither did McCain. I voted for Romney in my primary-a guy I have worked with and found to be respectful and respected in business.
Sarah Palin really worries a lot of people. Rightly or wrongly, how you come across to people is crucial in politics. Sarah Palin creates more negatives as a V-P than positives. Personally, if I were McCain I would have a V-P list of Condoleeza Rice, Charlie Crist, Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani.
Complain about this comment
There's been some discussion on the pronunciation and meaning of words.
Can an American translate these words I've just heard from McCain?
"I'll bring our troops home with honor and victory, and not in defeat."
Since the last time Scotland embarked on an aggressive foreign war (to force our form of religion on the English in the 17th century), we were thoroughly beaten, I would hate to mistake his meaning.
If his words have their apparent meaning (fight on regardless till you win), should I resurrect the family pike and armour and invade Carlisle?
Complain about this comment
I'm a little amused and depressed that many, if not most, of those inquiring about the electoral college seem to have either gotten or been given a basic misunderstanding of it. I suppose it may be like someone trying to explain the rules of cricket to Americans. Though, as it happens, I more or less understand those...
The short story is that the US system was not designed for one person one vote, and that it has been only imperfectly adjusted in that direction up to now. BUT: the electoral system is not anti-democratic in the sense that the senate is: the states have the electors apportioned among them by population. So a vote in California produces the same influence on the presidential election as a vote in Alaska (whereas it has much less influence on the election of a senator) What's anti-democratic about it is that it's a legacy of state's rights: each block of state's electors is given on a winner-take-all basis, rather than aportioned according to the vote in the state. This means that Obama will get all California's electors, and McCain will get all Arizona's.
This may be the dullest post ever *sigh*
Complain about this comment
To#35Allmymarbles
Amen!
My hopes as well. I have not been able to get accurate polls for Arizona either but have heard and read three times recently that Arizona could move from red to pink.
Some people here have voiced resentment that McCain is so sure of our votes that he does not need to campaign.
Also, we may be small town rural where I live but many here do not like Palin. That $150,000 spent on her wardrobe set my phone ringing this morning! People who have argued with me for months over my choice of Obama were indignant that small contributions they made to the RNC might have been used to buy clothes for her!
What I do know is that in local elections and in the representative races, it looks like a stronger Democratic win. People here are angry. Farmers, ranchers and small business are worried and not sure that Republicans "know what it is like."
Many people here also like and admire Colin Powell. If he had run for President, he probably could have had easily Arizona. His words and opinion have damaged McCain in some people's eyes
My opinion is that McCain will keep Arizona but not by very much.
Complain about this comment
All you US softies think that you guys ruined the world! Just look at what the Brits managed - the US has a long way to go to catch up.
:-)
Complain about this comment
re. 252. ceilar:
It would take an amendment to the constitution to eliminate the electoral college, and that is deliberately difficult to do. The amendment has to be passed by the House and Senate, signed by the president, and ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures. I can't see smaller states ratifying that kind of change because it would be against their interest to do so. So yes, the electoral college is going to be around for a while.
The US constitution was designed to promote stability, not change.
Complain about this comment
Post #257; DominickVila wrote: "Ref 180
"I blame the anti-war groups that have endlessly propagandised about - among other things - those you have mentioned, e.g. that the UK and USA are anti-muslim."
What are people to conclude when our own President referred to the invasion of Iraq as a crusade?"
He didn't. He referred to a "crusade against terrorism".
His exact words were: "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile".
Visiting a mosque some days later, he said: "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about".
Frankly, I don't really care if he believes any of this or not. The bottom line is that he didn't refer to the war on Iraq as a "crusade".
In any case, if someone wanted to wage war against Muslims, why would they choose Iraq - a SECULAR Arab state? It doesn't make any sense; it would be like invading Pakistan as "a crusade against Christians"; simply irrational.
With so many Muslim states to choose from (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc.) there is no logic to invading Iraq as a blow against Muslims.
I'm all for bashing America when she does wrong (and goodness knows she USUALLY does wrong), but let's at least try to keep our facts straight.
The USA did not invade a Muslim state, she did not invade for religious reasons, and she did not describe her invasion as a "crusade".
Complain about this comment
Ed, I've been told on here before that 4 years spent in the US is nowhere near enough for me to have a decent understanding of US politics. It seems that it is plenty though for me to begin lose my sense of irony. I am consoled only by the thought that anyone who moved over here, say in the 60s, would now be thoroughly american and would have forgotten what irony is. Whereas clearly an american who moved to the UK (even to Scotland) has a highly refined sense. Of irony, anyway :)
Complain about this comment
RedWhiteandermBlue (#263), some of the misunderstanding about the electoral college comes from this post of yours. The electoral college has a bias towards small states because there are two electoral votes per state corresponding to the Senate representation in addition to those which correspond to the representation in the House. This is a small, but real, bias.
As for the "unit rule," which is the awarding of all of a state's electors to the candidate which wins the state, that is a matter for states to decide. Nearly all use the unit rule, Maine and Nebraska do not. In the latter case, it is still not proportional, as electors are awarded by legislative district. In Maine, for example, there are only four electoral votes. Fractional votes are not possible, so the split can only be three to one, or all four to one candidate.
Complain about this comment
Europeans who think the US Electoral College system is unfair, might like to consider what system would be appropriate for the EU, if we were to elect the President directly.
Complain about this comment
Just to beat this electoral college horse to death, note that the idea of the "Maine plan" is not to make the result something close to proportional. Even in a large state, a split result would not be proportional. The advantage of that method is that a candidate could be encouraged to campaign in a state which was solid for the opposing party statewide, if it were possible to pick up a few electoral votes in part of the state. For example, in Nebraska there are three congressional districts. The state is Republican, and all three districts are represented by Republicans. If eastern Nebraska (Omaha) were to become more Democratic, a Democratic candidate might be encouraged to visit Omaha in hopes of winning one electoral vote.
Complain about this comment
Europe seems to be divided between those who believe the EU should be completely abolished (or drastically stripped of its current powers) and those who support it despite it appearing to be a fundamentally undemocratic institution.
The directly elected element, the European Parliament is a talking shop, a review committee with no real power to propose or amend legislation. The power is held by the appointees on the Commission, who propose and enact legislation.
It is a very imperfect system but reform has proved next to impossible given that the 27 member states cannot even agree what the EU is for or what they want it to become.
Personally I believe Europe needs to be working together and any cross-border enterprise, however flawed, is a step in the right direction. We may not vote for the people who run it, but we vote for the people who appoint the people who run it, and democracy at one remove is (as the US electoral college system shows) a perfectly acceptable compromise when dealing with large unwieldy political entities.
Complain about this comment
oldnat (#270), interesting point. I just looked up the European Parliament, and noticed that there is a bias in representation in favor of the smaller states.
Complain about this comment
Actually, in a parliamentary system the dominant party forms a kind of electoral college. The voters don't elect the prime minister directly, they vote for their representatives, who in turn select the party leader who becomes prime minister.
If Wikipedia is correct, the British Labor party uses a kind of electoral college to select its party leader. So, with a Labor government a British voter is even more distanced from his or her head of government than is an American voter. It's just that the American system is codified in the constitution.
Complain about this comment
potatoman65 writes ", I blame the anti-war groups that have endlessly propagandised about - among other things - those you have mentioned, e.g. that the UK and USA are anti-muslim."
Funny, the common note of the current campaign is that Obama is a muslim and that is supposed to disqualify him among many people and also is hurled as an insult.
Hard to believe US is not anti-muslim. I personally came across so many that said that they will not vote for Obama because he is a muslim.
I am no fan of muslims but your comment is incorrect. The anti-muslim sentiment was a lot stronger just before the Iraq war. So it qualifies to be one reason for invasion especially since it was picked ahead of North Korea a country that actually has/had WMDs.
Complain about this comment
Continuation of 275,
I wonder what the standard is/was for invading a foreign country.
1. Not a democracy
2. WMDs
3. Threat
4. Mass killing citizens
5. Persecution of religious people
I guess Iraq satisfied conditions 1 3 and 4, but China satisfies all four, the fourth being supported by Tiananmen Square among many others.
Complain about this comment
270. oldnat.
I don't think the electoral college system is unfair. If we were to base the election on the popular vote some states would not be represented. This is a union and states' rights are important.
Under the preent system each state has at least three votes. Were we to switch to popular vote then views of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, and Alaska would count for naught. I take that back about Alaska. Is there some way we can unstate her?
