Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Sorry, I just calls em like I sees em...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDIsOqq6yko

Yeah me too LOL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...olmes-did.html

I never said the average voter was any smarter anywhere else mind.

Look, there's stupid people in every country. Trust me, I have no respect for the growing bible thumping masses in my country. But for the most part this country doesn't suck. I'm just tired of all the anti-america crap going on when the actions America took that everyone is griping about were unanimously endorsed by the UN.

There is plenty of revisionist history going on in the US too. I'm sure you've heard all the 'Bush Lied about Iraqi WMD' BS.

The democrats were agreeing on the WMD intelligence up until the 2004 elections. Then they conveniently found fault in the intelligence and it all suddenly became Bush's fault.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

And what do we say today? It's aaaaaaaall Bush's fault. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in people like yourself and

Originally Posted by buuren11

Anything is better than Bush

who have no grasp of the big picture.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

There is plenty of revisionist history going on in the US too. I'm sure you've heard all the 'Bush Lied about Iraqi WMD' BS.

The democrats were agreeing on the WMD intelligence up until the 2004 elections. Then they conveniently found fault in the intelligence and it all suddenly became Bush's fault.

You know there is a difference between the government party and the opposition party don't you?

The government party is in direct control of hte intelligence services, the president has pretty much hte highest security clearance there is, he can see everything. The opposition party only sees what is released to them by the security services controlled by the government party.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

You know there is a difference between the government party and the opposition party don't you?

The government party is in direct control of hte intelligence services, the president has pretty much hte highest security clearance there is, he can see everything. The opposition party only sees what is released to them by the security services controlled by the government party.

You know the opposition party was in power when many of the quotes above were made don't you?

When Clinton was president he also had direct access to intelligence services. Hillary also spoke of intelligence reports that she has seen. Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Sandy Berger also had access. Go back and read the quotes. Those were the assessments of the intelligence community that Bush inherited.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You know the opposition party was in power when many of the quotes above were made don't you?

When Clinton was president he also had direct access to intelligence services. Hillary also spoke of intelligence reports that she has seen. Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Sandy Berger also had access. Go back and read the quotes. Those were the assessments of the intelligence community that Bush inherited.

So what you are saying is that saddam could not possibly have got rid of his weapons after 4 years of UN inspections, and no new intelligence was gathered during that time.

Right, you're making more sense by the second.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

So what you are saying is that saddam could not possibly have got rid of his weapons after 4 years of UN inspections, and no new intelligence was gathered during that time.

Right, you're making more sense by the second.

Try and follow the thread of the conversation.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

And what do we say today? It's aaaaaaaall Bush's fault. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in people like yourself and burren11 who have no grasp of the big picture.

There has been NOTHING to show that all those people quoted above weren't wrong either. And it's not just up until the end of Clinton's term. AGAIN go look at the quotes. You can see democrats asserting that Iraq had WMD right up until 2002/2003. The fact is most everyone who had access to the intelligence data drew the conclusion that Iraq had WMD, yet Bush is singled out as the lone liar.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You can see democrats asserting that Iraq had WMD right up until 2002/2003.

Oh, after they were out of power and didn't have access to intelligence except what Bush and co released to them...

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Oh, after they were out of power and didn't have access to intelligence except what Bush and co released to them...

They? The democrats I referred to were IN power. As Ogryn1313 says, congress has the power. They control the budget. They approve presidential appointments. I don't suppose you realize the head of the CIA, George Tenet, during this time (2002) was appointed by Bill Clinton. He was kept on by the Bush administration until 2004 when all this WMD shit hit the fan.

So you're telling me that H. Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry and Carl Levin had no up to date information when they made those statements? John Edwards and Carl Levin were on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from 2001-2002 btw. But you're telling me these people did not have access to up to date information? Do you want to keep going with this rectal extrapolation of yours or do you want to take a while to actually research what you're talking about?

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yeah me too LOL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...olmes-did.html



Look, there's stupid people in every country. Trust me, I have no respect for the growing bible thumping masses in my country. But for the most part this country doesn't suck. I'm just tired of all the anti-america crap going on when the actions America took that everyone is griping about were unanimously endorsed by the UN.

There is plenty of revisionist history going on in the US too. I'm sure you've heard all the 'Bush Lied about Iraqi WMD' BS.

The democrats were agreeing on the WMD intelligence up until the 2004 elections. Then they conveniently found fault in the intelligence and it all suddenly became Bush's fault.




And what do we say today? It's aaaaaaaall Bush's fault. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in people like yourself and


who have no grasp of the big picture.

Clearly you have little knowledge of how the American government works. It is a two party system and there's always one in control until the other claims control. The control is in Congress, not the Presidency. It is not as if when a new president takes office all the work, intelligence, and other things from the previous administration are discarded.

Quite the contrary. Each successive president inherits everything from the previous. They take on their responsibilities, unfinished business, crisis, war, recession, whatever. And while in office they add to it.

See, it is a growing body work building on the past. And in some cases undoing the past. The point being that the man in office is essentially a caretaker. Picks up where the other left off. Continues the work or goes in a new direction.

The man in office is powerful. And much responsibility is on his shoulders. "The buck stops here." Problem is, in any government everyone wants to pass the buck.

What you fail to understand is that it is Congress that has more direct influence and actual impact on the daily lives of Americans. Congress is where the true power is. It is easy to pass the buck and blame on the president. Especially since he does have real power. But often, his failings stem from Congress, as Congress is in a perpetual feud with itself for control. Democrats want it. They get it. Reps want it. They get. Whoever is in office often has to wade through lots of red tape. Congress is the real problem in America. Especially the current one.

You, have much to learn about how this government works. Yet you don't want to learn. You want to complain. And the more you do the more evident your ignorance of the issues is apparent.

[hankhavelock]

Ogryn, my friend, I allowed my self to move your answer from another thread to this one, where I believe it's more appropriate if you don't mind.

You wrote:

I couldn't agree more with you.

Aside from only one thing:

Obama.

I'm of the opinion social change must come slowly. It cannot be rushed because of loose ends and the impact it has on people. America is an extremely diverse nation. We have every type of person imaginable and ever difference imaginable found here. Perhaps more so than most nations. And it is always a battle. I believe in serving the whole, the greater good, thus the majority rules. Minorities are a secondary consideration. This does not mean I support oppressing them or denying them their fair treatment and rights. Only that any sweeping change in our society should be carefully thought out, all options and ramifications considered and then eased into. Rapid and sudden change creates unforeseen issues.

And this is my problem with the far left and Obama's of the world.

The Europeans can sit and smugly condemn my nation for being backwards and less socially progressive. Europeans are exceptionally arrogant. Yet they forget something important:

European nations are older than America. They have had the benefit of several hundred years of time to "perfect" themselves. America is a baby in comparison.

Because I believe such change requires time, logically it stands to reason America has not had the time to "perfect" itself as Europe. It's relative to how old a nation is. And the problem with the champions of this kind of change in America are immature so to speak. They often just see a problem and immediately think up a solution then they want to make this solution happen. They don't care if it steps on other groups or has effects on the equality of all in terms of rights and civil liberties. They are rash and foolhardy.

Perhaps they're hearts on in the right place. But they need to slow down and consider everything. I'll cite Obama wanting to withdraw the troops in Iraq quickly. He has failed to show he has fully thought out all considerations and possible consequences. Liberals are slightly better at this kind of change as they tend to be more logical and fair than the far left who pretty much are hot headed, overly passionate dreamers who just rush into things.

So, if you can look at a European nation and American nation in terms of a whole (let's say for the sake of it all of the nation is one person) and compare age and experience, then clearly America needs to do some growing up. But we all know the dangers of growing up too quickly.

This is how I disagree with you. Everything else you said I agree with entirely.

I reply:


This is a matter of wanting evolutionary or revolutionary change - I believe that in the case of Obama, this is STILL evolutionary change... but it is a matter that will force Americans to look deeply into their democratic hearts and find in them selves the truth they want. Isn't it finally time, that we move a bit forward - even in steps that for some may seem inappropriately large?

Shifts of paradigms are always hurtful for those who strenouosly oppose them. George Bush and his administration are the last of a generation of thinking that goes back to the Civil War and an automated way to view American patriotism as the kind of patriotism decided by raw power and a fixed set of rules as to what is right and wrong.

The world has changed - not necessarily the fundamentals of right and wrong in a democratic sense - but in the way that other issues are now coming up that we didn't before have to deal with. In this regard the old guard is no longer useful. They are so rooted in their old school mindset that their solutions are wrong for a new world.

You mention Europe - and yes, European history goes milliennia further back than Caucasian and Afro American history. How ever, let us not kid ourselves here, American morale is rooted in European tradition and now luckily with an AfroAmerican touch. The basics are not very different. That's why America and Europe are for ever connected and will probably not be able to exist without each other.

But the religious right and their out-of-date ways cannot be something that you seriously defend as morally right. And there are no other ways to bring them forward and out of their holes than to force them them to scrutinize the moral of what they are preaching. Had it been communists or muslims, you would agree with me - now it's your fellow Americans, but some of them are as backwards as the illeterates of some village in Iran...

I believe we can objectively talk about right or wrong - and I believe we can fairly accuse folks of opposing new thinking because of their angst of what this new thinking may bring with it.

I love America, I have always defended America, but in this love is also an obligation to oppose stupidity, which is the fact of the last administration. George Bush, his wife and his administration have hurt not only American but western credibility tremendously due to a failed policy pressed upon American allies with force.

It will take years to fix that - but what I experience is a joy about Barack Obama and thus a way for America (and the rest of the west) to reestablish prudent leadership and credibility in a world that is somewhat more complicated than in the days of good old Ronald Reagan, whom I - even as a bleeding heart liberal - see as one of the most important presidents in the history of your nation EVER!

That's why I believe that change is needed - if it is only a symbol of change. Barack Obama can deliver that and is light years ahead in his thinking than John McCain - btw, I actually LIKE John McCain. He's just not the the right man for the job at the time. One could hope that he'd got elected 8 years ago. Then the world would most likely have nbeen better off. He had his kicks.. now we need more dramatic change!

Peace!

H