Discussion:
OT: Political - Well, he's been promising "change."
(too old to reply)
w***@gmail.com
2008-02-12 17:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Well this ought to make ya feel comfortable


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only&rss

A CHE GUEVARA FLAG IN OBAMA HEADQUARTERS? "Well, he's been promising
"change."


Don't cha just love it!

Tim Allman
Austin, Tx
Ed Jay
2008-02-12 22:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Well this ought to make ya feel comfortable
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only&rss
A CHE GUEVARA FLAG IN OBAMA HEADQUARTERS? "Well, he's been promising
"change."
Don't cha just love it!
Tim Allman
Austin, Tx
Gosh, Tim, I thought you guys would be too embarrassed about the schmuck you
elected to be casting aspersions on others, especially those who are so much
more qualified than anything the Republicans have put on the platter. :-)

Meanwhile...

On Reports of an Inappropriate Flag in a Texas Obama Office
February 12, 2008

From Houston Fox News:

"The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack
Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign."
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
John Wheaton
2008-02-12 23:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
I thought you guys would be too embarrassed about the schmuck you
elected to be casting aspersions on others, especially those who are so much
more qualified than anything the Republicans have put on the platter. :-)
Out of curiosity what Managerial/Executive experience does Obama have that
you feel would make him qualified?
memiki
2008-02-13 00:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Out of curiosity what Managerial/Executive experience does Obama have that
you feel would make him qualified?
It doesn't matter, John......he is refreshing, charming, intelligent,
and an inspiring speaker....and his wife is also refreshing, charming,
intelligent, and an inspiring speaker...............Miki
Ed Jay
2008-02-13 00:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
I thought you guys would be too embarrassed about the schmuck you
elected to be casting aspersions on others, especially those who are so
much more qualified than anything the Republicans have put on the platter. :-)
Out of curiosity what Managerial/Executive experience does Obama have that
you feel would make him qualified?
When did management/executive experience become a prerequisite for being
president?

JFK didn't. Goldwater didn't. Nixon didn't. Johnson didn't. Truman?
Washington? Adams? Hillary? Bush blew every business opportunity he was
involved with. McCain? Thompson? For a few months, Lincoln ran a small
store...does that count? Come to think of it, there aren't many past
presidents, Democratic or Republican that have a lot, if any previous
management or executive business experience.

Does losing one's own $35 million waging a laughable and unsuccessful
campaign, or leading a squadron of airplanes into disaster qualify as good
executive experience?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
John Wheaton
2008-02-13 00:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
I thought you guys would be too embarrassed about the schmuck you
elected to be casting aspersions on others, especially those who are so
much more qualified than anything the Republicans have put on the platter. :-)
Out of curiosity what Managerial/Executive experience does Obama have that
you feel would make him qualified?
When did management/executive experience become a prerequisite for being
president?
JFK didn't. Goldwater didn't. Nixon didn't. Johnson didn't. Truman?
Washington? Adams? Hillary? Bush blew every business opportunity he was
involved with. McCain? Thompson? For a few months, Lincoln ran a small
store...does that count? Come to think of it, there aren't many past
presidents, Democratic or Republican that have a lot, if any previous
management or executive business experience.
Does losing one's own $35 million waging a laughable and unsuccessful
campaign, or leading a squadron of airplanes into disaster qualify as good
executive experience?
You posted that Obama was much more qualified and I was curious as to what
experience he had that made him qualified. Is there something there?
Ed Jay
2008-02-13 00:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
I thought you guys would be too embarrassed about the schmuck you
elected to be casting aspersions on others, especially those who are so
much more qualified than anything the Republicans have put on the platter. :-)
Out of curiosity what Managerial/Executive experience does Obama have that
you feel would make him qualified?
When did management/executive experience become a prerequisite for being
president?
JFK didn't. Goldwater didn't. Nixon didn't. Johnson didn't. Truman?
Washington? Adams? Hillary? Bush blew every business opportunity he was
involved with. McCain? Thompson? For a few months, Lincoln ran a small
store...does that count? Come to think of it, there aren't many past
presidents, Democratic or Republican that have a lot, if any previous
management or executive business experience.
Does losing one's own $35 million waging a laughable and unsuccessful
campaign, or leading a squadron of airplanes into disaster qualify as good
executive experience?
You posted that Obama was much more qualified and I was curious as to what
experience he had that made him qualified. Is there something there?
You forgot to answer my question. ;-)