Complain about this comment
oldnat, you should know very well that any election for any president of the EU will be re-run until the right candidate is elected - and they wil be French.
Complain about this comment
#18 regular_josephina
Hello. I was just wondering how you could say "The electoral college is an out dated system", when you freely admit that you have no idea how it works.
Complain about this comment
The electoral college system that we have is often debated during elections but it seems to me that it mostly works and has for all these many years.
My worry at this time is that some voters may lose their votes or be discouraged from voting. Every voice should be heard.
Complain about this comment
#275 karrapavin,
You are incorrect when you try to characterize the US as an "anti Muslim people".
We are not anti Muslim, we are anti Muslim fanatics...big difference.
We don't hold the many Muslims who live here peacefully guilty for what their crazy brethren do any more than we blame Americans of German decent for what the Nazi's did.
Whens the last time you heard of Muslims being harassed in any way over here?
It's not good to generalize.
Complain about this comment
#265 oldnat,
Thank you for your honesty and sense of fair play.
Complain about this comment
To#277Allmymarbles
Does not her family want Alaska to leave the union? We could throw a party!
But would that be kind to the many good people who may not agree with her?
Maybe those who want to be 'separate' could find an agreeable ice floe to inhabit until it melted.
Complain about this comment
235 et al
Oh, sorry, guns; StephenDerry explained it: 'meedjah' is British-English pronunciation of 'media' especially when somebody wants to be sarky about them. (Us? Me?) (Oh, I mean sarcastic.)
And just to confuse you even more, I call a 'garaaj' a 'garridge' too. As does everybody brought up in't north. Even Muslim boys and girls in Bradford or Blackburn.
(Er, 'in the' north of England that means, not necessarily the same as the north of Britain--that's Scotland. Also not to be confused with 'North Britons'. I think they were Picts, or Scots, possibly, I'm a bit hazy about that.)
I pronounce the software 'garridge band;' an' all. Um, that means 'as well'.' And a truck isn't a lorry, where I come from either, it's a wagon.
(I see we're getting into that very confused ethnicity thing again, somehow.)
Oh, and 265: I like that. so much I think it really needs quoting here.
"Having spent the better half of the millennium turning the world into their personal litter box, where do the English get off blaming everything on America?
"After all, whose imperialistic shenanigans is Osama bin Laden really trying to avenge? Whose landgrabbing ways put the Palestinians and Israelis at each others throats? Who invented machine guns, wage slavery and concentration camps?
The closer you look at English history, the more you realize they're in no position to be pointing fingers." [The blurb from Steve A Grasse's 'The Evil Empire'.]
I see from his bio that "Steven's ancestors first came to America back in the early 1600s to escape British persecution, and have been striking back against their oppressors for hundreds of years. They have fought in every major U.S. conflict, including the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, both against the British."
'Litter box'? You see, we're pussycats after all really.
I seem to have read this sort of thing somewhere else. . .He contributes here, doesn't he? Let's all guess :-)
Complain about this comment
"267. At 10:26pm on 22 Oct 2008, Sankari wrote:
Post #257; DominickVila wrote: "Ref 180
"I blame the anti-war groups that have endlessly propagandised about - among other things - those you have mentioned, e.g. that the UK and USA are anti-muslim."
What are people to conclude when our own President referred to the invasion of Iraq as a crusade?"
He didn't. He referred to a "crusade against terrorism".
His exact words were: "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile".
Visiting a mosque some days later, he said: "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about".
Frankly, I don't really care if he believes any of this or not. The bottom line is that he didn't refer to the war on Iraq as a "crusade".
In any case, if someone wanted to wage war against Muslims, why would they choose Iraq - a SECULAR Arab state? It doesn't make any sense; it would be like invading Pakistan as "a crusade against Christians"; simply irrational.
With so many Muslim states to choose from (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc.) there is no logic to invading Iraq as a blow against Muslims.
I'm all for bashing America when she does wrong (and goodness knows she USUALLY does wrong), but let's at least try to keep our facts straight.
The USA did not invade a Muslim state, she did not invade for religious reasons, and she did not describe her invasion as a "crusade".
Sorry plenty of Americans referred to the invasion of Iraq as a crusade ( a religious crusade). As for Iraq being a secular state, this is true, but since a large chunk of the Amreican electorate did not even know where teh country was, this intelligence probably escaped them.
The simple equation pumped out by the media and the ruling clique was: Arabs/moslems= bad/weak, easily beaten, Iraq is moslem and Arab = bad, opportunity provided for invasion by 9/11.
Some nerocons close to the heart of the US government have openly admitted they were on a crusade to "democratize the ME"
by whihc they meant bringing it under US domination by force.
Complain about this comment
274: timohio
The leader of the Labour Party (and most major political parties these days) is elected by a ballot of members (including members of affiliated organisations, in the case of the Labour Party).
Obviously the UK Parliament is elected directly by the electorate, and the government is almost always the party with the most Members of Parliament, whoever happens to be leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister.
We don't elect a Prime Minister in the UK, we elect a parliament, it is up to the party or parties forming the government as to who becomes Prime Minister. The executive nominally remains the unelected Queen, but in effect the role is held by the Prime Minister so long as he retains the confidence of Parliament. Parliamentary supremacy is key in our constitution.
Complain about this comment
"196. At 4:54pm on 22 Oct 2008, chill0 wrote:
#172 Simon21
Negotiation ?
With whom ? He had weapons inspectors in Iraq whom he constantly thwarted by the designation of 'presidential palaces' etc. All he needed to do was help them."
You asked the question, you got your answer.
Better negotiation, using real intelligence, not wishful thinking.
Not making up theories about imports from Nigeria for example.
Consulting with the Iranians.
You asked for alternatives to war and there were plenty.
War was a deliberate choice whihc has seen the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Sankari,
Huh? You just twice quoted him saying it was. He just didn't Capitalise it, but that's because he's functionally illiterate.;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
I got a little bored with the level of misinformation in this thread. It seems to me that chill0 is putting quite a bit of effort in but his [her?] detractors aren't always responding in kind.
dceilar: "The US was helping Saddam ascertain [attain?] nuclear energy until Israel destroyed the power station."
Concerning the Orirak reactor, plucked from the pages of Wikipedia:
"In addition to the reactor, construction, and technical assistance, the French sold around 28 lb (12.5 kg) of 93% highly enriched uranium fuel (HEU), the usual fuel world-wide for research-type reactors at that time, to the Iraqi government."
So not the US after all. The French, in fact...
[I note that chill0 has already pointed this out in #161]
Simon21: "Not sure what the point your making is. The UAE states have changed governments relatively peacefully."
Again, from the pages of Wikipedia:
"The Presidency and Premiership of the United Arab Emirates is de facto hereditary to the Al Nahyan clan of Abu Dhabi and the Al Maktoum clan of Dubai... ...Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan was the union's president from the nation's founding until his death on November 2, 2004. The Federal Supreme Council elected his son, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, president the next day. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan is the heir apparent."
Doesn't look much like "a change of government" (and certainly not "regime change") to me, so as far as I'm concerned you're still "on the hook" for backing up your comment about peaceful regime change in Arab countries.
Simon21: "'rulers of Iraq had changed before only by coup, which is how Saddam Hussein came to power.'
Yes and as far as I am aware this has not resulted in deaths of many thousands."
Unless you are claiming this should be restricted to the relatively small number of summary executions during the coup, this is patently false. Saddam was responsible for initiating the Iran-Iraq war (million+ lives), the notorious Anfal campaign (conservatively ~50,000 lives) and the crushing of the Shia uprising in 1991 (conservatively ~80,000) as well as a steady (estimated ~10,000/yr) elimination of opponents of the regime at all levels, from generals on down to ordinary officials and civilians.
Complain about this comment
#256. StephenDerry: "If we pronounced garage "gar-raaj" we'd sound too French and no-one would vote for us (Kerry, 2004).
If you're a Real American you should buy your all from a garridge."
You may be British since you used the pound rather than a dollar sign when posting about "Split Decision", but in all the forty one years I've lived in the Golden State, I've never heard a "Real American" pronounce it "garridge" - usually it's "ga-raaj". It's like "deepoh" and "deppoh" - Cole Porter wrote a sing about it - "you say tomahto, I say tomayto . . ."
Complain about this comment
British-ish,
I thought it was waggon, but my (gb) spellcheck tells me wagon....and the Scots (Scotii) were Irish.
And on the matter of 'democracy', the present UK government was elected by slightly more than one third of the total popular vote.
Just for information.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
I think this forum should have a requirement to identify where the posters are.
