Political Punch

i want to know how obama can pass a back ground check with all his highly questionable associations.

I apologize for not proof reading my posting before sending.

Brooklyn Democrat, you misrepresented what VP Cheney said. He NEVER claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11. On Meet The Press, back in December 2001, VP Cheney was asked a question regarding th Czech interior minister having said, that very day, that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta just five months before 9/11. VP Cheney's response was: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

The 9/11 Commission acknowledged that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship."

And your second point is also inaccurate. WMDs was just one of several reasons for invading Iraq. First and foremost was the fact that Saddam Hussein failed for 12 years to comply with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire to which he had agreed. One of those conditions was if Iraq no longer had WMDs he had to prove he no longer had WMDs. But instead, Saddam Hussein wanted his neighbors (and by extension the rest of the world) that he had WMDs. Only after we invaded did we prove that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs. But what most of you forget is that Iraq fired missiles at our planes on numerous occasions (an act of war!). And on at least one of these occasions our plane was in Kuwaiti airspace at the time. Also Saddam Hussein was harboring and supporting terrorists: He allowed al Qaeda training to have a training camp in northern Iraq; and he gave over $10 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Daniel -

Your logic is dizzying but I think it qualifies you for a Chair at the Neo-Con School of Revisionist History.

1) Until very recently Cheney (part of the Bush Administration) repeatedly claimed that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, citing a mtg. in Prague between Iraqi security personnel and M. Atta. He continued this nonsense even after the intelligence community told him that the mtg. never occured.

2) The initial reason for invading Iraq was the threat posed by his WMD's..."we don't want the proof to be a mushroom cloud." You now seem to be suggesting that we had to invade to show the world that he was a liar who didn't have WMD's? Intl. weapons inspector Hans Blix was well on his way toward doing just that. He was forced to stop doing that so that the death and destruction could get started. American weapons inspector David Kay did prove that but only after the death and destruction was well underway.

I didn't say that 'whistling up skirts' is the right way to handle terrorism. I said we can't ignore the court of world opinion forever. I do recognize the Geneva Conventions mean nothing to the terrorists.

The point is the Bush Administration created and publicly enjoyed the image of America The Coyboy, and so does the public (yippee cayayee MF?)? But it works against us when we need the cooperation of other nations that have legitimate and immediate needs to ally with us yet have to also be elected.

Democracy is double-edged because as the framers of the Constitution pointed out, far too often the masses react emotionally and are not well-informed. That is why America is a Republic. It is just as arrogant to believe that our system works as well elsewhere, but the facts on the ground are that we do live in a global community and we do have to act in concert with out allies.

We don't have to like it but we do have to use our values in support of our goals and we can't hobnail our way through international situations. We need cooperation at every level among our allies including government support, intelligence, law enforcement and so on. We have to make sure our informants are protected, our assets aren't outed for political gains, and that we keep the secrets we must keep.

No free lunch here. We won't elect Obama and then magically, everyone will like us. In fact, his arrogance could take us into even deeper troubles abroad. That is why he is back-pedaling on Israel.

We can't become thugs fighting thugs. It hasn't worked for the Israelis and it won't work for us. We have to actually reduce the threat and to do that, we have to find ways to cut off support for global terrorism as a means to achieve political ends.

Brooklyn Democrat, first of all the Bush Administration NEVER said that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. And the invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 -- except that following 9/11 our policy change from one of being reactive to being pro-active because of 9/11.

What the Bush Adminstration said, and what is stated in the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, is : "Whereas 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;" Al Qaeda did have a training camp in northern Iraq at least 6 months before the invasion.

The invasion of Iraq was based on Saddam Hussein's 12-year failure to comply with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire. One of those conditions was if he no longer had WMDs Saddam Hussein had to prove he had destroyed or gotten rid of them. Instead Saddam Hussein wanted his neighbors (and by extension the whole world) to continue to believe that he had WMDs. Only AFTER our invasion were we able to expose Saddam Hussein for the liar that he was. If we hadn't invaded Iraq the whole world would continue to believe he had WMDs.

when you stop a minute to really think about it.
it is to bad the choices we had for POTUS, was such a poor group to pick from, that these two came out on top.

if none of the above-was on the ballot

none of the above- would win in a landslide.

