Are You Experienced?

Special Guest Columnist

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Ramana @ 06/24/2008 6:41:04 AM

    If America chooses a Republican again just because Obama lacks the so-called experience, (Bush was given a 2nd term after seeing his first-term experience) America will lose more than Obama will.

  • Posted By: redchuck18 @ 06/23/2008 4:16:18 PM

    Was Ehrenhalt's pice meant to be satirical?

    This may be the most ridiculous example of "redefinition" and "relativism" to come out of the nutty liberal extremist playbook in years.

    Obama is the most inexperienced and least vetted and qualified cadidate for office in the history of the presidency. He is a polished front man, but let's have some town halls where he has to navigate away from script and you will see what a pretty face in an empty suit he is.

    He is like the shallow anchor in Broadcast News played by William Hurt. And McCain is more like the character played by Albert Brooks. The left threw around the term "gravitas" in previous elections. McCain is the "gravitas" candidate. Obama is more like just plain old "gravy"...makes the meal look better and a little more tasty, but brings no substance to the table.

    • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 06/23/2008 4:18:45 PM

      Well I guess Bush's experience for govenor didn't help him either...JFK had his family name, he only spent one more year in the Senate than Obama...I think it comes down to who do you trust, who is the lesser of two evils, and do you want to continue another four years of the same policies that have been in place over the last eight years....or a new person who has some great leadership skills and vision.

      Regardless of who wins, there is going to be a generation worth, actually a laundry list of problems that will need to be solved, sooner hopefully than later. My generation Y daughter is going to catch the brunt of the mess. I never thought in eight years that we would be where we are today....Mark

      • Posted By: Galasso @ 06/23/2008 4:36:05 PM

        John Kennedy had several years as a congressman before he made it to the Senate. He was also a combat veteran of WWII. There is no comparison. JFK and Obama were two different people - each in their own time. We will always have a laundry list of problems in this country because we're still very young. Today's challenges are not as daunting as the Civil War, the two great World Wars or the Great Depression. It is testimony as to how fat and spoiled we really are as a nation that we can even entertain the idea of someone as inexperienced and unknown as Obama for the Presidency.

        • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 06/23/2008 4:46:07 PM

          I see what your saying...I think its just the fact that eight years of what has happened has made the masses upset...I don't know I am 54, and it seems that the problems that I see now are worst than ever....Israel threatening to bomb Iran and start wwIII, the Iraq quagmire, the economy is in trouble in some of the states...corporations seemingly have unlimited power, we have let our gov't control us rather than listening to us...makes it a tougher situation I think than I have seen....Mark

          • Posted By: Galasso @ 06/24/2008 5:23:18 AM

            I am older than you - and agree. But I am also optimistic. One should never lose the optimism. I think that tough times are the catalyst that ignites the American spirit. That's what JFK wanted to nourish and fuel in the 1960's - ask not what your country can do for you...........Obama's message is 180 out from that. JFK's simple message seems to have been suffocated in today's joyous celebration of entitlements and deafening roar about how much the country owes the individual. It seems completely foreign to me.

          • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 06/23/2008 5:32:29 PM

            I think people just have short memories. I remember back in the 80's when Russia was still scary and the Berlin Wall was still up. That seems like a lifetime ago now.

            And the economy is still better than it was in the 70's.

            And I've also noticed in election years, we keep getting it drilled into our heads by the media and the campaigns how bad everything seems. It's like boot camp. We're torn down so politicians can offer to build us back up and solve all our problems. Even the problems we didn't even know we had until they pointed them out to us. Then after it's all over in Nov, we become optimistic again until the next election.

        • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/23/2008 4:48:44 PM

          Getting "fat" means you're doing the same thing. Or, eight more years. People are sick of it, and you're the movie character that wheezes and coughs "Don't change anything".

          Like in every generation, the kids grow up and get sick of the old, smelly liars wrecking the world and blaming them for it. Time for old men to step aside while we still have a chance. Doing nothing means falling deeper into ancient policies and predicaments.

          And again, go to thomas.loc.gov, compare, then blog this idiocy.

          • Posted By: Galasso @ 06/24/2008 4:14:58 AM

            You completely missed the point. Fat and spoiled means we do need to change. It also means our decision-making skills have run off the rails. We have been in a hard swerve to the right for several years - the best course correction is not a hard swerve to the left. The country has always functioned at its best when it self-corrects to the middle. And by the way - personal attacks in this freedom of expression in which we are engaging dramatically illustrate the level of thought one brings to the discussion.

      • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 06/23/2008 5:21:00 PM

        Um, to point out yet again, JFK had more experience than Obama. JFK served in the military during WWII. He was a US Rep from 1946 to 1952. He was in the US Senate from 1952 to 1960. So he had more than twice as much time in the Senate than Obama.