Complain about this comment
Too Sexy!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
281 Yankeefreedom76,
I made a point and substantiated with observations. IF US is against anti-muslim fanatics only and anti-muslim in general then the argument against Obama would have been :we can not vote for him because he is an anti-muslim fanatic". But the argument simply is "he is a muslim".
That should clarify things quite a bit. Remember that this is national election and a political party is able to get away towing "he is a muslim" line. What do you think that means?
Complain about this comment
#291. Ed Iglehart wrote: "I thought it was waggon, but my (gb) spellcheck tells me wagon....and the Scots (Scotii) were Irish."
Your GB spellcheck is probably of American origin; this entry supports you:
American Heritage Dictionary
waggon - wag·gon (wag'?n)
n. & v. Chiefly British
Variant of wagon
Complain about this comment
re. 286. StephenDerry:
I suppose my point was that in neither the US nor the UK is the head of the government directly elected. Most democracies have some form of mediation between the popular will and the realities of governing. So anyone complaining about the problems of the electoral college should look around and realize that there has rarely been an actual democracy. Even the Athenian state moderated the popular will by means of a property requirement.
I think the worst of all possible forms of democracy are those parliamentary systems where there are numerous parties and no one party is able to form a majority government. That allows splinter parties to have clout way beyond their actual representation when coalition governments are formed. And that is not usually terribly good for the country as a whole.
re. 292, exsquidao:
"I think this forum should have a requirement to identify where the posters are."
Other than convenience, I don't see why they should. Does location confer some greater authority? But I, for one, already have listed my location with my online name.
re. 294. karrapavan:
I don't think the national campaign making insinuations about Obama as a Muslim is getting away with anything. They have publicly been called out by members of their own party and they're about to lose the election. That amounts to a pretty big repudiation of that tactic by the electorate.
Complain about this comment
correctection to 294
281 Yankeefreedom76,
I made a point and substantiated with observations. IF US is against anti-muslim fanatics only and not anti-muslim in general then the argument against Obama would have been "we can not vote for him because he is an anti-muslim fanatic". But the argument simply is "he is a muslim".
That should clarify things quite a bit. Remember that this is national election and a political party is able to get away towing "he is a muslim" line. What do you think that means?
Complain about this comment
Justin Webb predicted on UK radio at the end of 2007 that McCain would win the Presidency - I think he's finding it hard to admit he was wrong! He had McCain matched against Clinton, so he'd evidently "misunderestimated" Obama. Come on Justin: Obama's got a clear lead in the national polls and the swing states, he's got many times more money to spend, he has many more volunteer workers, McCain has had to withdraw from states he was contesting, and the public focus is on the economy. Baring a spectacular event, or cheating on a large scale, Obama is going to win.
Complain about this comment
"I think the worst of all possible forms of democracy are those parliamentary systems where there are numerous parties and no one party is able to form a majority government. That allows splinter parties to have clout way beyond their actual representation when coalition governments are formed. And that is not usually terribly good for the country as a whole." - timohio
Right, that's why Denmark and the Netherlands are currently full of starving rioters, I suppose.
Complain about this comment
Borrowing a phrase from journalist Bob Ceska, McCain's "reptilian darting tongue" alone disqualifies him from the Oval Office.
Complain about this comment
McCain's VP choice was probably the only thing keeping him in the race. Even republicans don't like McCain, but they do like Palin.
The reality is that they're all either mad , incompetent, or villains. God save us all.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"I believe his post-presidential conduct should serve as a guide for other Presidents to emulate."
Yes, I guess that becoming a laughing stock who hates Israel is a good guide for other Presidents to emulate.
Complain about this comment
"I don't think the national campaign making insinuations about Obama as a Muslim is getting away with anything. "
Please refresh my memory...when did the national GOP campaign make any insinuations about Obama being a muslim ? Evidence ? Quotes ?
Complain about this comment
"Baring a spectacular event, or cheating on a large scale, Obama is going to win."
All the evidence so far is that it is the Democrats who will benefit from any "cheating" at the polls.
The Democrat supporting ACORN are now under investigation in 11 states across America for voter fraud. Even the mainstream media are starting to take notice.
Complain about this comment
"Even republicans don't like McCain, but they do like Palin. "
Good point. McCain has done little to endear himself to the Republican base over the last few years. Instead he positioned himself as a liberal conservative and won plenty of media acclaim for his "maverick" approach. Sadly, the media only loved him when he was positioning himself against Bush or the base. Now he is running against the Obama the media have turned on him. Meanwhile, the base have admired Palin for some time and by picking her as his running mate, McCain boosted his whole campaign. If he wins this election it will be because she put the fight back into the GOP supporters. She will make an excellent VP.
Complain about this comment
AS for Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama. ...what a surprise. Powell has moved further and further to the left over the last few years (not that he was very conservative to begin with). He waited until two weeks before the election, figured he saw which way the wind was blowing and jumped ship, hoping to land himself a cushy job with an Obama administration. Powell is nothing if not an opportunist and he grabbed this one with both hands. Few in the GOP base will mourn his loss but it's funny how the Left who called him a "war criminal" a few years back are now prepared to accept him , "crimes" and all.
Complain about this comment
Post #288; Ed Iglehart wrote: "Sankari,
"What are people to conclude when our own President referred to the invasion of Iraq as a crusade?"
He didn't. He referred to a "crusade against terrorism".
His exact words were: "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile".
Frankly, I don't really care if he believes any of this or not. The bottom line is that he didn't refer to the war on Iraq as a "crusade"."
Huh? You just twice quoted him saying it was".
No I didn't. Read carefully, please.
The original claim was that Bush had described the war against Iraq as a crusade. I have since demonstrated that he did not. In a public speech on 16.09.2001, Bush referred to a "crusade against terrorism".
Here is the quote, in full context:
>>
We need to go back to work tomorrow and we will. But we need to be alert to the fact that these evil-doers still exist. We haven't seen this kind of barbarism in a long period of time. No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft - fly U.S. aircraft into buildings full of innocent people - and show no remorse.
This is a new kind of -- a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient.
>>
(Full text of the speech is here: http://tinyurl.com/4k4ef).
Notice the complete absence of any references to Iraq.
Remember, this was in 2001 - TWO YEARS BEFORE the invasion of Iraq, and two years before Iraq was even a public talking point.
Iraq was not mentioned anywhere in his speech, a war against Iraq was not mentioned anywhere in his speech, and he never once referred to a "crusade" against Iraq, nor did he refer to a war against Iraq as part of his "crusade against terrorism".
It is not disputed that he used the word "crusade". My point is that he did not use it in reference to Iraq. He was referring to the "war on terrorism" (or "crusade against terrorism", to use Bush's own words).
"He just didn't Capitalise it, but that's because he's functionally illiterate".
Very droll; but nevertheless true. The man is a complete simpleton.
Complain about this comment
Post #305; vivaelcid wrote: "The Democrat supporting ACORN are now under investigation in 11 states across America for voter fraud".
False. Irregularities occured in 9 states (not 11), and on each occasion it was ACORN that reported the fraud to the authorities. They also sacked the employees responsible.
Wikipedia article here: http://tinyurl.com/54o77a
An excerpt:
>>
ACORN's registration efforts have been investigated in a number of cities, in some cases as a result of ACORN-flagged registration forms; at least 21 ACORN employees in three states have been charged or convicted of voter registration fraud between 2004 and 2008.
Where ACORN has discovered potentially false voter registration forms provided by its workers, IT HAS FOLLOWED LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO SUBMIT THEM TO VOTER REGISTRARS BUT FLAGGED THEM AS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL ATTENTION BY VOTER REGISTRARS.
In San Diego County, California officials stated that during 2008, ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17 percent ? in contrast to a rate of less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations. This rate includes rejections for all errors on registration forms, whether innocent or intentional.
Investigations resulting in charges or convictions of ACORN voter-registration employees occurred in 2004 in Ohio; in 2005 in Colorado; in 2006 in Kansas City, Missouri; in 2007 in Washington state; and in St. Louis, Missouri in 2006.
Investigations that have not resulted in charges, or are still pending, have occurred in Lake County, Indiana; in Michigan in 2008; in Nevada in 2008; and in Missouri in 2008.
In the Washington case, ACORN agreed to pay King County $25 000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again.
ACCORDING TO THE PROSECUTOR, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], NOT AS AN ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF ELECTIONS."
During investigations, ACORN HAS PUBLICLY SUPPORTED THE INVESTIGATIONS of employees submitting fraudulent voter registration information, HAS FIRED THEM if evidence supports the charges, and has stated its concern with false information on registration forms.
