The Incremental Revolutionary

Nins: Why are you peddling BS trotted out by a pack of leftwinged rags? General James Simmons,not only did not cancel such a display,but produced it before reporters of several news services including CNN,NBC,Agence France Presse,REUTERS,the AP,ABC,and others on Nov.17,2007. Indeed,why would Iranian Supreme Council Member Ayatollah Khamenei agree that such arms were indeed,flowing to Iraq in his Nov.18,2007 meeting with Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq? You are presenting only half-truths with regards to Irans nuclear program. The IAEA not only acknowlages that Iran is making enriched uranium,but as late as last month,acknowlaged that Iran was ''only two years away from a nuclear weapon.Perhaps less.''[Remarks,Muhammed El-Baradei June 20,2008,AL-ARABIYA]. The IAEA recognizes that Iran now has plutonium,along with its acknowlagement that its large numbers of centerfuges ''could produce enough material for one bomb in six months to one year'',hence El-Baradeis newest worries. At this moment,Iran refuses to allow full inspections by the IAEA.

Why did the US military cancel a news conference where they were going to display the "Iranian" weapons they found in Iraq? Because there WERE NO IRANIAN WEAPONS to display. Here are links supporting the fact that the weapons found in Iraq did not come from Iran:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_05/013695.php
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/fire_next_time.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html

NOT TO MENTION that the Untied States itself has had a notable role in arming the insurgency. When the US dissolved the Iraqi Army, that flooded Iraq with weapons. More recently the Pentagon admitted that it had lost track of a third of the weapons distributed to Iraqi security forces in 2004-05, totaling 190,000 assault rifles and pistols that are currently on the streets of Iraq. The British paper that published this article got it's information straight from the US Government Accounting Office's public website: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pentagon-admits-190000-weapons-missing-in-iraq-460551.html

Ask yourself, why would America want to pretend that Iran is pushing weapons in Iraq, when actually WE (the USA) has flooded Iraq's streets with weapons? Because Bush wants to declare war on Iran, and just like the fake "WMDs" in Iraq, he needs something to frighten Americans, so he comes out with this BS about Iran killing US soldiers in Iraq. He has also said that Iran is making nuclear weapons, but recent inspections have found NO EVIDENCE of nuclear weapons in Iran. JUST LIKE how repeated inspections found NO EVIDENCE of WMDs in Iraq. The reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN inspectors and nuclear experts at the Institute for Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) all agree that Iran DOES NOT have nuclear weapons. The IAEA report states that Iran only has "low enriched uranium, not the highly-enriched uranium necessary to produce a bomb." The ISIS reports states "It is important to note that they do not encompass the full scope of work required for a comprehensive nuclear weapons program. Missing is theoretical work on nuclear weapons, uranium metallurgy, and the development of a neutron initiator." http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/2008/iaea_report_on_iran.htm#_ftn9

In case you think the idea that Bush wants to bomb Iran is reactionary, you should know that John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, recently told FoxNews that he can "definitely envision Bush bombing Iran before he leaves office." By bombing Iran, Bush makes it more likely McCain will be elected. But can the US Treasury, can the US economy stand more war? Even if we could afford it, we don't have the manpower in uniform. You know what that means: draft and conscription. Vote for McCain. Watch your children come home in body bags. Watch America go into a Great Depression.

The Clinton campaign has re-upped their spin that Barack is all talk, no action. HRC has recently commented, "Speeches won't fill up your tank." I'm so frustrated by this I could scream.

No, speeches don't fill up gas tanks, but people motivated by a great leader - one who inspires and calls people to action (as Barack clearly does) - CAN bring about the momentum and activism we need to make any change America wants or needs.

We are supposed to be a government, "of the people, by the people, for the people", and we desperately need a President with the ability to inspire the people. To dismiss Barack's oratory gift is a crime.

I know, I'm preaching to the choir! Just had to get it out.

He has not the experence or know how to be a good president. He talks big but he also is not for the working people the senior citizens or health care like we need it. He is all for giving the wealthy tax breaks so if he is elected welcome back four more years of George W. Bush. Only difference is the war.

How can anyone read or hear anything from Fox News and believe it? Give me a break! Anyone who believes that Bushie is making a mess of the country, and yet would vote for any of the Republicans running for president instead of either Obama or Hillary, is a fool. The mess we are in is not just because of Bushie! The Republicans were so in step with him, that he vetoed no bills during his first five years in office. He has since vetoed a stem cell research bill twice, an Iraq spending bill that set guidelines for troop withdrawals, and a children's health insurance bill. House and Senate Republicans managed to sustain those vetoes.

How can anyone read or hear anything from Fox News and believe it? Give me a break! Anyone who believes that Bushie is making a mess of the country, and yet would vote for any of the Republicans running for president instead of either Obama or Hillary, is a fool. The mess we are in is not just because of Bushie! The Republicans were so in step with him, that he vetoed no bills during his first five years in office. He has since vetoed a stem cell research bill twice, an Iraq spending bill that set guidelines for troop withdrawals, and a children's health insurance bill. House and Senate Republicans managed to sustain those vetoes.

Published on FoxNews.com on January 18, 2008.
As American banks go hat in hand to foreign financial institutions and
governments, begging for capital to help them get out of the mess into which
their subprime loans have landed them, the question arises as to whether the
United States should permit nations like China, Saudi Arabia, the United
Arab Emirates (UAE) and the banks they control to acquire part ownership of
our leading banks.
The presidential candidates discussed this issue in their Nevada debate and
Hillary was asked about it in an interview with Neil Cavuto on the FOX
Business Network yesterday. She replied that she would not "stand in the
way" of such investments, but said that they needed to be vetted and called
for more disclosure and "transparency."
The fact is that Hillary Clinton is totally unable to be objective on this
key question of our national financial sovereignty because she and her
husband have been so compromised by their financial dealings with the very
countries at issue in the decision.
Should the Saudi monarchy be permitted to purchase an important equity
position in some of America's leading banks? How can Hillary be objective
when the very same monarchy donated $10 million to the Clinton Library and
Foundation?
Should the UAE be allowed in? How can Hillary decide fairly when Bill - and
therefore herself - have been getting a reported $10 million per year from a
fund that administers the investments of the Emir of Dubai, the largest
component state in the UAE?
The Dubai Ports deal compromised our national security by putting key points
of entry in that nation's control. But the infusion of capital and the
acquisition of equity in our key banks has the potential to make that
encroachment on our sovereignty seem piddling by comparison.
Neither Dubai nor Saudi Arabia would be permitted to contribute to Hillary's
campaign. Foreigners are not allowed to do so, precisely to avoid having
potential office holders compromised by gratitude for their financial
support. But these nations have used the porous ethics of the Clinton family
to acquire positions of massive influence by making contributions, not to
her campaign, but to her personal bank account - either through Bill or
through the Library and Foundation, which the Clintons directly control. The
extent of the influence their mi llions must buy with a family only
recently, according to Hillary, in the "middle class" must be huge.

This is the very best report that I've read on Obama and the strategic misguidings given by the Clinton Campaign machine. This is terrible and I can GUARANTEE that if Clinton gets the nomination, I will vote Republican.

After reading this article, I was amazed that the press had become so tuned into race as to tip-toe on eggshells around the issues concerning Barack Obama. While mentioning his "present" vote in Illinois on the issue of abortion to defeat the bill without actually taking a stand on it, the authors say nothing of a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults in which he also voted "present" so as not to appear soft on crime if he voted for it that would also risk alienating the African-American community which was against it. He has taken this approach with him to the Senate where his "no vote" has become his signature on the important issues (i.e. abortion, farm subsidies, appropriations, student loans and Iraq-check his voting record!). His votes-or lack there of-are too calculating and too politically motivated. I want a President who will take a stand-one way or another-on issues so that the country-and the world-knows our intentions.

Hilary gives a far too hazy impression to me. Obama seems slightly more matter-of-fact, straight-talking and trustworthy. Honesty is the best policy. However I have yet to read or hear about the details of his serious policies. People die out of political neglect or incompetence, people stay shrouded in ignorance, but the politicians are splitting atoms over abortion. People will just go to Canada anyway, forget about echoing Sunday school classes and just take part in a grown up world.

Respect to Mr. M. Romney.
Lithuanians

Mr. Obama is good, but Mr. M. Romney is more better.

I almost feel sorry for the Democrats...almost. They have such a weak field. Our frontrunners are a far more seasoned, diverse and sensible group. Hillary's only appreciable experience is her seven years in the United States Senate. She has never balanced a budget or led a squadron in combat. She's never rescued a scandal- and debt-ridden Olympics. She has consistently voted against tax cuts for the middle class and has been advocating an irresponsible foreign policy approach on the campaign trail. I sincerely hope she gets the Democratic nomination, and I hope the Republicans will nominate a Romney-McCain ticket, giving us our biggest margin of victory in November since the Reagan landslide of '84.

ut is ver clear Hillary has the expperince to be our President. Obama is still lacking the ability to make commitments and does not have the qualifications to be our president in these trying times. After all people! We can not put our country in the hands of a 2 year Senator who has not been able to really do very much for his won state of illinois, how can he possibly run our couontry and face all the challenges that lay ahead for our Country. We must vote for th emost qualified. This is our nation we are talking a bout, our lively hood and the future of our children,.My Responsible vote will go to the most qualified. Hillary R. Clinton. If she should choose Obama as a running mate for VP, That would be great. Obama would get the exposure and experience and we the Democrats will b e in for the next 16 years. Good times ahead..Vote for Hillary that would be the the most responsible vote.