Is Obama finished?

[apk919]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Funny, because it looks almost identical to McCains

Not once you click through to the actual details (or lack thereof)...

Obama's details:

1) No more goodies for corporate special interests
2) More goodies for liberal special interests
3) I'll spend more government money on you
4) Guaranteed liberal voting record... bipartisanship? What's that?

McCain's details:

1) No more goodies for any special interests
2) I'll let you keep more of your own money
3) One of the best records for crossing the aisle on major issues of anyone in the Senate

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by Flash G

Let's try this analogy...

If I give you a gun permit, and a week later you start shooting everything in sight, yeah - I take a little bit of the blame for giving you the permit. But the person pulling the trigger needs to take most of the responsibility.

The Iraq war resolution gave the President full power. But the awesome responsibility of the office of the President is to use reasonable judgement and use those full powers only when absolutely necessary. The threat from Iraq wasn't nearly at that stage.

And look at the results.

Nice to know that the guy "without any experience" (the future Senator from Illinois) had the foresight to oppose the Iraq war resolution and be vocal about it.


.

The resolution that was voted on and approved (not once but twice) was a declaration of war. You may disagree with this but if you do show me where in the constitution it shows the form that a formal declaration of war must have. Congess should not have declared war if they didn't want us going to war. You don't give the president the power to wage war and then HOPE that he doesn't use it.

A gun permit is not a good analogy. A gun permit gives you the right to purchase and own a gun. It doesn't give you the right to go to war with your neighbors.

If the Democratic party really wanted to end the war the funding would have been cut off long ago.

If Barak Obama is elected president he will not be pulling out the troops like he promises. He'll have some excuse like . . . "I just discovered that the conditions on the ground in Iraq prevent me from having a withdrawal at this time." He'll say he didn't have all the facts before he took office.

Flash G if I'm wrong I'll buy you a beer.

[Kjakk]

From Wiki:

"The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.""


I agree that it is a pretty weak argument to say that they did not 'sign off' on a 'war'. They left it up to him, so they would not be labelled as 'weak on terrorism' or unpatriotic. The reality is that it is a far greater weakness to not be able to stand on your own against the majority, although it is somewhat reassuring that there were a few who did not vote for this.

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by Greg

And the amendment was the use of force. It didn't exactly say anything about authorization to invade and occupy for 100 years, this is left to the judgement of the president. It's sufficiently vague as to guarantee it will be passed.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

'Greg

I stated this in my previous post:
The resolution that was voted on and approved (not once but twice) was a declaration of war. You may disagree with this but if you do show me where in the constitution it shows the form that a formal declaration of war must have. Congess should not have declared war if they didn't want us going to war. You don't give the president the power to wage war and then HOPE that he doesn't use it.

If the Democratic party really wanted to end the war the funding would have been cut off long ago.

The fact remains that we are at war in Iraq. We've been there for 5 years. Why argue about whether or not we should have gone there. Let's win and then come home.

It doesn't matter which of the three candidates wins the presidency we will not be pulling out. None of these individuals wants to get the blame for losing the war and for the carnage that would follow a pullout of our troops.

[LARRY]

We can't stay there for much longer.

If for no other reason than:

It is costing the American taxpayers billions and billions of dollars...we need the money at home.

[slaughtr]

Originally Posted by apk919

Not once you click through to the actual details (or lack thereof)...

Obama's details:

1) No more goodies for corporate special interests
2) More goodies for liberal special interests
3) I'll spend more government money on you
4) Guaranteed liberal voting record... bipartisanship? What's that?

McCain's details:

1) No more goodies for any special interests
2) I'll let you keep more of your own money
3) One of the best records for crossing the aisle on major issues of anyone in the Senate

Amen, thank you.

I'll be voting for McCain because he has an excellent record working across the isle and he is a solid moderate on most social and environmental issues. Obama's record is clearly very liberal, not that there's anything wrong with that, but make no mistake, he won't end politics as usual. I believe McCain can work with both Democrats and Republicans to find a middle ground on issues, which I believe is what most Americans want.

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by LARRY

We can't stay there for much longer.

If for no other reason than:

It is costing the American taxpayers billions and billions of dollars...we need the money at home.

We're still in Germany, Japan, South Korea and dozens of other places. The primary responsibility of the US government is defense of the country. With no defense we won't need money for anything at home.

We should start collecting money from the government in Iraq to help pay for the war. At some point I believe we will insist that they pay.

[LARRY]

Won't work.

We simply are going into debt at a record pace.

This country cannot afford this war.

We won't "win."

[climb4fun]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

If the Democratic party really wanted to end the war the funding would have been cut off long ago.

They should have resisted but, I think they speculated Bush is so nut and determined to continue the invasion that he's gonna keep the troop in Iraq no matter what. Results: more soldiers will be kill and the Pres. could blem the Congress all day for not supporting the troop-> then public pressure will force them to fund W's War at the end ->so better to send money now and have less bodybags and not taking the blem.

" If you see a mad man holding a knife coming toward you on your path, be the smart one and change your path" Chinese proverb.

The fact remains that we are at war in Iraq. We've been there for 5 years. Why argue about whether or not we should have gone there.

There are more than one argument:

1. We shouldn't have gone there because it's Not a good idea.(Casualties, costs, ..)

2. We shouldn't have gone their because WMD and Saddam link to AlQ. was a Lie.

3. We shouldn't have gone their because War is wrong!

Let's win and then come home.

Nobody will win at the end. See Vietman War and many other stupid wars result.

[SKYVUE]

I've never entered into a political discussion here, but I think it time.
I think the entire problem is the major conflict of idealisms.
Liberals, moderates and conservatives can coexist.
Republicans, Democrats and Independents can coexist.
Christianity, Judiasm, Hinduism and Buhaddism can coexist.
Atheism, Agnostic and Theism can coexist together.

But when a very large group spreads the idealism that preaches the total annihilation of every other idealism on earth except theirs, that's the beginning of destruction of the human race and civilization.

Whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong does not envision the entire picture. We should not be attacking countries. We should be attacking an idealism. This is a "different" war.

How to deal with this conflict of idealism will be the most important issue that the future President will face. If this issue is ignored, or down-played, the United States and the world are doomed.

I've said my piece.

--Hal

[tandemracer]

Originally Posted by LARRY

Won't work.

We simply are going into debt at a record pace.

This country cannot afford this war.

We won't "win."

Are you talking about the "War on Poverty"?

[climb4fun]

Originally Posted by SKYVUE

We should not be attacking countries. We should be attacking an idealism. This is a "different" war.
I've said my piece.
--Hal

+1

[Kjakk]

no, the "War on Drugs"

[NMRJock]

Originally Posted by SKYVUE

Whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong does not envision the entire picture. We should not be attacking countries. We should be attacking an idealism. This is a "different" war.

--Hal

But how do you think the countries where the idealism you want to attack is prevalent will look at it when you start that fight? We'd find ourselves at war with a number of countries even if all you wanted to do was attack an idealism.

[SKYVUE]

Originally Posted by NMRJock

But how do you think the countries where the idealism you want to attack is prevalent will look at it when you start that fight? We'd find ourselves at war with a number of countries even if all you wanted to do was attack an idealism.

Yep. You betcha this is a difficult task. "Attacking" does not necessarily mean physical harm.
The physical attack (war) is the last resort.

This idealism we are talking about is the degeneration of humanity and civilization. I think it's similar to cancer. A disease in the mind.

Is there a way to reverse the degeneration of civilzation without war?
How to attack this disease? Where do we start?
I do not know the answers. I hope our future President can find the answers, and find them soon.