**Officials have stated that ACORN has been cooperative in these investigations.**
>>
My emphasis. Pardon the use of capitals, but it's often the only way to ensure that people read the salient points.
Notice that the PROSECTUTORS AGREED that the intention of those who broke the rules was not to commit voter fraud, but simply to get paid whilst performing the least amount of work. These were lazy people; not corrupt people.
"Even the mainstream media are starting to take notice".
The mainstream media was all over this right from the start (hardly surprising, since it was ACORN that alerted them to it in the first place) and has now dropped it because everyone's realised that it's totally irrelevant to the election.
This is an old story, done to death. A complete non-issue.
Now, shall we talk about Al-Qaeda's endorsement of McCain? Article is here: http://tinyurl.com/6gfcfd
Enjoy.
Complain about this comment
Obamacans, you and your deity ( Obama ) are going down. For you spin masters and spin obsessed Obamazoids on this board, chew on this latest AP news.
WASHINGTON ? The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.
The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.
Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.
The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day.
"I trust McCain more, and I do feel that he has more experience in government than Obama. I don't think Obama has been around long enough," said Angela Decker, 44, of La Porte, Ind.
But Karen Judd, 58, of Middleton, Wis., said, "Obama certainly has sufficient qualifications." She said any positive feelings about McCain evaporated with "the outright lying" in TV ads and his choice of running mate Sarah Palin, who "doesn't have the correct skills."
The new AP-GfK head-to-head result is a departure from some, but not all, recent national polls.
Obama and McCain were essentially tied among likely voters in the latest George Washington University Battleground Poll, conducted by Republican strategist Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. In other surveys focusing on likely voters, a Washington Post-ABC News poll and a Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey have Obama up by 11 points, and a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center has him leading by 14.
Polls are snapshots of highly fluid campaigns. In this case, there is a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; that means Obama could be ahead by as many as 8 points or down by as many as 6. There are many reasons why polls differ, including methods of estimating likely voters and the wording of questions.
Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political science professor and polling authority, said variation between polls occurs, in part, because pollsters interview random samples of people.
"If they all agree, somebody would be doing something terribly wrong," he said of polls. But he also said that surveys generally fall within a few points of each other, adding, "When you get much beyond that, there's something to explain."
The AP-GfK survey included interviews with a nationally representative random sample totaling 1,101 adults, including 931 registered voters and 800 adults deemed likely to vote. For the entire sample, the survey showed Obama ahead 47 percent to 37 percent. He was up by five points among all registered voters, including the likely voters.
A significant number of the interviews were conducted by dialing a randomly selected sample of cell phone numbers, and thus this poll had a chance to reach voters who were excluded from some other polls.
It was taken over five days from Thursday through Monday, starting the night after the candidates' final debate and ending the day after former Secretary of State Colin Powell broke with the Republican Party to endorse Obama.
McCain's strong showing is partly attributable to his strong debate performance; Thursday was his best night of the survey. Obama's best night was Sunday, hours after the Powell announcement, and the full impact of that endorsement may not have been captured in any surveys yet. Future polling could show whether either of those was merely a support "bounce" or something more lasting.
During their final debate, a feisty McCain repeatedly forced Obama to defend his record, comments and associations. He also used the story of a voter whom the Democrat had met in Ohio, "Joe the Plumber," to argue that Obama's tax plan would be bad for working class voters.
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama told the man with the last name of Wurzelbacher, who had asked Obama whether his plan to increase taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year would impede his ability to buy the plumbing company where he works.
On Wednesday, McCain's campaign unveiled a new TV ad that features that Obama quote, and shows different people saying: "I'm Joe the Plumber." A man asks: "Obama wants my sweat to pay for his trillion dollars in new spending?"
Since McCain has seized on that line of argument, he has picked up support among white, married people and non-college educated whites, the poll shows, while widening his advantage among white men. Black voters still overwhelmingly support Obama.
The Republican also has improved his rating for handling the economy and the financial crisis. Nearly half of likely voters think their taxes will rise under an Obama administration compared with a third who say McCain would raise their taxes.
Since the last AP-GfK survey in late September, McCain also has:
_Posted big gains among likely voters earning under $50,000 a year; he now trails Obama by just 4 percentage points compared with 26 earlier.
_Surged among rural voters; he has an 18-point advantage, up from 4.
Doubled his advantage among whites who haven't finished college and now leads by 20 points. McCain and Obama are running about even among white college graduates, no change from earlier.
Made modest gains among whites of both genders, now leading by 22 points among white men and by 7 among white women.
Improved slightly among whites who are married, now with a 24-point lead.
Narrowed a gap among unmarried whites, though he still trails by 8 points.
McCain has cut into Obama's advantage on the questions of whom voters trust to handle the economy and the financial crisis. On both, the Democrat now leads by just 6 points, compared with 15 in the previous survey.
Obama still has a larger advantage on other economic measures, with 44 percent saying they think the economy will have improved a year from now if he is elected compared with 34 percent for McCain.
Intensity has increased among McCain's supporters.
A month ago, Obama had more strong supporters than McCain did. Now, the number of excited supporters is about even.
Eight of 10 Democrats are supporting Obama, while nine in 10 Republicans are backing McCain. Independents are about evenly split.
Some 24 percent of likely voters were deemed still persuadable, meaning they were either undecided or said they might switch candidates. Those up-for-grabs voters came about equally from the three categories: undecideds, McCain supporters and Obama backers.
Said John Ormesher, 67, of Dandridge, Tenn.: "I've got respect for them but that's the extent of it. I don't have a whole lot of affinity toward either one of them. They're both part of the same political mess."
AP Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson, AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and AP writer Alan Fram contributed to this report.
Complain about this comment
RE #306
I beg to differ--Palin will NOT make a good VP. She has been indicted on an ethics charge, which was an issue long before she was tapped as the VP candidate (you can look at the archives at the Anchorage Daily News). She has staffed her gubernatorial cabinet with people she went to high school with. She has cut funding for special needs children in the state of Alaska, despite her own child's Down syndrome. She has overturned the ban on aerial hunting of wolves and bears, a ban that the people of Alaska have passed twice. As mayor for the town of Wasilla (her job before she was governor), she ran up a $20 million dollar debt that this town of 8000 people will be paying off forever. Prior to her leadership, Wasilla had no debt. When the oil companies paid a larger dividend than expected to Alaska, she sent every resident a check. Nice in the short term, but those millions of dollars could have been used to strengthen public transportation or help underwrite the mail delivery (which happens by plane) to remote parts of the state which has been cancelled due to the expenses of the Iraq war.
Palin has a lot of TV presence and she is a shrewd politician, but her consistent short-term thinking is a great danger--we've already had enough of that in the US.
Complain about this comment
RE #310:
In my opinion, backed by some discussion with financial planners, taxes in the US will go up no matter who is elected. Remember the big bailout? The money has to come from somewhere.
Complain about this comment
"When the oil companies paid a larger dividend than expected to Alaska, she sent every resident a check. "
Nice butchering of the truth. Palin forced the oil companies to pay a windfall tax. If you can't even get that right how can we believe anything else you say about her ?
Complain about this comment
#116 Parrisia wrote:
to RomeStu (#66)
I am not saying that Grandma is faking it (...)
I am just saying that Obama is "over-reacting"
You're perfectly entitled to think Obama is over-reacting .... but it seems the rest of us think it is totally normal but for a man to take a short break to visit a sick relative. Shows a nicely human side, I feel.
Also can you imagine the fuss had he not gone. OOOh - what an unfeeling man, to ignore the illness of his poor sick Granny!!!
Oh, and THANK YOU for finally dropping the "white" tag to grandma - irrelevant as I said.
Complain about this comment
"Also can you imagine the fuss had he not gone. OOOh - what an unfeeling man, to ignore the illness of his poor sick Granny!!!"
She has been sick for quite a while. He didn't visit her on his little holiday jaunt a couple of weeks back, why is he going now? Everything he does is calculated to benefit his campaign. This is the man who accused this same poor sick granny of racism in a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the Rev Wright. Obama's creed is "by any means necessary".
Complain about this comment
#184. Gary_A_Hill wrote:
RomeStu (#52), the only system "proved to be faulty" in the 2000 election was the Florida ballotting system. They have since reworked their system to correct the problems that arose in 2000, and we will see if it has been fixed.
The electoral college may be peculiar, but it is not "faulty" and there are advantages to it as well as disadvantages. In any case, it cannot be abolished unless the small states agree to give up political power, which isn't going to happen.
