Memo to President Obama

Research indicates there are 3, maybe 4 if you include congressmen, specific types of people that support PINKObumer.

1. Hate themselves, and of course proclaim it is others that hate.
2. Hate others, and of course proclaim it is others that hate.
3. Most prevalent group: UDOPIANS: Characterized by bizarre manifestations of HOPE and CHANGE according to each individuals individual fantasy of utopia. UDOPIANS have the same side effects, not unlike alcoholics or drug addicts, they are in denial as to reality: that HOPE and CHANGE mean nothing; and yet those with UDOPIA feel HOPE & CHANGE means whatever they fanaticize it means. Each has the same basic politically correct response to those who try and point out they have UDOPIAN simplex: you are a neo-con or you hate or other similar politically correct accusations of the day. Someone points out: OBUMER you have UDOPIAN simplex: I see all the red flags of UDOPIA; same delusional HOPE for CHANGE answer every time.
4. Congressmen, & their workers, who think PINKObumer is their: 4 more years of pork barrel: free meal ticket for their districts; no leadership with a clue to control congressional out of control spending.= easy re-election.

beats me how many intelligent people wheter politicians or journalists of whaterver western nation miss the point about what is happening since those last 15ys. What we are witnessing whether in Israel; Iran, Pakistan and even Huckabee bid is the religious version of Custer last stand. Religious , not as a fight for faith, but a fight of religious nomenklatura to keep political power to wield political power. Who in his/her right mind is discussing the intricaties of catholicism, Islam or Sikhism. No one disputes the other's faith or lack of it. It is a personal matter; rather we see the Pope, the archbishop of Canterbury, the Mullahs etc putting their pudgt finger into the polittical pie and stealing it. The Iranian Prez can , for all my blessing, believe in the holy powers of Onions if he wishes too, no problem by me, but that he should find normal to relinquish his poltical independance to a group of people who for only achievement have grown beards and kneel 7 times a daytoward Mecca is plainly wrong. This is the onslaught of unproven faith against proven science, proven math, proven facts. Jesus, a strong one for neocons , and a strong one for the Pope and myself incidentally saif to keep apart Caesar and God. Hucabee wants to change our constition to make it christian forgetting the Orthdoxs,Jews, non-believers, Buddhists etc of our great nation. This is no war on terror, this a war against secularism, against tolerance. When I'll see , you, remind us that the war on terror is that religious fanatics called them islamofascists or christian nutballs have started against any nation who believes that politics is the salve of faith. This is no war on terror, this is war against freedom of speech, freedom of belief.

"the group has never come close to duplicating 9/11; even the train bombings in London and Madrid that were attributed to Al Qaeda-inspired cells were minor by comparison." Shouldn't the war on terror be directly credited for this?

If you have been reading recent issues of Jeune Afrique. (And advantage to speaking French), you'd notice a concern about the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in the Maghreb. (A recent issue featured a very revealing article about the training of suicide bombers in Algeria.) According to journalists writing for Jeune Afrique, Islamic fundamentalsim is spreading for two reasons. First of all, the American occupation of Iraq; secondly, the soaring poverty and unemployment in many cities in the Arab world.

Obama has one big trump card. He appeals to the young. Afrique Magazine and Jeune Afrique have already written about him. (Afrique Magazine labels him America's best hope.) Most terrorists are young. Much of the Islamic world, including Iran, is young. We cannot, I repeat, we cannot defeat terrorism by military means. McCain's solution to terrorism -= namely :bomb Iran" will only increase the appeal of Islamic Fundamentlaism. We can end or contain terrorism only if we do the following. First, find some way to leave Iraq. Secondly, eliminate or reduce the socio-economic conditions that breed terrroism. Thirdly, we need to cut the funding source - mainly oil revenues (much of it flowing through Saudi Arabia). We need to seriously develop green technology I might add that we could increase wealth in the Middle East by sharing green technology with them. (Even Abu Dubai recognizes that the wealth of oil will not last forever.) I would urge Obama to initiate this debate. I believe his background provides makes him highly qualified to understand these issues. We need to intiate change in the way we fight terrorism.

People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.

Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there -- and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters' fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance that they assume is boring, a fascination that despite being ridiculed for years continues to dominate political journalism.)

I am a rarity among Washington journalists in that I have served in a state legislature. I know from my time in the West Virginia legislature that the challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the "heart and soul" bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person's character and ability.
By Charles Peter

Re:

Posted By: ObamaMama @ 02/22/2008 5:04:38 PM
Comment: A continued worldwide effort to expose radical terror cells and extremists, expose plots BEFORE they are executed, requires international co-operation, intelligence sharing, INTERPOL plus. For the good of the world, I believe all countries will choose to strengthen these efforts. I believe President Obama will encourage and strengthen international participation of such goals. War is NOT a requirement for world co-operation that protects the BROTHERHOOD OF MAN.
===================================================
Our "government" was sitting in the Pentagon, watching 09/11 unfold, and told the military to stand down. Watch Manetta's testimony. Then read the documents on the PNAC web site. It will make you sick.

if terror was that big a deal, then Bush would have killed his daddy's best friends kid, Osama Bin Laden. Bush let him get away, then 6 months after 09/11, said "he's not that big a deal" on television for everyone to see. The Bushs got what they want: lots of military all over Iraq, to help out his buddies in oil and lucrative government contracting business. Its a gross insult to anyone with 1/4 of a brain to call it a "war on terror". War for terror is a better description.

i live in a state that is voting pretty soon, and haven't made up my mind about who to vote for, i'd like to hear people's opinions about what the world will think about following someone like Obama vs someone like HRC. how confident are people that either one can truly stop the 'war on terror'? i assume they'd try to apeal to the UN for support while we get out of IRAQ. which one would inspire more worldwide cooperation?

i live in a state that is voting pretty soon, and haven't made up my mind about who to vote for, i'd like to hear people's opinions about what the world will think about following someone like Obama vs someone like HRC. how confident are people that either one can truly stop the 'war on terror'? i assume they'd try to apeal to the UN for support while we get out of IRAQ. which one would inspire more worldwide cooperation?

Sjones writes below: "We'll abandon our allies and try cut deals with dictators instead of supporting democracy. " Is he talking about Senator Obama or President Reagan who cut deals with Iran (Iran-Contra) and who at the same time supplies Osama bin Laden and Al Quaeda with troops to fight the Russians in Afganistan--who also supported Saddaam Hussein in his war against Iran?

Senator Obama represents new ideas and an engagement with the world that is not Emperial. It is about time because after eight years of Bush-Cheney we don't have many allies left in the world.

A continued worldwide effort to expose radical terror cells and extremists, expose plots BEFORE they are executed, requires international co-operation, intelligence sharing, INTERPOL plus. For the good of the world, I believe all countries will choose to strengthen these efforts. I believe President Obama will encourage and strengthen international participation of such goals. War is NOT a requirement for world co-operation that protects the BROTHERHOOD OF MAN.

I have very little confidence in Barack Obama. The man is an utterly untested former state Senator. I went to the Ivy League too, trust me it means nothing. He's handsome and charming. So is the guy who does the local news in every town across the country. So is the guy who sells you a used car. He's gone off the deep end on foreign policy. Where he hasn't boxed himself into a corner on promising to withdraw our military, he's overcommitting us by trying to seem macho. An Obama Presidency would consist of standard Democratic economics -- tax the rich, cut down on trade to protect domestic manufacturers. If he succeeds in making us high tax isolationists our economy stalls. If he fails to deliver on all his overblown "hope" and promises he simply poisons the well by blaming Republicans for his failures. Either way its a recipe for failure and stagnation. And his foreign policy represents an America in decline. We'll abandon our allies and try cut deals with dictators instead of supporting democracy. All grim stuff. Look, the Iraq war will stabilize. Iraq, simply, has oil. That alone gives it the strength to succeed provided a reasonable amount of continued support from us. McCain seems to be the man for the moment. He can work with Democrats. He can get independants. He was right all along strategically about getting enough forces into Iraq. McCain seems to be a guy we can be proud of in office with his rational centered pricipled politics. Obama's brand of populism is going to flare out one way or another.

It would be foolish for Obama to make the arguments made in this piece in the campaign in such a direct manner; most Americans simply cannot understand these nuances. After all, most Americans still do not even know that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Most Americans understand very little about Islam and even less about its sectarian and tribal divisions. However, Senator Obama has suggested that he understands the issues raised in this article: he talks about a new emphasis on diplomacy; he talks about the need for America to hold ourselves to the highest ideals and morals in our dealings with other countries and so he would immediately end torture and close Guantanamo; he talks about how the war in Iraq diverted America from the real enemy--Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden; he talks about extending an offer to open up lines of communication with old enemies as a way to win them to our way of life, rather than ignoring them and building walls of separation. I think in short, he HAS indicated that his foreign policy would be different, without directly speaking about the War on Terror itself as something that is illusionary and unnecessary, an argument which would not be effective.

to the writer....so true...never mind Iraq..end this war on terror!

Very nice article. On point, and well thought-out. I agree 100% that Bush and Co. used 9/11 as an excuse to drag the U.S. into costly, unproductive conflicts with Iraq and alienation with other allies. The bottom line is that we need to stop pretending Iraq is part of the war on terror, and actually have a targeted, precise, and well-thought out approach to this problem that involves a lot more real diplomacy that what we've seen over the last few years.

And the other thing I like about your article is that you see, as I do, that we are giving these thugs too much credit and only giving them exactly what we want when we elevate them to some type of worldwide diabolical status. It's time to become ruthless, but surgical, in our dealings with these people, instead of wasting billions and billions of dollars and lining the pockets of contractors to fight useless wars that don't accomplish any real objectives.

Terrorism cannot be addressed except by attempted world-wide totalitarianism, a remedy worse than the disease. I would rather take my chances with isolated instances of terrorism than to be subjected to world-wide totalitarianism.