        I'm not sure where you get the one more year in the Senate than Obama number. Fuzzy math.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/24/2008 2:03:43 AM

    What a Joke saying obama is Racist .You must be kidding everyone all this years. He's looking after by his white mother from heartlander from kansas and by his white grands ,now you're saying he's racist?? is this a Republican Joke of the Year.?

    • Posted By: pramono @ 06/24/2008 5:04:30 AM

      Obama is a Marxist Jew hater and a foreign policy disaster. He set for 20 years in the pews and listened to reverend Wright and Farrakhan, is a friend of terrorists and wants to help Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas destroy the West and Israel.
      Obama is a dangerous and risky combination:
      He combines the worst of Presidents Bush AND Carter.

      Remember Bush slogan "I am a Uniter not a Divider", a candidate full of hot air, without any history who promises a lot, and once elected delivers a disaster. At least through his actions has frightened the Arab extremists and prevented a repeat of 9/11.

      Carter is the worst president that the USA ever had. He brought us an inflation rate of 20% due to his dumb economic policies, he created Iran as we know it today, controlled by the ayatollahs, he made sure that there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians, he reduced our Military power to zero (we needed President Reagan to reverse Carters stupid icuts and naction), see who are Obama foreign policy advisors most of them are the same failures who served during the Carter administration...

      Obama brings a combination of the two; he is full of hot air, chants like a Parrot ???Change??? and is expected to be a total disaster.
      Obama was a disaster in every place he served as a community organizer, look at his neighborhoods in Chicago, according to his own writings: The Crime rate went up, the murder rate went up, drug use went up, the out of wedlock birthrate went up, the abortion rate went up, prostitution went up, educational achievements went down, welfare rate went up, this is what he wants to deliver to the rest of the USA.

      Vote for McCain if you want your children to sleep safely at night.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/24/2008 1:46:08 AM

    There's a HUGE difference between working for Washington Lobbyist and working for the people.

    • Posted By: pramono @ 06/24/2008 5:03:37 AM

      Obama is a Marxist Jew hater and a foreign policy disaster. He set for 20 years in the pews and listened to reverend Wright and Farrakhan, is a friend of terrorists and wants to help Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas destroy the West and Israel.
      Obama is a dangerous and risky combination:
      He combines the worst of Presidents Bush AND Carter.

      Remember Bush slogan "I am a Uniter not a Divider", a candidate full of hot air, without any history who promises a lot, and once elected delivers a disaster. At least through his actions has frightened the Arab extremists and prevented a repeat of 9/11.

      Carter is the worst president that the USA ever had. He brought us an inflation rate of 20% due to his dumb economic policies, he created Iran as we know it today, controlled by the ayatollahs, he made sure that there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians, he reduced our Military power to zero (we needed President Reagan to reverse Carters stupid icuts and naction), see who are Obama foreign policy advisors most of them are the same failures who served during the Carter administration...

      Obama brings a combination of the two; he is full of hot air, chants like a Parrot ???Change??? and is expected to be a total disaster.
      Obama was a disaster in every place he served as a community organizer, look at his neighborhoods in Chicago, according to his own writings: The Crime rate went up, the murder rate went up, drug use went up, the out of wedlock birthrate went up, the abortion rate went up, prostitution went up, educational achievements went down, welfare rate went up, this is what he wants to deliver to the rest of the USA.

      Vote for McCain if you want your children to sleep safely at night.

    • Posted By: Rametyn @ 06/24/2008 2:00:54 AM

      There is no evidence that Obama is working for the people--just his empty promise that he will do so--same empty promise Mccain makes--although, he has a history to back it up.

      The problem here is that you support Obama, but can't give evidence of proof as to why--just the old, he makes good speeches thing. And you can't disprove all the things that have been reported about him. Because, like it or not, these thing were not made up, they actually happened within Obama short span of political life. It actually amazes me that people will learn all these things, and then blindly follow him anyway, just because they want someone from their party to win. That is the truth, and the bottome line.

      • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/24/2008 2:08:43 AM

        Republican Tactic #132 - Don't worry about facts, don't worry about educating yourself, just say it loud and long enough and it must be true.

        Hmmm ...

        YOU'RE AN IDIOT
        YOU'RE AN IDIOT
        YOU'RE AN IDIOT
        YOU'RE AN IDIOT

        What you know, it works!

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/24/2008 1:38:38 AM

    Rametyn you're working as Ground paid Staff by John MCcain campaign????If,maybe so he's just another employee and one way of Republican tool using ithe nternet to spreads the same old Lies on this election.Dont worry Rametyn ,I do understand you're just taking care of your Family.

    thanks

    • Posted By: Rametyn @ 06/24/2008 1:43:50 AM

      And you don't have to use the internet to spread lies. Just turn on the news, these issues are all over there too.
      Wait--Obama excuse # 12 -- the media are all biased and only reporting these things on him because he is black. Right?