Gary - I think in a 2 party system if the guy with fewer votes loses, then something is wrong.
I understand the history of the electoral college, but do not understand why all states do not spread their electoral votes by district, as with Maine and Nebraska. Then the "swing states" would not hold quite so many cards.
No system is perfect, but I believe that this is an easily correctable flaw. The USA has so much to offer the world, and another result like 2000 - for either side - will undermine what little international credibility the USA has left.
I really just want the best for you all!
Peace
Complain about this comment
RE #313
lol, guess you realized everything I said is dead on if you are only disputing "dividend" and "windfall tax." So then, every Alaskan got a check for $1200. Let's see, there's 670,000 Alaskans, times $1200, that comes to $804,000,000 which could have been invested in transportation, roads, schools, infrastructure, alternative energy, increased state trooper presence in rural Alaska, or countless other things which would benefit the state as a whole.
Complain about this comment
RE #315
I would say Obama's visit to his grandmother falls under the same category as Palin's daughter's pregnancy. It's a personal family issue and not relevant to the presidential race.
Complain about this comment
#260 and others - voting machines turn dem votes into republican votes.
Should we not simply send in a crack team of UN peacekeepers and observers to oversee the smooth running of this election to enable a smooth transition to democracy!!!!!
Complain about this comment
#266 timohio wrote:
"It would take an amendment to the constitution to eliminate the electoral college, and that is deliberately difficult to do."
Could not more individual states decide unilaterally to adopt the Maine/Nebraska system of apportionning electorals according to district?
Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
Post #313; vivaelcid wrote: "Palin forced the oil companies to pay a windfall tax".
Correct. And she sent a $3,200 dividend to everyone who had lived in Alaska for a year (see the article here: http://tinyurl.com/56fqaw). I guess she believes in "sharing the wealth"!
Windfall taxes are a classic socialist strategy and the "dividend" payments were a classic example of pork-barrel politics.
Palin has her snout and both trotters in the trough. We both know this, and you've just tacitly admitted it.
Complain about this comment
TIME TO WAKE UP MR WEBB!!!!!!!!
WE HAVE THE "NORTH AMERICAN UNION" TAKING PLACE IN A FEW YEARS TIME......
CANADA..USA AND MEXICO JOIN IN A UNION WITH A NEW CURRENCY .... THE AMERO..
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH ACTOR "WINS" THE US ELECTION...THIS UNION WILL HAPPEN...ALL SCRIPED MANY YEARS IN ADVANCE.....
WHEN WILL YOU BE GIVEN YOUR SCRIPT TO READ AND SAY THE WORDS...
"NORTH AMERICAN UNION"
"NEW CURRENCY"
Complain about this comment
#322 Nomorefakenews
"WE HAVE THE "NORTH AMERICAN UNION" TAKING PLACE IN A FEW YEARS TIME......
CANADA..USA AND MEXICO JOIN IN A UNION WITH A NEW CURRENCY .... THE AMERO..
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH ACTOR "WINS" THE US ELECTION...THIS UNION WILL HAPPEN...ALL SCRIPED MANY YEARS IN ADVANCE....."
Leaving aside the obvious responses questioning your mental health I'm intrigued as to what the problem would be with this? Nations come, nations go; in the last 20 years the GDR, Yugoslavia, and the USSR have all vanished from the map.
Of course given its debts its far more likely that China will simply file a foreclosure notice on the USA and seize the entire property; 'from sea to shining sea'.
Complain about this comment
Sankari,
When is a crusade not a crusade? A trip to the beach is still a trip, isn't it?
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Meeeeeeeooooowwww!
U. S. NEWS
Bush Nationalizes Banks
Challenges Russia to do same.
Secret Memos Revealed: White
House Endorsed Torture
Confirms suspicions of critics, academics, casual observers, men, women, children.
FBI: Not Enough Agents to
Investigate Wall St. Fraud
Most were reassigned to look into ACORN.
Peace and Hominy
ed
Complain about this comment
Post #324; Ed Iglehart wrote: "Sankari,
When is a crusade not a crusade?"
When it fails to meet the definition.
"A trip to the beach is still a trip, isn't it?"
Sure, but only if a trip to the beach is actually made. If I walk to the shops and someone calls it an "epic journey to Africa", does that make my walk to the shops an epic journey to Africa? Of course it doesn't.
When George Bush said "this crusade, this war against terrorism", did this mean he expected millions of Christians to rise up and invade Muslim nations for the sake of Christ? Of course it doesn't.
Did millions of Christians rise up to invade Muslim nations for the sake of Christ, as part of the "war against terrorism"? No, they did not.
Did George Bush describe the war on Iraq as a "crusade"? No, he did not.
Did the USA and her European allies invade Iraq for the sake of religion? No, they did not.
Is the war on Iraq a crusade? No, it is not.
Complain about this comment
Most pundits seem to have written Mcain off in this election. Most are infact bullish enough to predict a landslide for Obama. I have studied and tried to analyze the latest AP survey and it just leaves me more confused as to how Obama could be leading Mcain in the polls when the indices employed show that the reverse is the case. I have thus come to the conclusion that any of my following assertions must be correct.
1. The polls must be faulty and aimed at deceiving Mcain.
2. Obama?s camp and democrats must believe that if you tell a lie long enough it will become truth. I believe that they have become a victim of their own spin.
3. It must be, that there is a grand conspiracy to deceive Obama into believing he is going to win the elections only to humiliate him at the polls.
Lets analyze the data as released by AP again
Since the last AP-GfK survey in late September, McCain also has:
_Posted big gains among likely voters earning under $50,000 a year; he now trails Obama by just 4 percentage points compared with 26 earlier.
_Mcain has Surged among rural voters; he has an 18-point advantage, up from 4.
Mcain has Doubled his advantage among whites who haven't finished college and now leads by 20 points. McCain and Obama are running about even among white college graduates, no change from earlier.
Mcain has Made modest gains among whites of both genders, now leading by 22 points among white men and by 7 among white women.
Mcain has Improved slightly among whites who are married, now with a 24-point lead.
Mcain has Narrowed a gap among unmarried whites, though he still trails by 8 points
McCain has cut into Obama's advantage on the questions of whom voters trust to handle the economy and the financial crisis. On both, the Democrat now leads by just 6 points, compared with 15 in the previous survey.
Obama still has a larger advantage on other economic measures, with 44 percent saying they think the economy will have improved a year from now if he is elected compared with 34 percent for McCain.
Intensity has increased among McCain's supporters.
A month ago, Obama had more strong supporters than McCain did. Now, the number of excited supporters is about even.
Eight of 10 Democrats are supporting Obama, while nine in 10 Republicans are backing McCain. Independents are about evenly split.
Some 24 percent of likely voters were deemed still persuadable, meaning they were either undecided or said they might switch candidates. Those up-for-grabs voters came about equally from the three categories: undecideds, McCain supporters and Obama backers.
Can someone please enlighten me as to where Obama?s landslide is going to come from, pleassssss
Complain about this comment
The far-right has destroyed the sense a great man once had.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sankari,
Did Shrub call The War Against Terrorism (check the acronym) a Crusade?Yes!
Was that an unfortunate word to use?
Yes!
Has it paid dividends to recruiters for "terrorists"?
Yes!
Has it made our world safer for anyone?
No!
Is it time for Change?
Yes!
Can we do it?
YES!
Roll ON November 5th! and the bonfire of the neocons.
Complain about this comment
"When is a crusade not a crusade?"
When it fails to meet the definition."
But what is your definition?
"A trip to the beach is still a trip, isn't it?"
Sure, but only if a trip to the beach is actually made. If I walk to the shops and someone calls it an "epic journey to Africa", does that make my walk to the shops an epic journey to Africa? Of course it doesn't."
Rather silly and very subjective. If you were disabled and had to crawl it might well be an epic trip.
"When George Bush said "this crusade, this war against terrorism", did this mean he expected millions of Christians to rise up and invade Muslim nations for the sake of Christ? Of course it doesn't. "
He used the word crusade and at no time in the crusades did millions of christians ever invade the east.
Crusades took place against the Albigensians and the moors and the Byzantine Christians.
"Did George Bush describe the war on Iraq as a "crusade"? No, he did not.
Did the USA and her European allies invade Iraq for the sake of religion? No, they did not."
Either you were not reading newspapers a or not listening to the airwaves, reading the blogs but millions in those countries used that term exactly, some in the military.
"Is the war on Iraq a crusade? No, it is not."