I posted that Obama was much more qualified to be president than any of the
Republican candidates served up to us this election, not that he had
executive or management experience. You tried to put up the straw man, not
me.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
John Wheaton
2008-02-13 00:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
I thought you guys would be too embarrassed about the schmuck you
elected to be casting aspersions on others, especially those who are so
much more qualified than anything the Republicans have put on the platter. :-)
Out of curiosity what Managerial/Executive experience does Obama have that
you feel would make him qualified?
When did management/executive experience become a prerequisite for being
president?
JFK didn't. Goldwater didn't. Nixon didn't. Johnson didn't. Truman?
Washington? Adams? Hillary? Bush blew every business opportunity he was
involved with. McCain? Thompson? For a few months, Lincoln ran a small
store...does that count? Come to think of it, there aren't many past
presidents, Democratic or Republican that have a lot, if any previous
management or executive business experience.
Does losing one's own $35 million waging a laughable and unsuccessful
campaign, or leading a squadron of airplanes into disaster qualify as good
executive experience?
You posted that Obama was much more qualified and I was curious as to what
experience he had that made him qualified. Is there something there?
You forgot to answer my question. ;-)
I posted that Obama was much more qualified to be president than any of the
Republican candidates served up to us this election, not that he had
executive or management experience.
You have yet to answer what he has done to make him more experienced which
was the question that started the exchange between us..:0)
d***@aol.com
2008-02-13 01:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
I thought you guys would be too embarrassed about the schmuck you
elected to be casting aspersions on others, especially those who are so
much more qualified than anything the Republicans have put on the platter. :-)
Out of curiosity what Managerial/Executive experience does Obama have that
you feel would make him qualified?
When did management/executive experience become a prerequisite for being
president?
JFK didn't. Goldwater didn't. Nixon didn't. Johnson didn't. Truman?
Washington? Adams? Hillary? Bush blew every business opportunity he was
involved with. McCain? Thompson? For a few months, Lincoln ran a small
store...does that count? Come to think of it, there aren't many past
presidents, Democratic or Republican that have a lot, if any previous
management or executive business experience.
Does losing one's own $35 million waging a laughable and unsuccessful
campaign, or leading a squadron of airplanes into disaster qualify as good
executive experience?
You posted that Obama was much more qualified and I was curious as to what
experience he had that made him qualified. Is there something there?
You forgot to answer my question. ;-)
I posted that Obama was much more qualified to be president than any of the
Republican candidates served up to us this election, not that he had
executive or management experience.
You have yet to answer what he has done to make him more experienced which
was the question that started the exchange between us..:0)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Experience isn't the most important thing, judgement is. Obama is
the one who got Iraq right from the start.

Besides, this thread was about the latest Obama slander, i.e., the Che
Guevara flag thing As Ed notes, this charge is as false as the
madrassa charge and the Pledge of Allegiance charge and all the other
charges floating around the internet. The reporter at... yes - FOX...
specifically says in the video that these are VOLUNTEERS who are
OPENING the office, and that the actual Obama staffers are expected to
be there by the END OF THE WEEK.

All these rumors mean just one thing: Republicans are scared to death
of facing Obama in the fall, and with good reason. Obama is the next
President.

David Koppelman
John Wheaton
2008-02-13 01:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Besides, this thread was about the latest Obama slander, i.e., the Che
Guevara flag thing As Ed notes, this charge is as false as the
madrassa charge and the Pledge of Allegiance charge and all the other
charges floating around the internet. The reporter at... yes - FOX...
specifically says in the video that these are VOLUNTEERS who are
OPENING the office, and that the actual Obama staffers are expected to
be there by the END OF THE WEEK.
I read a quote of Hillary's yesterday where she said that she is getting
much fairer treatment by FOX than MSNBC, usually a Liberal leaning channel.
d***@aol.com
2008-02-13 04:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Post by d***@aol.com
Besides, this thread was about the latest Obama slander, i.e., the Che
Guevara flag thing � As Ed notes, this charge is as false as the
madrassa charge and the Pledge of Allegiance charge and all the other
charges floating around the internet. �The reporter at... yes - FOX...
specifically says in the video that these are VOLUNTEERS who are
OPENING the office, and that the actual Obama staffers are expected to
be there by the END OF THE WEEK.
I read a quote of Hillary's yesterday where she said that she is getting
much fairer treatment by FOX than MSNBC, usually a Liberal leaning channel.
Fox's news coverage has been reasonably fair this year. Shepard
Smith is an excellent anchorman. Sadly, the Fox analysis is its'
typically biased self with Karl Rove! it's chief "expert". MSNBC
remains by far the most balanced mainstream voice, the only broadcast
with real actual liberals (Rachel Maddow, Olbermann) balanced by
strong conservatives (Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson).

David Koppelman
d***@aol.com
2008-02-13 04:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Post by d***@aol.com
Besides, this thread was about the latest Obama slander, i.e., the Che
Guevara flag thing � As Ed notes, this charge is as false as the
madrassa charge and the Pledge of Allegiance charge and all the other
charges floating around the internet. �The reporter at... yes - FOX...
specifically says in the video that these are VOLUNTEERS who are
OPENING the office, and that the actual Obama staffers are expected to
be there by the END OF THE WEEK.
I read a quote of Hillary's yesterday where she said that she is getting
much fairer treatment by FOX than MSNBC, usually a Liberal leaning channel.
Fox's news coverage has been reasonably fair this year.   Shepard
Smith is an excellent anchorman.  Sadly, the Fox analysis is its'
typically biased self with Karl Rove! it's chief "expert".   MSNBC
remains by far the most balanced mainstream voice, the only broadcast
with real actual liberals (Rachel Maddow, Olbermann) balanced by
strong conservatives (Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson).
David Koppelman- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Reply to self- I forgot MSNBC's smartest conservative Joe
Scarborough. A network that has shows hosted by Olbermann and
Scarborough actually is "fair and balanced".

David Koppelman
memiki
2008-02-13 02:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
 I thought you guys would be too embarrassed about the schmuck you
elected to be casting aspersions on others, especially those who are so
much more qualified than anything the Republicans have put on the
platter. :-)
Out of curiosity what Managerial/Executive experience does Obama have that
you feel would make him qualified?
When did management/executive experience become a prerequisite for being
president?
JFK didn't. Goldwater didn't. Nixon didn't. Johnson didn't. Truman?
Washington? Adams? Hillary? Bush blew every business opportunity he was
involved with. McCain? Thompson? For a few months, Lincoln ran a small
store...does that count? Come to think of it, there aren't many past
presidents, Democratic or Republican that have a lot, if any previous
management or executive business experience.
Does losing one's own $35 million waging a laughable and unsuccessful
campaign, or leading a squadron of airplanes into disaster qualify as good
executive experience?
You posted that Obama was much more qualified and I was curious as to what
experience he had that made him qualified. Is there something there?
You forgot to answer my question. ;-)
I posted that Obama was much more qualified to be president than any of the
Republican candidates served up to us this election, not that he had
executive or management experience.
You have yet to answer what he has done to make him more experienced which
was the question that started the exchange between us..:0)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Experience isn't the most important thing, judgement is.   Obama is
the one who got Iraq right from the start.
Besides, this thread was about the latest Obama slander, i.e., the Che
Guevara flag thing   As Ed notes, this charge is as false as the
madrassa charge and the Pledge of Allegiance charge and all the other
charges floating around the internet.  The reporter at... yes - FOX...
specifically says in the video that these are VOLUNTEERS who are
OPENING the office, and that the actual Obama staffers are expected to
be there by the END OF THE WEEK.
All these rumors mean just one thing:  Republicans are scared to death
of facing Obama in the fall, and with good reason. Obama is the next
President.
David Koppelman-
Hi David -- The thought of a Democratic Presidenct with Socialist
principles is an unpleasant one for me, but I am pleased to watch
Senator Obama put nails in Hillary's coffin.

Miki
ABC -- Anyone But Clinton.
memiki
2008-02-13 02:28:38 UTC
Permalink
All these rumors mean just one thing:  Republicans are scared to death
of facing Obama in the fall, and with good reason. Obama is the next
President.
David Koppelman->
Hi David -- The thought of a Democratic President with Socialist
principles is very scary to me. That said, I am cheering as Senator
Obama puts nails in Hillary's coffin.

Miki
ABC -- Anyone But Clinton
d***@aol.com
2008-02-13 04:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by memiki
All these rumors mean just one thing: �Republicans are scared to death
of facing Obama in the fall, and with good reason. Obama is the next
President.
David Koppelman->
Hi David -- The thought of a Democratic President with Socialist
principles is very scary to me. That said, I am cheering as Senator
Obama puts nails in Hillary's coffin.
Miki
ABC -- Anyone But Clinton
Miki:

My father, may he rest in peace, actually was a Socialist. Obama
isn't even close. He's basically an FDR/Truman/Kennedy liberal.
Truman, after all, was the first President to call for nationalized
medicine, and Medicare was JFK's idea. It has just been such a long
time since an actual, unabashed liberal had a chance to be President,
that Obama seems much farther left than he actually is.

OTOH I'm with you on ABC. I've said it many times, Bill Clinton
disgraced the Presidency and embarrased his country. What's more,
we've had either a Bush or a Clinton leading this country for 20
years. I thought America was created by a revolution AGAINST family
dynasties:)

David Koppelman
memiki
2008-02-13 06:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by memiki
All these rumors mean just one thing: �Republicans are scared to death
of facing Obama in the fall, and with good reason. Obama is the next
President.
David Koppelman->
Hi David -- The thought of a Democratic President with Socialist
principles is very scary to me. That said, I am cheering as Senator
Obama puts nails in Hillary's coffin.
Miki
ABC -- Anyone But Clinton
My father, may he rest in peace, actually was a Socialist.   Obama
isn't even close.   He's basically an FDR/Truman/Kennedy liberal.
Truman, after all, was the first President to call for nationalized
medicine, and Medicare was JFK's idea.   It has just been such a long
time since an actual, unabashed liberal had a chance to be President,
that Obama seems much farther left than he actually is.
OTOH I'm with you on ABC.   I've said it many times, Bill Clinton
disgraced the Presidency and embarrased his country.  What's more,
we've had either a Bush or a Clinton leading this country for 20
years.   I thought America was created by a revolution AGAINST family
dynasties:)
David Koppelman-
Thank you very much, David, for your post. I pray you are correct
about Senator Obama not being so far left as to be to the extreme. I
was not brought up in a political environment; however, I was told my
Grandmother was a Socialist at a time when women were not involved in
politics and that I was like her in many ways.......not politically,
of that I am sure ....... :)

Miki
ABC
w***@gmail.com
2008-02-13 11:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by memiki
All these rumors mean just one thing: �Republicans are scared to death
of facing Obama in the fall, and with good reason. Obama is the next
President.
David Koppelman->
Hi David -- The thought of a Democratic President with Socialist
principles is very scary to me. That said, I am cheering as Senator
Obama puts nails in Hillary's coffin.
Miki
ABC -- Anyone But Clinton
My father, may he rest in peace, actually was a Socialist. Obama
isn't even close. He's basically an FDR/Truman/Kennedy liberal.
Truman, after all, was the first President to call for nationalized
medicine, and Medicare was JFK's idea. It has just been such a long
time since an actual, unabashed liberal had a chance to be President,
that Obama seems much farther left than he actually is.
OTOH I'm with you on ABC. I've said it many times, Bill Clinton
disgraced the Presidency and embarrased his country. What's more,
we've had either a Bush or a Clinton leading this country for 20
years. I thought America was created by a revolution AGAINST family
dynasties:)
David Koppelman
If there is one thing I can't stand is the thought of another Bush or
Clinton in the Whitehouse. The only fear any country would have of
HIllary would be that she would "Kackle" them to death.

tim
w***@gmail.com
2008-02-14 16:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
I thought you guys would be too embarrassed about the schmuck you
elected to be casting aspersions on others, especially those who are so
much more qualified than anything the Republicans have put on the
platter. :-)
Out of curiosity what Managerial/Executive experience does Obama have that
you feel would make him qualified?
When did management/executive experience become a prerequisite for being
president?
JFK didn't. Goldwater didn't. Nixon didn't. Johnson didn't. Truman?
Washington? Adams? Hillary? Bush blew every business opportunity he was
involved with. McCain? Thompson? For a few months, Lincoln ran a small
store...does that count? Come to think of it, there aren't many past
presidents, Democratic or Republican that have a lot, if any previous
management or executive business experience.
Does losing one's own $35 million waging a laughable and unsuccessful
campaign, or leading a squadron of airplanes into disaster qualify as good
executive experience?
You posted that Obama was much more qualified and I was curious as to what
experience he had that made him qualified. Is there something there?
You forgot to answer my question. ;-)
I posted that Obama was much more qualified to be president than any of the
Republican candidates served up to us this election, not that he had
executive or management experience.
You have yet to answer what he has done to make him more experienced which
was the question that started the exchange between us..:0)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Experience isn't the most important thing, judgement is. Obama is
the one who got Iraq right from the start.
Besides, this thread was about the latest Obama slander, i.e., the Che
Guevara flag thing As Ed notes, this charge is as false as the
madrassa charge and the Pledge of Allegiance charge and all the other
charges floating around the internet. The reporter at... yes - FOX...
specifically says in the video that these are VOLUNTEERS who are
OPENING the office, and that the actual Obama staffers are expected to
be there by the END OF THE WEEK.
All these rumors mean just one thing: Republicans are scared to death
of facing Obama in the fall, and with good reason. Obama is the next
President.
David Koppelman
Just remember David,

Obama endorsed MoveOn.org, when that comes back to haunt
everyone..... I want yall to remember it

What cracks me up is Obama, Clinton and others are almost never called
"liberal" by the media, while the current administration's problems
are blamed on "conservatives" and the "far right."

Wonder why that is???????????????????


tim
Ed Jay
2008-02-14 17:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Obama endorsed MoveOn.org, when that comes back to haunt
everyone..... I want yall to remember it
What cracks me up is Obama, Clinton and others are almost never called
"liberal" by the media, while the current administration's problems
are blamed on "conservatives" and the "far right."
Wonder why that is???????????????????
...... I am still holding off for a miracle and hoping
neither McCain (who should have been elected in 2000) nor Huckabee get
a majority and they draft Colin Powell. Now there is a guy with real
experience, honest, would do the right thing.
Bwahahahaha! Didn't we recently celebrate the fifth anniversary of Powell's
lying to the UN about the presence of WMD in Iraq? Is this the same honest
Powell who knowingly abandoned his principals in the name of starting a
pre-emptive war against a sovereign nation who was no threat to us? You're
correct, Tim. Powell has a lot of experience...as an amoral, unethical liar.
Except for "straight-talking" McCain, Powell is the perfect candidate for
the reichwing Republicans.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
John Wheaton
2008-02-14 17:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Bwahahahaha! Didn't we recently celebrate the fifth anniversary of Powell's
lying to the UN about the presence of WMD in Iraq?
"How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA
director, assured him that the case was "a slam dunk." This phrase would
later become notorious, but in using it, Mr. Tenet had the backing of all 15
agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the
National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were
summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that
"Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological,
nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel
and--yes--France all agreed with this judgment."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

For example, a popular refrain is that President Bush lied about Weapons of
Mass Destruction (WMD) in order to implement a grand strategy fashioned by
neo-conservatives well before Bush actually took office. Said strategy was
supposedly aimed at using military force to install democratic regimes
friendly to the U.S. throughout the Middle East.

However, the left has never adequately answered the following question. If
Bush knew there was no WMD, why would he send 150,000 troops into Iraq since
his "lie" would be immediately exposed by invading coalition forces and
reported by a large contingent of media embedded within those forces?