From Quinnipiac polls today:

FLORIDA: Obama 47, McCain 43
OHIO: Obama 48, McCain 42
PENNSYLVANIA: Obama 52, McCain 40

But if we only invaded Afghanistan like Obama wanted. Iraq would of been covertly fighting us by supply rocket and missile attacks on American troops from Iraq and enforcing terrorist attacks by funding them world wide. Keeping the whole WORLD unstable.

When your digging out an infection in a wound you have to take out the surrounding tissues or the infection will come back. And Iraq was full of bad issues for our soldiers just to invade Afghanistan alone.

IRAN is a drop in the bucket compared to what IRAQ would of been doing if we did not destroy THEM.

I escaped the World Trade Center after both attacks. Many of my friends and colleagues did not. After the first attack, the savages were found, arrested, tried and imprisoned. Almsot seven years after the second attack, Osama is still roaming around sending video tapes to the rest of the world. Which approach worked?

Unless you've been living in a cave, you now know that despite the Bush administration's claims, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We are now bogged down there...fifty one people killed in a car bomb yesterday. Over 4,000 young Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. All this, while Osama roams free and the Taliban reconstitutes in Afghanistan.

I get dizzy trying to follow the Republican spin machine on this. When Obama said he'd use drones to take out terrorists in Pakistan, McSame acted like he was a war monger...a few months later, the U.S. did just that. Now that he supports the Supreme Court ruling on detainees, he's some kind of weak-kneed "Liberal."

I wish that some of you would stop confusing your fantasies and prejuidices with facts. As for "Liberals" and WWII, it was "Liberal" FDR who mobilized the nation for war against obstructionist, conservative, Republican isolationists. That's a fact.

Karen.
An EDUCATED person is one whom is is aware of the possible consequences of his acts and non acts and responds accordingly. This surly would include voting for the most qualified candidate. OBAMA - IS NOT Qualified, is a Marxist and has a trainload of bad baggage.

""What it essentially wanted to do was to be completely inculcated from any checks and balances,""

I thought Barry was so much smarter than Bush?

Maybe he can explain his usage of "inculcated".

Sheesh...

I think "Gitmo" is actually on US soil Barry, might want to look into it you lightweight empty suit...

I am so mad i am going to hold my breath because someone keeps talking bad things about my lord and savior Obama

I see that my suggestions are being adhered to. Perhaps I shall stop reading the comments section. Good luck fighting for the lowest common denominator.

Obama use to drive a very wasteful car that only got about 2 miles to the gallon. But Obama's political posturing when he decided to run for president traded his car in for a more fuel efficient one.

How is that for POLITICAL POSTURING that Obama is blaming everybody else for. Obama will return to his wastefull car and life style 1 minute after the GENERAL election

What a real politician wants to say but can't.

Who cares if Oil prices go up. The cry babies need to start conserving and driving fuel efficiently cars. In the past few years i noticed more SUV's on the road and people driving 4 mpg SUV's wastefully to the store just to buy a can of soda. Throw away cell phones is another wasteful thing. People now have 100 month cell phone bills. 100 month cable tv bills. AMERICA is a very glutinous country and needs to start conserving and maybe fuel prices rising above 7 dollars a gallon will finally wake people up.

Bill Clinton mentioned something about America needs to slow down to conserve. But fool Obama used this to his advantage saying that Bill Clinton was calling Americans wasteful.

Obama is more worried about our credibility to the rest of the world but could care less that TERRORIST flew jet airplanes into buildings over 300 mph loaded with passengers. How does that make America look to the rest of the world Obama you fool. Now Obama wants to treat these viscous TERRORIST like they are petty thieves in our court system. How does that look to the rest of the world Obama.

The rest of the world fears America and with good because if you mess with the best your country will get destroyed like IRAQ and pretty soon IRAN.

Hats off to you, Karen - elegantly argued.

As far as logic goes, this idea that terrorists don't deserve proper trials to determine if they're terrorists - because they're terrorists - could only work with stupid people. And indeed it has ...

Re: "Karen, the Geneva Convention provides a very specific definition of a "prisoner of war." And these terrorists do not fit that description."

Yes, they do fit that description, but the Chimp created a new category called Enemy Combatant. He did this to avoid having to follow the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

The GOP ran on national security in 2002 and 2004 and won with it. By 2006, the tide had turned and people could see that the GOP was a fraud on national security like they were on fiscal conservatism. Now in 2008, the GOP is once again trotting out national security, but now the average voter is on to the scam bigtime. All Obama has to show is that he is not a weakling who will be taken advantage of at a time when we still face some of the most brutal, ruthless enemies and that he can protect our nation in a very, very dangerous world.