Really well many of the people on the receiving end feel differently and describe it in just those terms - christian armies under an avowedly christian president invading a moslem country.
No the armies did not come on the call of the Pope and they did not ride horses however the Iraq adventure fits pretty well with the definition of a crusade.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
"324. At 12:55pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Sankari,
When is a crusade not a crusade? A trip to the beach is still a trip, isn't it?
;-)
ed
The Iraq adventure does fit this definition albeit the Pope was not involved.
But it was a christian army, some of whom called the adventure a crusade, , under an avowedly christian leader invading a moslem country.
Complain about this comment
The election of Obama would go some way to putting out the anti-American fires that continue to range in some parts of the world. It would make it much harder for the Islamists to recruit. Sarah Palin makes George Bush look like a moderate. She said yesterday that "God will do the right thing on Nov 4th"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSHsM9OzHGE
Here we see the two sides of America come face to face.
New midwestern polls indicate a landslide
http://www.bigtenpoll.org/
Complain about this comment
"327. At 2:36pm on 23 Oct 2008, icetayoa wrote:
"Can someone please enlighten me as to where Obama?s landslide is going to come from, pleassssss "
From the people who are going to vote, next question.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu (#320), yes, any state can individually adopt the "Maine plan." It is difficult to do in a large state which tends to vote in a particular way, however. That is simply because the dominant party wants all the electoral votes for their candidate.
For example, a group in California tried to get this through a couple of years ago. It was widely seen as a Republican effort, and the Democrats all opposed it.
Complain about this comment
"327. At 2:36pm on 23 Oct 2008, icetayoa wrote:
Most pundits seem to have written Mcain off in this election. Most are infact bullish enough to predict a landslide for Obama. I have studied and tried to analyze the latest AP survey and it just leaves me more confused as to how Obama could be leading Mcain in the polls when the indices employed show that the reverse is the case. I have thus come to the conclusion that any of my following assertions must be correct.
1. The polls must be faulty and aimed at deceiving Mcain.
2. Obama?s camp and democrats must believe that if you tell a lie long enough it will become truth. I believe that they have become a victim of their own spin.
3. It must be, that there is a grand conspiracy to deceive Obama into believing he is going to win the elections only to humiliate him at the polls."
Alternatively, and more realistically, we might conclude that you are indulging in frantic straw clutching as your preferred candidate's campaign goes down the tubes.
Desperately trying to find some light in the gathering gloom.
Complain about this comment
MARCUS AURELIUS: Obama will elected Captain of the Titanic? Sorry, mack - don't think so! Regardless of who gets elected, the US is still very much a going concern! In fairness, I think we've proven that time and again . . .
Complain about this comment
#327 icetayoa
(Wo?)man, you'd better get some help, fast, to get over that denial. When the Obama landslide rolls and CHANGE happens, you're in danger of following the psychological curve of change resisters into deep deep depression.
You're in fantasyland, and it's not healthy; believe me.
Complain about this comment
330. At 3:23pm on 23 Oct 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Sankari,
" Is the war on Iraq a crusade? No, it is not."
Did Shrub call The War Against Terrorism (check the acronym) a Crusade?
Yes!
Was that an unfortunate word to use?
Yes!
Has it paid dividends to recruiters for "terrorists"?
Yes!
Has it made our world safer for anyone?
No!
Is it time for Change?
Yes!
Can we do it?
YES!
Roll ON November 5th! and the bonfire of the neocons.
no we can't
yes we CAN
no we can't
WE CAN
;)
Complain about this comment
#334, 336 & 338.
Dont beef the messenger, beef the message. i did not manufacture the news i pasted, so you can read it freely from most news media website.
From analysing their data, i am at a loss as to where Obama's landslide is going to come from. please bear in mind that the AP is where is most credible media outfits get their breaking news from.
Complain about this comment
Hi Scribe,
Thank you. You probably know that Presidential candidates are always briefed on national security and other issues in preparation for office. Biden heard, for the first time, of five or six potential areas that terrorists plan to target if they perceive US military weakness. Only Biden thought that we'd have a 9/11-like attack within six-months IF and only IF Obama is elected and becomes Commander in Chief. Biden prefaced his comments with "I guarantee." That was his very own conclusion about his very own candidate, O. It's premised on the truth that Obama is weak, and therefore Biden's conclusion is credible. Then, Biden asked O's supporters at the fundraiser to please don't do to Obama what you did to Bus--because Obama, Biden said, will handle the attack in a way that might hurt his poll numbers. He told a group of money supporters that O's response would not appear to be the right thing to do and that O will become extremely unpopular.
It's possible O will handle the attack just like Bush, and if so, I will support him. However, if O lets terrorists invade our land and kill people, then, of course, I'll defend people's lives. Too bad O's poll numbers would drop, though, huh? Biden must be staying awake at night worried about poll numbers while his warning has scared the hell out of many Americans. You prepare differently for each scenario (either the US Military defends you, or you defend you), and it is wise to take Biden seriously and plan for each case IF O is elected.
Rush speculated that Biden was bragging and puffed up. He wanted to appear important and like he knows things nobody else does at a fund raiser. He already is known worldwide as a big mouth and gaffe machine, but this isn't a gaffe. He really was briefed by Bush, and he really made an accurate prediction based on known facts of O's weakness. Less than six-months ago Biden was criticizing O's past statements and votes in Congress as wrong-headed and weak concerning our troops, the surge, and the war on terror. You can google it if it's news for you. That's why we take it seriously even though we know Biden was 'running his mouth.' I'm scared. I hope people of goodwill are praying for us.
Complain about this comment
Justin has explained why the AP poll is more weighted in McCain's favour than the other polls.
But your point about a landslide stands, several BBC reporters are sticking to the "McCain can still win the electoral college" line, Obama is off the stump for a couple of days, and a week and a half is a long time in politics.
A landslide for Obama is one possible outcome. A modest win for Obama, a narrow win for Obama, and a narrow win for McCain are also possible outcomes (some more likely than others). But I think we can all agree that if anyone is going to get a landslide it is not going to be McCain.
Obama is favourite, he will probably win, and will probably have electoral college votes to spare. But "probably" is not the same as "certainly" and anyone claiming advance knowledge of the result is putting their reputation on the line.
Complain about this comment
Okay, icetayoa. If it's numbers you want to see, here are some to-date figures from fivethirtyeight, the in-depth poll analysis website.
A lot of pro-Obamans comment on there, but this one is from a GOP-leaning pollster called Zogby
"If Obama wins like this we can be talking not only victory but realignment: he leads by 27 points among Independents, 27 points among those who have already voted, 16 among newly registered voters, 31 among Hispanics, 93%-2% among African Americans, 16 among women, 27 among those 18-29, 5 among 30-49 year olds, 8 among 50-64s, 4 among those over 65, 25 among Moderates, and 12 among Catholics (which is better than Bill Clinton's 10-point victory among Catholics in 1996). He leads with men by 2 points, and is down among whites by only 6 points, down 2 in armed forces households, 3 among investors, and is tied among NASCAR fans."
How do you like them apples, icetayoa?
Complain about this comment
340. At 5:57pm on 23 Oct 2008, icetayoa wrote:
#334, 336 & 338.
Dont beef the messenger, beef the message. i did not manufacture the news i pasted, so you can read it freely from most news media website.
From analysing their data, i am at a loss as to where Obama's landslide is going to come from. please bear in mind that the AP is where is most credible media outfits get their breaking news from."
You seem to getting more and more desperate. You think this poll is the voice of god?
And what do we mean by credible news organisations - Matt drudge?
Complain about this comment
"341. At 6:26pm on 23 Oct 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:
Hi Scribe,
Thank you. You probably know that Presidential candidates are always briefed on national security and other issues in preparation for office. Biden heard, for the first time, of five or six potential areas that terrorists plan to target if they perceive US military weakness. Only Biden thought that we'd have a 9/11-like attack within six-months IF and only IF Obama is elected and becomes Commander in Chief. Biden prefaced his comments with "I guarantee." That was his very own conclusion about his very own candidate, O. It's premised on the truth that Obama is weak, and therefore Biden's conclusion is credible. Then, Biden asked O's supporters at the fundraiser to please don't do to Obama what you did to Bus--because Obama, Biden said, will handle the attack in a way that might hurt his poll numbers. He told a group of money supporters that O's response would not appear to be the right thing to do and that O will become extremely unpopular.
"
The worrying thing is that people like you might be entitled to vote.
One wondered how the US could blunder into Iraq (costing it over 3000 citizens) etc
And then one reads your contributon and all is revealed.
Complain about this comment
#342
my point is,why dismiss one poll and not the other. Obama and the dems are more obsessed with the polls than Mcain and Reoubs are, and this speaks volume.
The bbc relies on the AP for breaking news, but doubts their authenticity and reliability when it comes to the US elections??
Give me a break!! thats called double standard.
i have never suggested that Mcain will win by a landslide, but i think to insinuate that Obama will win by one, is offensive to voters. There is a bias towards Obama by the media, and it becomes really ridiculous and shameful when they carry it to such absurd levels.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the media are influenced by the 4:1 new registrations ratio in Obama's favour, or the fact he gets 75,000 people attending rallies while McCain musters 6,000 in the same state, or that every poll (even your beloved AP poll) consistently shows Obama leading, and he is threatening states that voted Republican last time far more than McCain is threatening states which voted Democrat,
or that when Obama speaks his sentences make sense (grammatically and for many people, politically), or that international opinion (from that liberally-biased Outside World) is massively in favour of Obama, except for, erm, Al-Quaeda..?
Or perhaps it really is some massive liberal media conspiracy that has even got Fox reporting independent polls as though they were actual indicators?
Does McCain have some secret indicators that everyone is refusing to report on? If they have, the right-wing media are being just as coy about reporting them as the mainstream media!
Complain about this comment
Post #331; Simon21 wrote: "Rather silly and very subjective. If you were disabled and had to crawl it might well be an epic trip".
Not at all silly. If I'm going to the beach you can't call it Africa. Simple as that.
"He used the word crusade"
Yep, but not about the invasion of Iraq.
"and at no time in the crusades did millions of christians ever invade the east".
I never said they did.
"Crusades took place against the Albigensians and the moors and the Byzantine Christians".
And against the Muslims in Jerusalem. And Egyptian Alexandria. And against Antioch. To name just a few more.
The Crusades plunged deep into the Middle East.
"Either you were not reading newspapers a or not listening to the airwaves, reading the blogs but millions in those countries used that term exactly, some in the military".
"Millions in those countries"? You can prove this, can you? Which countries? How many millions? Who were these millions - political leaders, or just the average bloke in the street? "Some in the military"? Who in the military?
""Is the war on Iraq a crusade? No, it is not."
Really well many of the people on the receiving end feel differently and describe it in just those terms"
Irrelevant. Just because they "feel differently and describe it in just those terms", doesn't mean it is what they say it is. They can't change facts. Fear, hatred, prejudice and religious fundamentalism will always distort logical and rational judgement. Just look at some of Palin's supporters, for example.
Was Hitler's invasion of Poland a "crusade against Christianity"? Was the Pearl Harbour attack a "crusade against Caucasians"? Of course not. And even if we say that they were, this does not make it so.
"- christian armies"
What "Christian armies"? I don't see any "Christian armies". I wasn't even aware that there was still such a thing as "Christian armies". Can you show me where these alleged "Christian armies" are?
"under an avowedly christian president invading a moslem country".
Except that Iraq is not a Muslim country. It was - and still is - a secular nation. Hussein was particularly proud of this point, which helps to explain why his Muslim neighbours hated him so much.
"No the armies did not come on the call of the Pope and they did not ride horses however the Iraq adventure fits pretty well with the definition of a crusade".
Nonsense. It doesn't even come close.
Complain about this comment
"348. At 10:01pm on 23 Oct 2008, Sankari wrote:
Post #331; Simon21 wrote: "Rather silly and very subjective. If you were disabled and had to crawl it might well be an epic trip".
Not at all silly. If I'm going to the beach you can't call it Africa. Simple as that."
If the beach wasin Africa and anyway the trip may well be analagous
"He used the word crusade"
Yep, but not about the invasion of Iraq."
He ordered the invasion of Iraq, he used the word crusade to describe his policies.
"Crusades took place against the Albigensians and the moors and the Byzantine Christians".
And against the Muslims in Jerusalem. And Egyptian Alexandria. And against Antioch. To name just a few more.
The Crusades plunged deep into the Middle East."
No not that deep actually if you knew anything about the the subject. The Albigensions and moors (two of the most successful crusades) did not live anywhere near the ME at all. Niether did the Prussians etc.
And there was no crusade against Antioch after it was lost.
""Millions in those countries"? You can prove this, can you? Which countries? How many millions? Who were these millions - political leaders, or just the average bloke in the street? "Some in the military"? Who in the military?"
Does it matter, do you deny the fact, are you pretending you did not hear/see the word commonly used. The "average bloke in the street" matters in a western democracy does he not?
"Irrelevant. Just because they "feel differently and describe it in just those terms", doesn't mean it is what they say it is. They can't change facts. Fear, hatred, prejudice and religious fundamentalism will always distort logical and rational judgement. Just look at some of Palin's supporters, for example."
Sorry are you saying the victims voice does not matter? The people invaded see it as a crusade, but their opinion does not count. The term is widely used in the West, but again that apparently does not count.
Seems you restrict your arguement to what, the views of 20 people?
"Was Hitler's invasion of Poland a "crusade against Christianity"? Was the Pearl Harbour attack a "crusade against Caucasians"? Of course not. And even if we say that they were, this does not make it so."
Sorry this is garbled. Hitler certainly called his war against Russia "a crusade". Is this yet another case of ignoring evidence you do not like?
And yes it bore several hallmarks of a crusade. The soldiers were told they were fighting to eliminate godless communists.
"christian armies"
What "Christian armies"? I don't see any "Christian armies". I wasn't even aware that there was still such a thing as "Christian armies". Can you show me where these alleged "Christian armies" are?"
Certainly the US and UK. Ask their commanders of they are chrtistian armies from Christian countries.
What do you think they are Klingons?
Incidently do you think all those who took part in the original crusades were christian?
"Except that Iraq is not a Muslim country. It was - and still is - a secular nation. Hussein was particularly proud of this point, which helps to explain why his Muslim neighbours hated him so much."
Interesting so when Hussein had himself filmed praying in a mosque in Iraq and the film shown to Iraqis, he was being secular was he? Funny way of showing it.
Iraq is a moslem country, the mosques etc are a bit of a giveaway.
They celebrated Eid recently- another clue.
It may be another form of Islam to that you see in Saudi, but then again so is that practised in Indonesia - the biggest moslem country in the world.
Incidently Hussein's muslem nieghbours (some) hated him because they were afraid of him. Not because of his attitude towards Islam. Moslems are not completely obsessed by religion you know, like Christians they do have other considerations.
"Nonsense. It doesn't even come close."
Well learn something about what the crusades were (they went on for some time), look up basic facts on Iraq and then you might be able to argue effectively.
My point stands, the analogy is very close a christian army, commanded by a born-again christian president invaded a moslem country,with the aim of taking control of its resources.
Complain about this comment
The crusade thing is a red herring and doesn't deserve multiple paragraphs of explication. I can do it in two.
The original meaning of crusade (as in 12th century) was a holy war by Christians against the Turks. It does not mean the same thing today. Any campaign based on political, religious, ethical or moral grounds can be and often is termed a crusade, with no involvement by Christian, Moslem or even military antagonists required. Mary Whitehouse and Ralph Nader have both been described as crusaders, for example. Of course the word still has particular connotations in certain specific contexts (such as a war against Moslem antagonists) where it's use may be misleading, inflammatory, or political idiocy.
No-one, not even the most amoral, hawkish neo-con, seriously considers the war in Iraq to be a literal crusade in the 12th century meaning of the word, and any attempt to paint it as such is just as misleading as the smears about Obama that have characterised this election.
Complain about this comment
#297 karrapavin
Dear Karra,
What political party is attacking Obama for being a Muslim? Give some facts or proof please.
Did you not see McCain take the microphone right out of that woman's hand that called him an Arab and then defended him saying "he is a good and honorable man that need not be feared if elected President"?
99% of Americans don't think he is Muslim, and so what if he were? As long as he's not the kind that likes to fly planes into buildings.
Again I ask you, (this time please answer the question), When was the last time you saw or heard of Americans attacking or hurting our Muslim population?
With all due respect Karra, take off your anti- American glasses and notice how much clearer things are when you don't let hatred guide you. Good day.
Complain about this comment
"350. At 00:18am on 24 Oct 2008, StephenDerry wrote:
The crusade thing is a red herring and doesn't deserve multiple paragraphs of explication. I can do it in two.
"The original meaning of crusade (as in 12th century) was a holy war by Christians against the Turks. It does not mean the same thing today."