--Hal

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by climb4fun

There are more than one argument:

1. We shouldn't have gone there because it's Not a good idea.(Casualties, costs, ..)

2. We shouldn't have gone their because WMD and Saddam link to AlQ. was a Lie.

3. We shouldn't have gone their because War is wrong!


Nobody will win at the end. See Vietman War and many other stupid wars result.

What about these Democrats who were saying this about WMD's in Iraq:


October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats :

"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."




John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003:


"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."


Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998:


"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."



Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002:


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


Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002 :


"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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. 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."




Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999 :

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."


Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002 :


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. 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."



Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002 :


"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."

Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998


"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."



Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."


Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998


"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."



Al Gore September 23rd, 2002


"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."


John Kerry October 9th, 2002


"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."



Ted Kennedy September 27th, 2002 :


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."


Jay Rockefeller October 10th, 2002 :


"There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."



Senator Bob Graham December 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."

I guess all of these people were also telling us lies!

Now for your statement that war is wrong. Perhaps you should talk to our enemies. They had declared war on us 20 years before we went to war.

Nov. 4, 1979 Hostages taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran

May 1981 Threats from Libya

April 18, 1983 Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut

Oct. 23, 1983 Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut

Dec. 12, 1983 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait

March 16, 1984 CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnaped

Sept. 20, 1984 Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut

Dec. 3, 1984 Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221

June 14, 1985 Hijacking of TWA Flight 847

October 1985 - January 1986 Hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro;
Bombing of Rome, Vienna airports

April 5, 1986 Bombing of La Belle Discotheque

December 21, 1988 Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103

World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993: The World Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground garage. The bomb left 6 people dead and 1,000 injured. The men carrying out the attack were followers of Umar Abd al-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached in the New York City area.

Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993: The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait. In retaliation, the U.S. launched a cruise missile attack 2 months later on the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

The Khobar Towers bombing was a terrorist attack on part of a housing complex in the city of Khobar, Saudi Arabia, located near the national oil company (Saudi Aramco) headquarters of Dhahran. In 1996, it was being used to house foreign military personnel, including Americans.

Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000: In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Laden were suspected

Let's not forget the 3000 people murdered 9/11/2001

These are just some of the more well know incidents. There are lots more.
At some point we had to retaliate.

George Bush never said we went to war because Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. Show me a quote by GWB to prove different. You won't find one because he never said it.

Originally Posted by tandemracer

Are you talking about the "War on Poverty"?

+1 LOL

[SKYVUE]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

Now for your statement that war is wrong. Perhaps you should talk to our enemies. They had declared war on us 20 years before we went to war.
...................
Let's not forget the 3000 people murdered 9/11/2001

These are just some of the more well know incidents. There are lots more.
At some point we had to retaliate.

+1 That is an excellent post.
You have shown some of the symptoms of the "disease" I've mentioned in my other posts. I hope everyone remembers. Thank you.

--Hal

[KingOfJericho]

Isn't Africa now a hot-bed for Al Qaida? I know they are very active in Somalia. I guess my question is how much of Al Qaida is really in Iraq vs. Somalia and Afghanistan? I keep hearing "Al Qaida in Iraq" on TV but I think they're smart enough not to sit in harms way with the entire US armed forces at their doorsteps. I am also hearing and reading that the Taliban is back in a big way in Afghanistan but we're stretched so thin trying to keep the Iraqis in check that we can't do much about it... It just seems like a misdirected effort.

[LARRY]

Originally Posted by tandemracer

Are you talking about the "War on Poverty"?

How about...

Schools and education.

American kids deserve the best.

End the war.

Put the money into teaching our kids.

Obama gets it.

He'll be a great President.

[SKYVUE]

Originally Posted by LARRY

How about...

Schools and education.

American kids deserve the best.

End the war.

Put the money into teaching our kids.

Obama gets it.

He'll be a great President.

If we cannot stop the spread of the "Idealism" we are talking about here, only males will go to school....

--Hal