Liberals also choose to ignore United Nations Resolution 144I, which clearly
established that Iraq had WMD. That resolution was approved unanimously by
the UN member nations.

Besides the illogic in claiming that President Bush lied about WMD, the
liberal argument is discredited by comments by Democrats themselves in the
years and months leading up to the 2003 invasion.

Herewith a substantial collection of quotes from responsible professionals
about Saddam Hussein and WMD in Iraq:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."-From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara
A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last
visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has
reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological,
chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-
range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."-From a
December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, &
Tom Lantos among others.

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between
Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to
dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit
monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has
developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological
capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear
weapons capabilities"-From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and
Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002.

"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.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its
agreement."-Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence
reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet
achieved nuclear capability."-Robert Byrd, October 2002.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. Yes, he has chemical
and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United
States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were
before September 11th of 2001. He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing
nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he
were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would
face greatly increased risks as would we."-Wesley Clark on September 26,
2002.

"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.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."-Ted Kennedy, September 27, 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.

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological
weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the
United States."-Joe Lieberman, August, 2002.

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, United Nations
inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities
that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate
that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no
reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued
biological and chemical weapons. Inspectors have said that Iraq's claims
about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq
used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish
population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past,
there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt
that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction."-Patty Murray, October 9, 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.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
enriched uranium from foreign sources-something that is not that difficult
in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction."-John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very
real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both
against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop
delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring
these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle
East."-John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards
Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has
systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of
international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United
Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are
simply the facts."-Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002.

As the record clearly shows, if G.W. Bush lied about WMD, he had plenty of
company!

http://www.canadafreepress.com/printpage.php
Ed Jay
2008-02-14 18:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
Bwahahahaha! Didn't we recently celebrate the fifth anniversary of Powell's
lying to the UN about the presence of WMD in Iraq?
"How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA
director, assured him that the case was "a slam dunk."
I'm wondering why Powell has since come out and explained that he called the
plan a lot of bullshit and came close to resigning, rather than give the
speech to the UN. You can post all the excuses and apologist data in the
world, but Powell himself has confirmed he knew he was lying.

Anyway, Tim suggested the Republicans draft Powell as their candidate. I'm
refuting that suggestion. I think Powell is much, much, much better than
McCain the panderer, but I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for him,
because of he compromised his own principles.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
John Wheaton
2008-02-14 17:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Didn't we recently celebrate the fifth anniversary of Powell's
lying to the UN about the presence of WMD in Iraq?
Below are the quotes, plus several interesting additions I found in the
Congressional Record. In October 2002 the House passed Joint Resolution 114
to authorize the President to use military force in Iraq by more than a
two-thirds majority - 266 to 133. The Senate passed the resolution 77-23.

Both Senators John Kerry and John Edwards voted for Resolution HJ 114 which
puts Congress on record as approving President Bush's actions. It
specifically states that the action was necessary primarily because "Iraq
has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass
destruction against other nations and its own people" and because "Iraq
continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,
including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American
citizens." The resolution also specifically mentions that Iraq was harboring
"members of Al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on
the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

If, as the Democrats now claim, President Bush was lying about Saddam
Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, 77% of the Senate, including
those now running for president, were also lying. In fact, it was a
Democrat, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut that introduced the
amendment listing the "findings" of weapons of mass destruction as
justification for the resolution.


Quotes from Democrats about WMD


1.. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Quoted on CNN


2.. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Quoted on CNN


3.. Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio - from
USIA


4.. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb
18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall Meeting in Columbus, Ohio - From
USIA


5.. "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,
1998

See letter to Clinton by Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others


6.. "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." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi
(D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Statement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi - House of Representatives website


7.. "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Answer to a question at the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs


8.. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen
Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Letter to President George W. Bush signed by 9 Congressmen, including
Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., Joseph Lieberman, and Benjamin Gilman.