No by the twelfth century the meaning had become broader, indeed the actual meaning of crusade is open to dispute. There was no such word before the 1st in the 11th century and it is debateable if Pope Urban intended to unleash such campaigns. Originally the word for crusaders seeems to have been pilgrims
Crusades were carried out against heretics in Frane and Moors in Spain and the Prussians.
"Any campaign based on political, religious, ethical or moral grounds can be and often is termed a crusade, with no involvement by Christian, Moslem or even military antagonists required. "
True, but if the word has any historical meaning, then a chritian army invading a moslem country with the aim of controlling it by force much be included.
After all this is exactly what the first crusades sought to do.
"Mary Whitehouse and Ralph Nader have both been described as crusaders, for example. Of course the word still has particular connotations in certain specific contexts (such as a war against Moslem antagonists) where it's use may be misleading, inflammatory, or political idiocy. "
That may be true but it is not necessarily misleading.
"No-one, not even the most amoral, hawkish neo-con, seriously considers the war in Iraq to be a literal crusade in the 12th century meaning of the word, and any attempt to paint it as such is just as misleading as the smears about Obama that have characterised this election."
Crusades began in the 11th century with the most successful being the first. Many neocons, and their christian allies were fairlyopen about the term on blogs opinion coloumns etc.
And to those on the receiving end being invaded by a christian army, led by a Christian president whose aim was to control the country, this was a crusade.
Indeed recently a certain VP candidate spoke of the Iraq war as "God's will" she wasn't talking about the God of Islam.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
#229 (couple of threads ago) Belmons
Sorry to be boring about this but I hate to see things misrepresented.
You said H G Wells referred to the concentration camps in 1939 or thereabouts. There were concentration camps then but they were not killing people in the pseudo-industrial manner of 'The Holocaust'.
The Holocaust dates from the Wannsee conference run by Reinhard Heydrich early in 1942. It decided on 'The Final Solution' which was when the mass murder af the Jews and others began.
This is not a trivial distinction. People had been imprisoned before in large numbers without any intention to kill them all.
The term 'concentration camp' comes from the British camps established in South Africa during the Boer war. They were intended to deprive the Boers of support but due to maladministration many people died of starvation and disease in those camps.
Complain about this comment
This piece of digression is on the news about Obama suspending is Campaign for 2 days to be with his sick grandmother.
It reminds me of the 1st week of the current financial/economic crises, when the Bush administration were trying to hammer out the $700 billion bail-out package. Senator John Mcain opted to suspend his campaign for 2 days and return to Washington to help seal the deal. He also suggested that the 1st presidential debate be moved forward because of the crisis.
He was severely lampooned in the media for this and was heckled by the media into backtracking on the debate. He was labelled erratic by the media, Obama, the democrats and their apologists. I remember Obama himself saying that he was not going to suspend his campaign, and that as President of America, one should be able to deal with various competing issues at the same time. He also said that there was no better time for the electorate to hear from the candidates than during this period of crisis.
Fast forward to present day. I think its rather amusing that Obama did not hesitate at a whim to suspend his campaign in order to be with his sick grandmother. When asked about how he came to making the decision to suspend his campaign, he replied and I quote ?IT WAS EASY?. I wonder whatever happened to his quote about the president of America having to deal with various competing issues at the same time?? I guess he now remembers, that like Mcain, he is still a Senator and contestant for the presidency and not THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA.
What is most intriguing is that the choice is so easy for Obama. It is so easy for him to make a choice between providing leadership to the American people during this turbulent period and being with a sick relative. I guess Obama has safely come to the conclusion that the hero worshipping news media and the American people are retarded enough to give their deity a slap on the wrist for such bad judgement.
I have no problem with Obama rushing to be with a sick relative. However, what the American people need to remember is that, when the choice of projecting and protecting their interest clashes with Obama?s personal interest, sadly, their interest comes a distant last. Making that decision also comes very easy to him.
Complain about this comment
#211 (couple of threads ago) Sankari
Again sorry to be boring.
You said:
I do not disagree with you about the behaviour of Andrew Mackay in the Foreign Affairs committee.
The problem is that it is not entirely true to say that he was 'crucified by the British Govt'.
There is this which seems to have caused the maximum pressure in the committee meeting.
According to evidence from another journalist at the Hutton Inquiry, a Conservative MP loosely quoted David Kelly's own words back to him (presumably because they had been given to him by email) and he was forced to deny having said them.
Complain about this comment
353. At 11:14am on 24 Oct 2008, chill0 wrote:
#229 (couple of threads ago) Belmons
Sorry to be boring about this but I hate to see things misrepresented.
You said H G Wells referred to the concentration camps in 1939 or thereabouts. There were concentration camps then but they were not killing people in the pseudo-industrial manner of 'The Holocaust'.
The Holocaust dates from the Wannsee conference run by Reinhard Heydrich early in 1942. It decided on 'The Final Solution' which was when the mass murder af the Jews and others began.
This is not a trivial distinction. People had been imprisoned before in large numbers without any intention to kill them all.
The term 'concentration camp' comes from the British camps established in South Africa during the Boer war. They were intended to deprive the Boers of support but due to maladministration many people died of starvation and disease in those camps."
One has to be very careful of making split hair distinctions. No one openly proclaimed they wanted to annihlate the Tasmanian aborigines, but it still stands as a succefull genocide.
It has been part of the Holocaust industry's agenda to try and portray the holocaust (and Primo Levi, rightly, excoriated the term as blasphemous) as unique and it wasn't.
Regarding the concentration camps considerable caution is required. Bergen Belsen had no death chambers, but it fully deserves its foul reputation as does Dachau.
The Afrikaaners definitely considered the concentration camps to be death camps and "maladministration" can be just as effective killer as any form of slaughter
Complain about this comment
352 Simon
"That may be true but it is not necessarily misleading."
I'm glad you included the word "necessarily" because it validates my point!
We are so used to calling obsessive campaigns of any type "crusades" that it becomes easy to forget the etymology of the word. For people ignorant of history, world religion, and cultural sensitivity (this covers most neo-cons), it is safe to assume that use of the word is accidental rather than calculated - at least so far as official government spokespeople go (blogs and their ilk may indeed have a dedicated agenda to offend).
Besides, surely only the Pope has the authority to call an "official" crusade!
Complain about this comment
"357. At 03:13am on 26 Oct 2008, StephenDerry wrote:
352 Simon
"That may be true but it is not necessarily misleading."
I'm glad you included the word "necessarily" because it validates my point!
We are so used to calling obsessive campaigns of any type "crusades" that it becomes easy to forget the etymology of the word. For people ignorant of history, world religion, and cultural sensitivity (this covers most neo-cons), it is safe to assume that use of the word is accidental rather than calculated - at least so far as official government spokespeople go (blogs and their ilk may indeed have a dedicated agenda to offend).
Besides, surely only the Pope has the authority to call an "official" crusade!"
That is true to a certain a extent but given the vagaries of its original meaning a christian army invading a molsem country with the aim of controlling it under the aegis of a christian leader is the central definition of crusade.
Even the popular idea that the crusaders aimed to convert the Middle East etc is not actually true. All conquests were officially supposed to be handed over to the Byzantines, but unofficially it seems like conquest was always the aim of some of the leaders
As a protestant one couldnot expect for the US president to call on the pope, but he is the most powerful christian ruler.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if Mr McCain has said 'et tu, brute?' at any time in the last week?
Complain about this comment
Released: October 26, 2008
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: Obama 49.4%, McCain 44.1%
McCain gains as race continues to tighten
UTICA, New York ? Republican John McCain continues to gain on Democrat Barack Obama, reducing Obama?s lead to 5.3 points with just over a week to go before Election Day, the latest Reuters/C?SPAN/Zogby national daily tracking poll shows.
The race now stands at 49.4% to 44.1% in favor of Obama. Obama led McCain by 9.5 points in yesterday?s report.
?There is no question that this race continues to tighten and that McCain is finding his message again,? said Pollster John Zogby. ?It is after all about the economy and that is how McCain tightened it up the last time. I have said over and over again, when he focuses on extraneous issues, he screws up. In today's single day of polling, it was 49% to 46% in favor of Obama. McCain has moved his own numbers each of the three days and Obama has gone down from 54% to 50% to 49%. I have alluded before to this strange, magnetic pull that brings Obama down to 48% or 49%, a danger zone for him. McCain's gains are among white voters, where he now leads by 12 points, and with men, where he again has a healthy lead. There is still a lot of campaign to go
Complain about this comment
He must have been a great and a wonderful man....
--dennis junior--
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS