A Pilot's Perspective On Barack Obama

[Messy1]

Originally Posted by stasoid

Messy1, I'm not in the US so my appreciation of both candidates can be incorrect/wrong.
You're saying he has a potential to do some damage, well, America's image has already been damaged around the world for the past 8 years and its economy is not doing well either. What else can be worse than that?

Originally Posted by stasoid

Situation in the middle east, Iraq/Afganistan war will continue for another 15-25 years, so, 4 years is nothing to warry about if a liberal guy with no military experience is elected this time. There will still be enough work for everyone in Iraq after his term and later for years.

First.
You talk about how screwed up America's image is now? Ok, so let's go ahead and elect Obama and make everything that much worse! Sorry. I don't agree with your thinking. And if Obama was elected, you'd probably be on here in 4 years talking about how much more screwed up America's image is then because we elected Obama. Obama's economic plan is to raise taxes even more, take even more money out of the people's hands. The base of the economy is based on the people's spending. raise taxes, take more of their pay so the average American has less money to put into the economy.

Second.
Ok, so what you are saying is the situation is so screwed up, let's just go ahead and elect the candidate no experiance in war, or how the military works? Who has no chance in hell of setting things right, setting things in motion so the US military and it's soldiers can come home, and do it responsibly? Let's say it does take 15-25 years? So we should not try to do everything we can NOW, in the present, to get out and not leave Iraq and Afghanistan high and dry? We did invade Iraq, I do not know anymore if it was the right thing to do. But I believe it is our responsibility to leave Iraq and Afghanistan with the ability to keep control of their countries.

[pbfoot]

Reagan had no military experiance and that s why you have High paid advisors whose jobs it is to give the pros and cons and hopefully the Pres listens unlike GW in Iraq

[Messy1]

I would hope a president would be wise enough to realize he does not know everything, and would listen and take advice from those who do know more than him. I never said McCain was a military genius, but IMO he is the better man to deal with our current situation in the middle east. I could be wrong. Time and the elections will tell.

[Marcel]

I have to step in for our American friends now.
1. Bush cannot be blamed for Katrina. Even if you're president, you'll have to obey the forces of nature. The failure of aid services is more a problem of local government than it is of the general government and it's usually a long term policy that has been making this mistakes, not something of the past few years.
2. A bad election in the US, putting the wrong man in the Whitehouse will harm everyone in the free world. So choosing badly, just because it's one's turn is a silly option in my opinion.

Mind you, I'm not saying Obama would be a bad president and I'm not saying he would be a good president. I also have no opinion about if McCain would be better or worse than Obama. I have no preference between them, I only hope our American friends here and all those others in the USA will have the wisdom to do the right thing.
I hope they will base their votes on good judgement, not on gossip, or name-calling like some of their politicians like to do, but well founded insights and believes. And remember also the responsibility to the rest of the world, being the only real superpower in the free world.

[renrich]

One thing you can count on IMO if HO is elected, when a vacancy comes up on the supreme court, Hillary will get the nod!

[Messy1]

That does scare me Ren! I think both Clinton's are totally without morals.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Reagan had no military experiance and that s why you have High paid advisors whose jobs it is to give the pros and cons and hopefully the Pres listens unlike GW in Iraq

Actually GW did listen on Iraq. The same democrats today who blast Bush on the Iraq war gave him there blessing to go to war.

Lets see:

"We 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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

-Continued Below-

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

-Continued-

Lets break this down (at the time these words were spoken):

Joe Lieberman - Democrat/Senator
Dianne Feinstein - Democrat/Senator
Barbara A. Milulski - Democrat/Senator
Tom Daschle - Democrat/Senator
John Kerry - Democrat/Senator
Bob Graham - Democrat/Senator
Harold Ford - Democrat/Representative
Tom Lantos - Democrat/Representative
Tom Harkin - Democrat/Senator
Arlen Specter - Republican/Senator
Madeline Albright - Democrat/United States Secretary of State und President Bill Clinton
Sandy Berger - Democrat/United States National Security Advisor under President Bill Clinton
Barbara Boxer - Democrat/Senator
Robert Byrd - Democrat/Senator
Jacques Chirac - Former President of France
Bill Clinton - Democrat/President of the United States
Hillary Clinton - Democrat/Senator
William Cohen - Democrat/Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton
John Edwards - Democrat/Senator
Dick Gephardt - Democrat/Representative
Al Gore - Democrat/Former Vice President to Bill Clinton
Ted Kennedy - Democrat/Senator
Carl Levin - Democrat/Senator
Nancy Pelosi - Democrat/Senator
Henry Waxman - Democrat/Senator

Now once we were in Iraq, it was not Bush that was not listening. It was Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld bungled Iraq, not Bush.

[ToughOmbre]

According to time.com former presidential candidate John Edwards and former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn are on a list of potential running mates for B. Hussein Obama.

I can see Sam Nunn as a choice (hopefully he would not run) but the Breck Girl? Can't see that.

TO

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie...

What makes a lie important or not important, especially if they are representing a nations.



You forget that Bush based his so called "lies" off of intelligence from our intelligence services as well as those from England, Germany, France, etc..

So were they all lieing to Bush?

Lets also see:

1. The plans to attack Iraq go all the way back to Clintons Presidency. Was he lieing as well?

2. You seem to forget very quickly that all these great "liberals", i.e. Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and just about all the other ones actually agreed with Bush and first and openly supported the invasion of Iraq. Hell they voted for it. So were they lieing as well?

What I am getting at is that it is a two way street. You can not just blame Bush because you don't like him. Be fair and look at all aspects of it. That puts blame on the same people you hold in such high esteem...

a lie is a lie is a lie - if you believe this then:
"Nobody ever foresaw the possibility of the levees breaking" - is a lie nomatter how much everybody else screwed up. Talking about the faults of others does not remove his guilt.