      You people need to wake up.

      • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 06/24/2008 2:22:20 AM

        and what is your excuse for posting things out of context to reality? Go back to Fox news, and enjoy the show....I enjoy postings personally of a little conventional wisdom, and research...

        I will be happy to share with you postings that support my arguments...I haven't been here for a few hours, and things have become out of whack...wow....I invite any argument that is logical and reasonable....and please the Obama excuses are lame as can be... I guess McCain walks on water too...and his campaign or McCain has never made mistakes either...big difference Obama owes up to them, McCain is afraid to admit mistakes....I will be back, as usual later today....ZZ take the rest of the night off, I will catch back up with you...

        • Posted By: pramono @ 06/24/2008 5:02:42 AM

          Obama is a Marxist Jew hater and a foreign policy disaster. He set for 20 years in the pews and listened to reverend Wright and Farrakhan, is a friend of terrorists and wants to help Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas destroy the West and Israel.
          Obama is a dangerous and risky combination:
          He combines the worst of Presidents Bush AND Carter.

          Remember Bush slogan "I am a Uniter not a Divider", a candidate full of hot air, without any history who promises a lot, and once elected delivers a disaster. At least through his actions has frightened the Arab extremists and prevented a repeat of 9/11.

          Carter is the worst president that the USA ever had. He brought us an inflation rate of 20% due to his dumb economic policies, he created Iran as we know it today, controlled by the ayatollahs, he made sure that there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians, he reduced our Military power to zero (we needed President Reagan to reverse Carters stupid icuts and naction), see who are Obama foreign policy advisors most of them are the same failures who served during the Carter administration...

          Obama brings a combination of the two; he is full of hot air, chants like a Parrot ???Change??? and is expected to be a total disaster.
          Obama was a disaster in every place he served as a community organizer, look at his neighborhoods in Chicago, according to his own writings: The Crime rate went up, the murder rate went up, drug use went up, the out of wedlock birthrate went up, the abortion rate went up, prostitution went up, educational achievements went down, welfare rate went up, this is what he wants to deliver to the rest of the USA.

          Vote for McCain if you want your children to sleep safely at night.

      • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/24/2008 2:02:55 AM

        Cha Ching - and here comes the racist. I was wondering how long it was going to be before we saw that come out.

        So, what other endearing characteristics do you have to show us tonight?

        How about a little homophobia. Come on, I know it's in there somewhere. You just can't wait to let us see it.

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/24/2008 1:58:48 AM

      If he is, someone needs to tell McCain to ask for a refund.

      • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 06/24/2008 2:16:32 AM

        LOL...consider the source of this Rametyn.person...he sounds like someone who makes huff remarks with all huff and no puff...omg I am sorry I came back to this blog in the late in the evening....I will be back tomorrow and see what goes on.... ttyl...Mark

    • Posted By: Rametyn @ 06/24/2008 1:41:30 AM

      The same way Obama is probably taking care of yours

      • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/24/2008 2:05:20 AM

        Jack999 is giving you a lot more credit than I would - a family? Well, maybe if you count the hunting dogs living in that car on blocks next to your trailer.

        That's the wonderful thing about dogs - they love you know matter how big of a moron you are.

  • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 06/23/2008 5:23:48 PM

    I know, as soon as I saw the title I thought, "Here it comes, another attempt to plump up Obama's thin resume."

    It's a pretty lame article, but I guess columnist doesn't mean journalist.

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/23/2008 9:57:00 PM

      I don't think any of you even read the article. You just read the title and started blogging. But hey, no reason to let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

      • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 06/24/2008 4:15:53 AM

        No, I read it. Otherwise I would've said it was a bad title instead of a bad article. As it so happens, it's both.

    • Posted By: josemarti @ 06/23/2008 5:33:23 PM

      Did you catch the picture of Washington in the background? A picture of Malcolm X, Che Guevara, or Sandino, would have been more appropiate.

      • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 06/23/2008 6:22:30 PM

        I don't think they'd make that mistake again after the press frenzy for having a flag with Che on it in one of his campaign offices:

        http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/02/obama_che_guevara_flag_scandal/

        http://lonestartimes.com/2008/02/13/ocf2/

        I realize the sources are probably biased, but they're the only ones I can find with the images I had seen before in an earlier story.

  • Posted By: Neilson2 @ 06/23/2008 5:40:06 PM

    Like it or not, Mr. Obama will win this November in a landslide. And this is coming from a centrist who supported Mr. McCain in 00'.

    The current polling shows Obama up around 6% nationally, the problem is that calls are only made to people with a voting history, There will be millions of new voters that will vote in a vast majority for Mr. Obama, so you can pretty much take the current polls and add another 5-10% across the board for him and that will be a more realistic guess.

    I myself have decided to vote for Mr. Obama this November as well, not because he inspires hope in me, or because I believe we will live in a perfect world with him, but mostly because John McCain has changed so much over the last two years. He has changed his position on almost all of the issues that made him attractive to us in the middle to begin with, and its unfortunate.

    I am also very impressed with the way Mr. Obama has organized his campaign and pulled off one of the greatest upsets in primary history. McCain is just now starting to get his campaign together even though he had almost 3 months longer to get things rolling, very dissapointing, and when you only have 4 years in office per election we cant have someone that takes 20% of there presidency just trying to get things started.

    • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 06/23/2008 5:53:10 PM

      Obama flip flops quite a bit. Remember the Jerusalem incident where he told Jewsih voters Jerusalem would remain undivided? Then had to change his mind a couple days later when someone told him a Palestinian would also want Jerusalem as it's capital?

      http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659672984&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

      Or when he said he'd invade Pakistan to pursue terrorists without permission for Pakistan, and had to change his mind when someone told him Pakistan was strongly against that idea?

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-03-pakistan-obama_N.htm

      • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/23/2008 9:54:17 PM

        The old flip flop strategy - it worked on Kerry, but you Republicans really need to come up with something new this go around.

        • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 06/24/2008 4:13:53 AM

          I'm not a Republican. I'm a former Democrat who is now an Independent who votes for moderates without regard for party and avoids liberals and conservatives.

      • Posted By: Neilson2 @ 06/23/2008 6:16:09 PM

        Thank you for bringing these points up, I think there is a bit of difference when it comes to Obama's shifts and McCains changes.

        I think Obama shifts his views when points are brought up to him that are reasonable and that havent been brought up to him before, which is actually a good thing in my opinion. I think it is nice for a candidate to be able to say hey, I said this, but I spoke with someone who made some good points and I will consider them. A nice change of pace from the "who cares what other people think" mentality.

        McCain however has changed on core principles in order to try and get votes from the conservative base. He has even said he would oppose immigration legislation that he himself wrote. He's will also support the Bush tax cuts that he called irresponsible only three years ago.

        Obama has done the same with campaign financing, but I think arfter the battle with Mrs. Clinton it knocked him into reality about that, and at least he is getting a majority of cash from small donors.

        • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 06/23/2008 6:33:52 PM

          I guess we both look at them in different lights. When I see Obama changing his mind so quickly, it feels like he doesn't know what he's talking about to begin with and has to constantly be "coached" by persons unseen. That disturbs me quite a bit. I have to wonder who is telling him what to say, and what does Obama really feel about any issue?

          McCain's changes seem to reflect more of a change of the times. Like he's more pro-environment now then he used to be, and he's looking for a wide range of energy solutions he may not have agreed with back when gas was $2 a gallon. But I do agree he seems to be trying to pander more to conservatives the last couple years, but I view that a reflection of what's neccesssary for a republican to be nominated more than I believe it represents his true values.

          It seems to be harder and harder for any moderates in either party to be nominated. Democrats always give us liberals, and republicans give us conservatives. That's why I like McCain, as he's a moderate trying to pass as a conservative for certain groups, but it's so obvious he's not, that it comes off strangely.

          • Posted By: AmeriKhan Lobo @ 06/23/2008 10:33:23 PM

            Like many other McSame backers and Republicans, you are seeing only what you want to see. When Obama haters believe and take as gospel the anti- Obama propaganda on many websites, they are still believing what they want to believe. If you notice, their aren't too many anti-McSame propaganda websites because McSame's actions are his own downfall. Mainstream media, and the words out of his mouth do more to turn off anybody with any sense than any website could.

          • Posted By: Neilson2 @ 06/23/2008 6:45:13 PM

            I think what bothers me about McCain and the switches is the way he potrays them. For instance I am open to offshore drilling, but it is being shown as a solution that will change the supply right now. In reality it would take 10 years to be in effect and our oil is much more costly to obtain that the Saudi's oil (because of depth and other obsticles) or it would have been pushed harder to drill for it in the past.. In this same amount of time we can focus much more on alternatives as Obama wants to do, and have a lasting and innovative solution rather than a temporary fix that sounds nice.

            • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 06/23/2008 6:55:28 PM

              The oil drilling is just one part of it. He's also suggested more nuclear power plants, more research into alternative fuels, the $300 million for a better auto battery, reducing oil use, seeking hydrogen powered cars, etc. He really seems open to anything to solve our energy needs with the idea that America could have oil independence.

              http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Energy_+_Oil.htm

              I like the idea of having a wide range of solutions instead of just putting the focus solely on alternative fuels. Gives us a bettter shot rather than putting all our eggs in one basket, as it were.

              • Posted By: Neilson2 @ 06/23/2008 7:21:02 PM

                Yes, I saw the nuclear power plant goals, and i knew that he mentioned the others but didnt seem to be focusing as much on the alternative parts.

                The funny thing is that I dont see how he is going to be able to pay for all of this with the immense amount of tax cuts he is proposing. I think things will clear up a whole lot more in the coming months and hopefully after a couple of real debates we can see where the focus of each person is going.
                My main problem has been that McCain has been pushing the oil drilling part of it way more even though it would be the least effective, for the purpose of getting votes. The problem is that Obama and McCain have many similarities when it comes to energy, because when something becomes a crisis partisanship usually gets thrown out the window, but drilling is something the obama campaign opposes and McCain is trying to use it to his advantage even though he opposed it in the past.


      • Posted By: Ezana @ 06/23/2008 6:02:22 PM

        The Jerusulem post....it's a good thing all the fanatics are on the Muslim side of that conflict otherwise I might think that source was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay biased. It's also a good thing you quoted from that paper with all the piecharts in it too. It has pictures for all of us who don't go for that elitist fancy book learnin.

        • Posted By: WhenStarsTurnBlue @ 06/23/2008 6:13:04 PM

          Um, you don't believe the story? There are tons more sources if you don't like those:

          http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-camp-deni.html

          http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-camp-deni.html

          http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0547673120080605

          And Obama sayind he was willing to attack Pakistan to reach al Quaeda targets was also well covered:

          http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

          http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sparks-fly-over.html

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

          Which begs the question, what do you have against Jews and pie charts?

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/24/2008 2:32:35 AM

    Come on lets face the Facts even Jesus Christ to be stand as a Candidate for Untied States President,he's going to be rebutted and bashed by many christian voters.Dont just Mention Roe Vs Wade.....many young one will going wild being stop for this so call American Culture. ...........

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/24/2008 2:11:54 AM

    Obama campaign finance by the People of All walks of lifes....Obama said never before anyone stands up .He already said...he NOT answerable to Washington lobbyist but only to the people on the ground......this Lead by example.Even when he decides to forgo public fund......even those who just donates $5 dollar o his campaign get his MMS hrough his mobile phone there's a urgent message for you from Obama.This's how he run his campaign decision to announce his Grassroot FIRST... NOT THE MEDIA

  • Posted By: Rametyn @ 06/23/2008 11:33:57 PM

    More open opinions without merit. It has been proven that he gased his own people-and had produced chemical weapons--moron. And if he had nothing, explain the reason to all these good people why he continued to oppose UN Inspections--EVEN IN THE FACE OF WAR. And I love how you name off all the other countries haroboring terrorists with a no, and the one yes gets a "who cares." Because that is the best argument you feeble little mind can come up with.And I looked thise up for ya, since you are an idiot and probably can't reseach given you have no reference to back up your BS.
    United Nation warning to Iraq: VOA news report. Look it up
    UN resoltution, in which Saddam will comply with unimpeded disclosure, or be forced to disarm by "ANY MEANS NECESSARY"
    meaning military action without compliance you idiot waste of space.

    See, a little time, and a little rhetoric from idiots like you does not change the truth.
    Saddam refused because he had something to hide, and gave himself enough time to hide it. Two years worth--the same way N Korea lied to Bill Clinton and gave themselves enough time to go nuclear. The only people he was ever fooling were idiot Dems like you who try and use the WMD thing as a political platform.

    You are pathetic.

    Facts are facts

    • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 06/24/2008 2:10:55 AM

      One simple question, where were the weapons off mass destruction that we hailed would be there? Why where they not found? Was it a Democratic conspiracy to unsirp Bushes power as president....I think you have it backwards...Dems did not start the WMD issue, look to the commander-in-chief...

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/23/2008 11:38:11 PM


      Who are you talking to?

      If you're talking to me - there is this little "reply" button at the top of each of my posts. You're kind of suppose to hit that and then post your reply.

      Otherwise, all your silly drivel just runs together and we ignore it.

      Just trying to help out!

      • Posted By: Rametyn @ 06/23/2008 11:41:33 PM

        That is the best retort you have.

        If you are going to prove me wrong, make sure you hit reply and let everone know it is me you are proving wrong.

        Man, you are not even worth talking to.

        • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/24/2008 12:48:38 AM

          Yeah !!! He has it figured out. O.K., school is in session:

          First, the war in Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction, period. Anything else is Republican revisionist history. Don't take my word for it, the following link is to George W. Bush's address to the American people on the Iraq threat. The only thing dicussed in the speech is weapons of mass destructon:

          http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

          Regarding U.N. actions, the report you provided in your post was from 1998 - five years before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Again, don't believe me, here is the link:

          http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/03/980306-iraq.htm

          The more appropriate U.N. document would be the last U.N. resolution on 11/08/2002, That resolution
          gave Iraq one more chance to comply, specifically "to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" The link is

          http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/08/national/main528675.shtml

          Iraq, in fact, was trying to comply with that resolution. While there were some issues with access to certian sites, U.N. inspectors remained in Iraq up to the day before the U.S. invasion. The inspectors found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. They acknowledged that there was a long list of missing items, but the inspectors made it clear that these missing items did not by themselves denote the presence of weapons of mass destruction. The link below provides a summary of the last U.N. inspection report before the U.S. invasion:

          http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7777.doc.htm

          After the U.S. invastion, no proof was found of any chemical, nuclear or biological weapons even though an exhaustive search was conducted by U.S. Forces. The following link provides a summary of the final report:

          http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2005/0425final.htm

          The Bush admistration eventually had no choice but to acknowledge there had been no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They blamed it on intelligence failures, and the finger pointing began.

          So you see, the entire reason we are in Iraq is boogus.

          Now I suggest you go to bed before I spank you again.

          • Posted By: Rametyn @ 06/24/2008 1:07:14 AM

            All that research, and still an idiot.

            First, no one ever said the war was NOT about WMD's. So what's your point?
            Second, the report I provided you was NOT from 1998, and the link you provided is not the same in respects to the information I gave you.
            Third, the UN did give them one final chance to comply--that is all you are actually right about. The results of NON-compliance as stated in the previous resolution before that is the one that specifically denotes the actions taken should they not comply. That they will be forced to disarm by any means necessary; and if you recall, though I doubt you do, Bush was not going to do anything until he got that resolution from the UN. Moron.
            Last, you are actually trying to persuade people to believe they were trying to comply after every repeated denial of compliance they had made--and oh yeah, twelve resolutions later.

            You are one walking timebomb of misinformation.

            Do I need to go and bring back actual excerpts from the UN resolutions, or would you rather continue to interpret opinion articles that conform to you biased, factless beliefs?

            • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/24/2008 1:56:52 AM

              Oh, i almost forgot, yes, it would be nice for you to bring back excerpts, and links, from the U.N. resolutions. It would be such a pleasant change from the meaningless bluster you have posted to date. We wouldn't want people thinking you were ignorant as well as stupid, now would we.

              So now I have spanked you twice - ready for number 3?

            • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/24/2008 1:56:02 AM

              Ding, school's in session again:

              First - let's look at a snippette from one of your earlier posts - Posted By: Rametyn @ 06/23/2008 22:41:24

              " ... We invaded Iraq because he did pose a threat to the US and surrounding countries--rememeber Kuwait? or did that not happen? WMD's found, or not found, the fact that he defied UN inspections over, and over, and over, and over--do I need to go on, or do you remember--caused the UN to draw up resolutions of compliance, and he WAS told if he DID NOT comply, then he risked military action to be imposed. If he had nothing to hide, he could have said, okay boys come on in, and the "invasion" you speak of would never have happened. ..."
              .
              I am not sure if you are saying the invasion was because Iraq posed a threat to surrounding countries or because it failed to comply with UN resolutions. But I think the statement "... WMD found, or not found ..." means you did not think WMD was the primary issue - when in reality, it was the only issue..

              Second - you claim I have the wrong link, but the link I provided has a title across the top that is verbaitum from your post. If this one is wrong, were's the link to the correct document?

              Third - Bush said he would take it to the Security Council for a vote, Specifically, when asked the question by a reporter, Bush said:

              Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the vote?

              THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says. And it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, we'll call for a vote.

              Q No matter what?

              THE PRESIDENT: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.

              Here's the link:

              http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

              But when Bush and his adminstration realized that the majority (note - majority) of Security Council members would vote against the resolution to use force, he did not put it to a vote as promised. Here's the link:

              http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm

              And finally, i never said that Iraq was trying to comply - I don't know for sure either way. What I do know is:

              1. The process was still going on at the time of the U.S. invasion.
              2. No weapons of mass destruction were found.
              3. It is very difficult to prove a negative.

  • Posted By: jb41908 @ 06/24/2008 2:09:10 AM

    8 years in one of the most politically corrupt state legislatures in the country, and most of his "accomplishments" came at the end, when his buddy was shoveling legislation his way to polish up his resume for a Senate run.

    Versus 22 years in the Senate.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 06/24/2008 1:17:11 AM

    Your are right we could be energy independent. HOWEVER, THE BIG BUSINES BEHIND OIL IS WHAT NEED TO BE REFORMED. DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT WOULD BE FOR EXXON MOBILE and the other three oil firms to reduce their profits. GAS IS ONE OF THE CHEAPEST RESOURCES OUT THERE. HOW COULD SOMETHING SO CHEAP BECOME SO EXPENSIVE?