9.. " We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction,
hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it
in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is
removing the... defanging Saddam.." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002

Online with Jim Lehrer - Public Broadcasting Service


10.. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today


11.. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today


12.. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept.
27, 2002

U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy


13.. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd
(D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Congressional Record - Robert Byrd


14.. "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the
Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to
hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

Congressional Record - Sen. John F. Kerry


15.. "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons
within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of
mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Congressional Record - Sen. Jay Rockefeller


16.. "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

Congressional Record - Rep. Henry Waxman


17.. "In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward
Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to
effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within
the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, 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-Qaida 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 wiill
continue to increase his capability 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Congressional Record - Sen. Hillary Clinton


18.. "The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for
a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These
estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological
weapons against our troops.

"Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical
and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save
his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002

Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy


19.. "There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is
an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on
his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for
inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His
forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the
no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential
to develop and deploy nuclear weapons... - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8,
2002

Congressional Record - Sen. Bob Graham


20.. But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from
the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including
his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be
interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even
the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or
their families.

"To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant
persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest
publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ''a defection
agency,' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction - Sen. Joseph Biden

Congressional Record - Sen. Joseph Biden


21.. "With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must
ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons
that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein
guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international
community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when
most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt
to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and
provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did
Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did
Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which
UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles
for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

Congressional Record - Sen. John F. Kerry


22.. "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.

"Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in
defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed
through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of
the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security
Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to
develop weapons of mass destruction. - Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002

Congressional Record - Sen. John Edwards

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/040816
Ed Jay
2008-02-14 17:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Just remember David,
Obama endorsed MoveOn.org, when that comes back to haunt
everyone..... I want yall to remember it
Tim, because you think, or have been told to think that something that's
adversarial to your 'cause' is bad, doesn't make it bad. It's only an
opinion. I count Obama's endorsement of MoveOn.org as a positive. I count
Bill O'Reilly's blatant lies as a negative. I bet we differ 180º. ;-)
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Ed Jay
2008-02-13 01:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
I thought you guys would be too embarrassed about the schmuck you
elected to be casting aspersions on others, especially those who are so
much more qualified than anything the Republicans have put on the platter. :-)
Out of curiosity what Managerial/Executive experience does Obama have that
you feel would make him qualified?
When did management/executive experience become a prerequisite for being
president?
JFK didn't. Goldwater didn't. Nixon didn't. Johnson didn't. Truman?
Washington? Adams? Hillary? Bush blew every business opportunity he was
involved with. McCain? Thompson? For a few months, Lincoln ran a small
store...does that count? Come to think of it, there aren't many past
presidents, Democratic or Republican that have a lot, if any previous
management or executive business experience.
Does losing one's own $35 million waging a laughable and unsuccessful
campaign, or leading a squadron of airplanes into disaster qualify as good
executive experience?
You posted that Obama was much more qualified and I was curious as to what
experience he had that made him qualified. Is there something there?
You forgot to answer my question. ;-)
I posted that Obama was much more qualified to be president than any of
the Republican candidates served up to us this election, not that he had
executive or management experience.
You have yet to answer what he has done to make him more experienced which
was the question that started the exchange between us..:0)
Sorry, John, you ascribed words to me that I didn't say, and now you're
trying to argue with me about that which you fabricated. Where did I mention
he was more experienced?

I wrote: "[Obama is]..much more qualified than anything the Republicans have
put on the platter."

In response, you asked, "..what Managerial/Executive experience does Obama
have that you feel would make him qualified?" I said nothing about
management/executive skills, nor did I mention experience.

In this primary cycle, aren't Romney, Richardson and Huckabee the only
candidates that had executive or management experience (governor counts)?

What sets Obama apart from the remaining Republican candidates? They promise
more of the same crap we've experienced for the past 7+ years, and Obama
offers hope for a better future. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has
witnessed the multiple and continuing failures of the Bush administration,
but promises more of the same, is unqualified to empty my trash, let alone
be considered as qualified to be president.

So, which Democrat are you going to vote for...Clinton, Obama or McCain?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
John Wheaton
2008-02-13 01:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
So, which Democrat are you going to vote for...Clinton, Obama or McCain?
Frankly I don't know who I'd support this go 'round. They are all flawed in
my view so I suppose it will be another year of the lesser of all evils..:0(
Ed Jay
2008-02-13 04:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
So, which Democrat are you going to vote for...Clinton, Obama or McCain?
Frankly I don't know who I'd support this go 'round. They are all flawed in
my view so I suppose it will be another year of the lesser of all evils..:0(
We're pretty much on the same page, although I wouldn't call them all
'flawed.'

I voted in the primary, but I skipped voting for president. I probably would
have voted for Edwards, but...he quit. I was really in synch with Ron Paul's
observations, but not his unrealistic proposed solutions.

I have my reservations about all four remaining candidates. I have a
problem with Obama's 'freshness;' Clinton represents to me everything I
despise about the DC game. McCain is too angry, hawkish, and pandering;
Huckabee is too evangelical and fundie for me.

I see positive attributes in each of the candidates. Obama's 'freshness;'
Clinton is part of the machine; McCain's heart is in the right place;
Huckabee seems like a regular guy who can communicate with a people who need
to be comforted.

It seems to me, when I create a signable Venn diagram with the above
observations, I'll be supporting Obama. :-)

If one knows that Choices 1 and 2 are unfavorable, and Choice 3 is an
unknown quantity, which does one vote for? I think I have to go for the one
offering the most hope without a significant recognizable downside, and
someone who isn't driven to pandering to a demonstrably dangerous fringe
element.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
w***@gmail.com
2008-02-13 12:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by John Wheaton
Post by Ed Jay
So, which Democrat are you going to vote for...Clinton, Obama or McCain?
Frankly I don't know who I'd support this go 'round. They are all flawed in
my view so I suppose it will be another year of the lesser of all evils..:0(
We're pretty much on the same page, although I wouldn't call them all
'flawed.'
I voted in the primary, but I skipped voting for president. I probably would
have voted for Edwards, but...he quit. I was really in synch with Ron Paul's
observations, but not his unrealistic proposed solutions.
I have my reservations about all four remaining candidates. I have a
problem with Obama's 'freshness;' Clinton represents to me everything I
despise about the DC game. McCain is too angry, hawkish, and pandering;
Huckabee is too evangelical and fundie for me.
I see positive attributes in each of the candidates. Obama's 'freshness;'
Clinton is part of the machine; McCain's heart is in the right place;
Huckabee seems like a regular guy who can communicate with a people who need
to be comforted.
It seems to me, when I create a signable Venn diagram with the above
observations, I'll be supporting Obama. :-)
If one knows that Choices 1 and 2 are unfavorable, and Choice 3 is an
unknown quantity, which does one vote for? I think I have to go for the one
offering the most hope without a significant recognizable downside, and
someone who isn't driven to pandering to a demonstrably dangerous fringe
element.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Ed................ I am still holding off for a miracle and hoping
neither McCain (who should have been elected in 2000) nor Huckabee get
a majority and they draft Colin Powell. Now there is a guy with real
experience, honest, would do the right thing.

tim
memiki
2008-02-13 00:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Jay
Post by w***@gmail.com
Well this ought to make ya feel comfortable
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only&rss
A CHE GUEVARA FLAG IN OBAMA HEADQUARTERS? "Well, he's been promising
"change."
Don't cha just love it!
Tim Allman
Austin, Tx
Gosh, Tim, I thought you guys would be too embarrassed about the schmuck you
elected to be casting aspersions on others, especially those who are so much
more qualified than anything the Republicans have put on the platter. :-)
Hi Ed -- Please show some respect for the Office and capitalize "S".

Miki
Ed Jay
2008-02-13 00:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by memiki
Post by Ed Jay
Post by w***@gmail.com
Well this ought to make ya feel comfortable
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only&rss
A CHE GUEVARA FLAG IN OBAMA HEADQUARTERS? "Well, he's been promising
"change."
Don't cha just love it!
Tim Allman
Austin, Tx
Gosh, Tim, I thought you guys would be too embarrassed about the schmuck you
elected to be casting aspersions on others, especially those who are so much
more qualified than anything the Republicans have put on the platter. :-)
Hi Ed -- Please show some respect for the Office and capitalize "S".
LOL!!! If I did that, a lot of other politicians would take personal
umbrage. :-))
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Loading...