Since Iraq was obviusly not a friendly country - Clinton did what any wise leader does when possible: He kept his options open and followed closely what was going on in Iraq. He put pressure on Iraq by making the comments you quote and not on his intelligence network to find proof of WMD - rather put pressure on them to asses if there where any WMD.

As for intelligence part

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail.

this was not shared with anybody

As for all the intelligence agencies saying that he had WMD's:
This is disingenuous. The intelligence services of everyone else were not proclaiming Iraq to be in possession of WMD. Rather, the intelligence services of France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain and Israel were noting that Iraq had failed to properly account for the totality of its past proscribed weapons programs, and in doing so left open the possibility that Iraq might retain an undetermined amount of WMD. There is a huge difference in substance and nuance between such assessments and the hyped-up assertions by the Bush administration concerning active programs dedicated to the reconstitution of WMD, as well as the existence of massive stockpiles of forbidden weaponry.

Further embarrassment to Bush and Blair has arisen from the publication of a memoir by Dr Hans Blix, entitled Disarming Iraq: the search for weapons of mass destruction. Blix still cannot understand why his doubts and those of his professional teams of trained inspectors failed to make an impression on Blair and Bush. He accuses the British and US governments of "distorting" the reports of the weapons inspectors, by describing amounts of chemical and biological weapons still unaccounted for as "retained" weapons. He says that it was "probable that the governments were conscious that they were exaggerating the risks they saw in order to get the political support they would not otherwise have had".

Blix is scathing about the "faith-based" approach of Bush and Blair, which he says was tantamount to a "witch hunt". His account is particularly damaging for Dick Cheney, the Vice-President who continued to insist that Iraq had "nuclear weapons" long after the evidence proved the contrary. In a meeting with IAEA Director-General Mohamed El Baradei in October 2002, Cheney said that if the inspections did not give results the US was "ready to discredit inspections in favour of disarmament". Indeed, this is what happened. The Bush administration actively sought to undermine the inspectors, accusing them of playing down the threat from Saddam's WMD. Blix felt insulted by this treatment.

In contrast, according to Blix, President Chirac had a healthy scepticism about intelligence. Although the French intelligence services worried that WMD remained in Iraq, Chirac recognised that the intelligence services "sometimes intoxicate each other". His thinking "seemed to be dominated by the conviction that Iraq did not pose a threat that justified armed intervention".

Blix reveals that when he returned to Iraq in 2002 his gut feeling was that Iraq was still engaged in prohibited activities and retained prohibited items, and that there was documentation to prove it. Hence he did not demur from Blair's assertion that in November 2002, when resolution 1441 was adopted, "everyone thought he [Saddam] had them". But by the end of that month, after Blix's UNMOVIC team had inspected suspicious sites, acting on tip-offs from the intelligence agencies, and found no credible evidence of WMD, his doubts began.

Blix praises the British Government for pursuing the inspection route and "never doubted that Blair was strongly advocating inspections all the way through. The resistance to that must have come from the Americans and mainly from the Pentagon side".

Although he believes that the invasion of Iraq was not justified on the basis of the weapons threat, Blix considers that military action could perhaps have been justified on humanitarian grounds: "I would be in favour of that... a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do".

But would the western populations have sent their sons to die in Iraq on humanitarian grounds? I for one seriously doubt it.

[Messy1]

I would not think and I have heard Edwards say it himself in interviews that he is not interested in the VP role. Perhaps he would change his mind or has all ready done so.

[stasoid]

In 2002 everyone was misled by poor intelligence. CIA lied to the President, President lied to Congress, congressmen lied to american people... You cant blame them (democrats) now, they were simply fooled like little kids in 2001/03.

[renrich]

It is pretty simple. As long as any doubt remained over whether the WMDs were in Saddam's hands, Bush and Blair acted correctly. Why would they proceed if they knew that there were no WMDs to be found and that the intelligence that said there were was faulty. Good post Chris. Thank you. As I have said before, no matter what the outcome in Iraq, the true leftist will never admit it was the right move.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by drgondog

It is a near 100% probability that not only will the Missisippi River change course again, but probably Bossier City, about 50 miles west, will become the new New Orleans - the Corps spends nearly 4#Billion a year on the Levees and they KNOW it is only a matter of time before it snaps at Baton Rouge and heads due south - that is what it does for the past several Million Years.

And San Francisco is going to be severely hammered and it WON'T be Bush or Cheney's or McCain's (or Obama's) fault.

Obama will not be able to defeat nature despite his charm.

Daniel - get an armful of facts before repeating what you heard on your national news (or BBC, or CNN, or Pravda, or whatever).. your 'stuff' is starting to be really silly.

first of I don't see the relevance describing all the races involved? I don't accuse you of getting your truths from Der Stürmer - but I will if you say stuff like pravda again.

Many of you are trying to ridicule and distort somebody (me) who has a different opinion. It is the best sign of weak arguments along with namecalling which is also popular. I have never stated that a democratic president whould have intervened with the hand of god and thus saved NO. I'm well aware of the poverty and other local factors made a bad situation worse. But ineffective response was IMO the biggest culprit - and this was the crime of almost all parties dealing with the disaster - including the federal government. Pointing the finger at previous administrations does not remove any guilt from the current.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by hunter0f2

The greatest most powerful nation on earth, puts up for President!!
A Housewife!!
A mixed race man, that the rest of the world has never heard of!!

Is this a Part-Time position that pays $12:00 an hour.?

Or a Joke??

dísgusting. No more no less.