    THE ANSWER: BIG BUSINESS and A POWERFUL LOBBYING MACHINERY THAT CONTROLS WASHINGTON AND ENTITIES ON BOTHE SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM.
    TO DEFEAT THESE INTERESTS IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE. THIS IS WHY IT IS WILL TAKE TWO DECADES TO COMPLETELY CHANGE. IF THE INTERNET CAN CHANGE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS in TEN YEARS then anything is possible.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 06/24/2008 1:16:39 AM

    Your are right whala we could be energy independent. HOWEVER, THE BIG BUSINESs BEHIND OIL IS WHAT HAS DRIVEN PRICES SO HIGH. WE ARE FULLY DEPENDENT ON MIDDLE EAST OIL. DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT WOULD BE FOR EXXON MOBILE and the other three oil firms to reduce their profits. GAS IS ONE OF THE CHEAPEST RESOURCES OUT THERE.
    "HOW COULD SOMETHING SO CHEAP BECOME SO EXPENSIVE eddiewhere 2008"?

    THE ANSWER: BIG BUSINESS and their POWERFUL LOBBYING MACHINERY CONTROLS WASHINGTON AND POLITICAL INTERESTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM.
    TO DEFEAT THESE INTERESTS IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE and will take time. THIS IS WHY IT WILL TAKE TWO DECADES TO COMPLETELY CHANGE. IF THE INTERNET CAN CHANGE AMERICAN POLITICS in TEN YEARS then anything is possible.

    "NO AMERICAN LIFE IS WORTH IRAQI FREEDOM.
    ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS NOT A REAL AMERICAN eddiewhere 2008."

    We need to get out of Iraq and transfer responsibility and management of that country to the IRAQ's themselves. THEY SHOULD be backed by a multinational force led by Middle Eastern countries until they are able to fight extremist on their own.
    Our unilateral approach in the MIDDLE EAST has to come to an end. ECONOMICALLY, IRAQ IS KILLING the average tax payer and making a few private contractors and oil firms rich.

    We need Oil. WE NEED OIL. Therefore, getting rid of the Iranian regime is at the top of our agenda.
    The majority in Iran want change but not under and American led invasion. It has to be done from within. We lost the support of moderate Arabs and Muslims over the last six years. Hopefully, PRESIDENT OBAMA can empower this group and encourage them to meet with their counterparts.

    Inotherwords there should be an alliance between all moderates in the Middle East, JEWS, ARABs, MUSLIMS, ect... These forces must be self motivated by a common cause, Peace. IF this group can be strengthened they themselves will defeat or at least contain the force of extremism.
    WE must strengthen the forces behind peace and weaken those against peace on both sides.

    THE UNITED STATES CANNOT SOLVE THE CONFLICT IN THE MIDDLE EAST. WE CAN ONLY STRENGHTEN AND SUPPORT THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST TO SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS.

    IN THE SHORT RUN WE NEED MIDDLE EASTERN OIL. THIS COMPLICATES OUR ROLE OVER THERE.
    WE Should have had an ENERGY SUMMIT TEN YEARS AGO. WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A TWENTY YEAR PLAN to RID OURSELVES of OIL DEPENDENCY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. TWENTY YEARS WILL GO BY LIKE NOTHING. WE HAVE TO START NOW.

    THE most dangerous threats are the ones you do not see coming. LIKE CHINA, RUSSIA, EASTERN EUROPEAN organized crime. Monitoring these entities will be our great challenge.
    ARE WE READY FOR CYBER WAR. I DON't THINK SO.

  • Posted By: jimgreen8c @ 06/23/2008 11:51:25 PM

    Does Obama have more experiance than McCain? NO! Any idiot without a liberal press agenda would know that! (I suspect even those with a liberal press agens know it too. They just lie and pretend not to.) Stupid premis and stupid article.

    • Posted By: Rametyn @ 06/24/2008 12:16:21 AM

      Well put.

      Just like Democrats supported slavery here, and were proponents for the Mexican-American War. which pushed people from Texas, New Mexico, and California into an inhospitable desert; and are now claiming to be the minority ticket while immigrants try to return into this country from the place THEY sent them. It was a Republican pres who freed the slaves, and it was Republicans who opposeed the Mexican-American war in the first place. Still, Dems will vote for Dems just because their Dems. They will argue that if their candidate has no experience, then experience doesn't matter; although the qualifications of a candidate is how we have judged every other hopeful since Washington. If it were based on what someone just says they can do, well, I'm sure even zig zag would have a good chance at running.

      • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/24/2008 1:06:01 AM

        And you ... with the 100 year old crap again. Who cares?

        Although the "well put" response was not a surprise.

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/24/2008 1:05:05 AM

      NO! That's it, just no? Such deep intellect. Where you stamping your feet when you said it? I bet you were. Come on, admit it. You can't possibly look any dumber than you already do.

  • Posted By: bill_in_NH @ 06/23/2008 11:43:06 PM

    But how does all that prepare him to be commander in chief (which is about 75% of what being president is all about)?

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/24/2008 1:03:00 AM

      Hmm, let's see:

      Commander and Chief - 75%
      Economy and Commerce - 4%
      Diplomacy - 3%
      Energy - 3%
      Housing -3%
      Health and Human Services - 3%
      Education - 3%
      Transportation - 3%
      Agriculture and Interior Affairs - 3%

      Yeah, that seems about right ... for a Republican.

  • Posted By: lbrillante @ 06/24/2008 1:00:55 AM

    Thanks for this. I really appreciate it. I have watched the US Senate for years and I can attest to the fact that a majority of them seem to be figureheads that generally do not know very much about the issues they are dealing with. It is very discocerting. The state legislature is by nature a bit more intimate in terms of accessibility and needs.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/24/2008 12:59:29 AM

    Everyone ALREADY Knows Republican lobbyist machine going to come all out attack againts obama for this 5 months ahead,only the FOOLS dont realise it,They shall come out

    LIES=FEARS,TERRORIST,WAR,SEX,BIBLE that all get the lLIES across.......read my LIP " NO THIS TIME" all nasty and negative elements of OBAMA

  • Posted By: Rametyn @ 06/23/2008 11:34:52 PM

    Next time you try to refresh your memory, try not to hurt yourself.

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/23/2008 11:44:54 PM

      Did we forget the reply button lesson already?

      O.K. - lucky for you, I like you - there is a little black button with the word "REPLY" on it. You need to take your mouse and click on it. Then write your reply That way I'll know you're talking to me!

      If you're having trouble seeing it, then use the handicap settings on your computer.

      Alright, let's try again.

      • Posted By: Rametyn @ 06/23/2008 11:56:45 PM

        Like I said, if that is the best you have, instead of actually trying to refute the factual information I provided you, then you are truly and idiot.

        The, you didn't prove me wrong because you didn't hit reply schitck--and it;s shctick, not stick--is just about as tired.

        You provide nothing but an endless amount of pointless pontification. Hope that is working well for you. I am sure all your friends refer to you as the smart one.

        • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/24/2008 12:51:24 AM

          Actually, I just spanked you - see below. You gotta watch out for us little twirps.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 06/24/2008 12:41:35 AM

    NO AMERICAN LIFE IS WORTH IRAQI FREEDOM.
    "ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS NOT A REAL AMERICAN eddiewhere 2008

    We need to get out of Iraq and transfer responsibility and management of that country to the IRAQ's themselves. THEY SHOULD be backed by a multinational force led by Middle Eastern countries until they are able to fight extremist on their own.
    Our unilateral approach in the MIDDLE EAST has to come to an end. ECONOMICALLY, IRAQ IS KILLING the average tax payer and making a few private contractors and oil firms rich.

    We need Oil. WE NEED OIL. Therefore, getting rid of the Iranian regime is at the top of our agenda.
    The majority in Iran want change but not under and American led invasion. It has to be done from within. We lost the support of moderate Arabs and Muslims over the last six years. Hopefully, PRESIDENT OBAMA can empower this group and encourage them to meet with their counterparts.

    Inotherwords there should be an alliance between all moderates in the Middle East, JEWS, ARABs, MUSLIMS, ect... These forces must be self motivated by a common cause, Peace. IF this group can be strengthened they themselves will defeat or at least contain the force of extremism.
    WE must strengthen the forces behind peace and weaken those against peace on both sides.

    THE UNITED STATES CANNOT SOLVE THE CONFLICT IN THE MIDDLE EAST. WE CAN ONLY STRENGHTEN AND SUPPORT THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST TO SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS.

    IN THE SHORT RUN WE NEED MIDDLE EASTERN OIL. THIS COMPLICATES OUR ROLE OVER THERE.
    WE Should have had an ENERGY SUMMIT TEN YEARS AGO. WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A TWENTY YEAR PLAN to RID OURSELVES of OIL DEPENDENCY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. TWENTY YEARS WILL GO BY LIKE NOTHING. WE HAVE TO START NOW.

    THE most dangerous threats are the ones you do not see coming. LIKE CHINA, RUSSIA, EASTERN EUROPEAN organized crime. Monitoring these entities will be our great challenge.
    ARE WE READY FOR CYBER WAR. I DON't THINK SO.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/24/2008 12:39:07 AM

    Typical Republican lobbyist Machine,American now realise the FACTS AND TRUTH,thats why before we gets G.W.BUSH in first place...."LIES " becoming so assosiated with Republican party nowdays.We Americans going to MARCH forward this fall agin declare our independent of TRULY American Citizens by taking our Country honor back from moron.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse