Sarah Palin's death panel a reality

America. I won't comment on whether doing exactly what he pledged to do makes Obama conservative or liberal. But I am fairly sure that it doesn't make him incompetent.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Indeed. The question is, who does he serve? Or, maybe, how much of a loyal lackey for the GigaCorporate International Plutocracy is he?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

I love it. He's a socialist Marxist, he's a capitalist lackey; he's a peacenik, he's a warmonger; he's not changed anything since Bush, but he wants to remake America; he's a Chicago insider who plays dirty but he's a wimp who won't throw any elbows. He's the nation's most liberal senator but he's a secret conservative in disguise.Obama plays N-dimensional chess and your collective noggins don't have enough marbles for Chinese checkers. It drives you Firebaggers and Teatards crazy, and I love every minute of it.Absolutely without a doubt the smartest man in politics since Adlai Stevenson. And the color of his skin just drives some of you up the wall. Absolutely up the wall.

What? How can you compare these to Iraq and Afghanistan? The USS Maine WAS sank in Cuba. There are no WMD's, there never was. It was an outright lie. Congured up out of thin air in hopes of striking fear in the American public and gain support for the invasion.C'mon, Crash. Not even close dude. Wow, where to start.1) Resolution 1441 never authorized war. John Negroponte (US ambassador) said:

​

This resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force.
2) Iraq never violated Res. 1441 - because they never had WMD's.3) The US, Britain and Spain took it upon themselves to declair that Iraq hadn't provided enough evidence. NOT the UN Security Councel.On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." - sourceI'm sorry, when were we attacked by Afghanistan?If you're refering to the CIVIL act of violence perpetrated by 16 hijackers on 9/11, you'll have to be clear as to how this is a matter that falls under Article 51 of the UN Charter. No doubt, but you said:He campaigned on opposition to the Iraq War, and he's made good on that opposition by bringing most of our troops home.Which is not the case. Most went to Afghanistan.And no, they are not needed in Afghanistan at all, not if the point is to restore order in the country. Increasing troops to an area where more troops are not needed, and in fact are causing more civil issues (mainly the death of men, women and children) to me, is a sign of incompetence.- Oni

I think someone has a serious case of jungle fever. You're the only one mentioning his skin color...got a yerning for some black cock, have 'ya? I think the only one that wants to be driven up a wall is you, or at least slammed up against one, and perhaps violated twice for good measure?No one you are discussing these issues with here has ever shown any signs of being a racist who's bother by skin color, get a grip dude.- Oni

I thought that it was the free and sovereign people of the United States of America, but if you know better then perhaps you could communicate this fact by some means more explicit than rhetorical questions and innuendo.Obama campaigned on a pledge to take troops out of Iraq and to put more troops into Afghanistan. Then the people who had heard him promise that voted for him to be President. And now he appears to have done so.Where's the problem? Isn't that how it's meant to work?

Lies and false information in reference to who? What he pledged to do? When specifically, and what specifically, did he pledge to do?- Oni

Yeah. By accident, not by military action. Nonetheless it was used to justify a "retaliatory" military campaign against Spanish-occupied islands in the Caribbean.The Spanish-American War was a war predicated entirely on lies. C'mon, you've never heard of "yellow journalism"? "You provide the pictures, I'll provide the war"? Jeez, crack a history book once in a while. Inherently, it did. Resolution 1441 was the terms of a cease-fire, after all. A cease-fire can't have terms unless it's a conditional cease-fire. And a conditional cease-fire obviously inherently authorizes more firing if the conditions aren't met!Thus, if Iraq violates the terms of the cease-fire, then the parties who agreed to cease firing - namely, us and the UK - are authorized to resume hostilities. That's what a conditional cease-fire means. Otherwise, it wasn't conditional. That's nonsensical. Was 1441 a conditional cease-fire, or wasn't it? On 9/11. I think different troops went to Afghanistan than came home from Iraq, in most cases at least. If you have information to the contrary I'd like to see it. How so? I still don't understand.

Yes, you're absolutely right. But I'm not the one judging the President by an impossible double standard that has never been applied to any white President.When all of a sudden a black man has to work twice as hard to be considered half as good - anyone with half a brain knows what the fuck is going on.

You know how the Maine was sunk? You better write that book. There does not seem to be definitive info either way. The last investigation done in 1998 by National Geographic concluded this.

quote:

---

In 1998, National Geographic Magazine commissioned an analysis by Advanced Marine Enterprises. This investigation, done to commemorate the centennial of the sinking of Maine, was based on computer modeling, a technique unavailable for previous investigations. The conclusions reached were "while a spontaneous combustion in a coal bunker can create ignition-level temperatures in adjacent magazines, this is not likely to have occurred on the Maine, because the bottom plating identified as Section 1 would have blown outward, not inward," and "The sum of these findings is not definitive in proving that a mine was the cause of sinking of the Maine, but it does strengthen the case in favor of a mine as the cause."[31] Some experts, including Admiral Rickover’s team and several analysts at AME, do not agree with the conclusion.[31]

---

SourceYou shouldn't put all your stock into Admiral Rickovers book. Assertion. You may have something but unless you provide evidence this comment needs to be discounted.
Something like this.

quote:

---

In fact, President William McKinley never read the Journal, and newspapers like the Tribune and the New York Evening Post. Moreover, journalism historians have noted that yellow journalism was largely confined to New York City, and that newspapers in the rest of the country did not follow their lead. The Journal and the World were not among the top ten sources of news in regional papers, and the stories simply did not make a splash outside New York City.[18] War came because public opinion was sickened by the bloodshed, and because leaders like McKinley realized that Spain had lost control of Cuba. These factors weighed more on the president's mind than the melodramas in the New York Journal.[19]

---

Source Myth

quote:

---

A common myth states that Hearst responded to the opinion of his illustrator Frederic Remington that conditions in Cuba were not bad enough to warrant hostilities with: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

---

Wiki
Wiki source
Jeez, crack a history book once in a while.
It really doesn't take very long to research this stuff. There is an amazing thing called the internet and it has a couple tools called the Google and the Bing. You can quickly do some research to see if the things you are going to type are true or not.History is rarely cut and dry. We rarely know what truly happened anywhere. There are things called the fog of history and the fog of war. Rarely do the actual participants in a historical event actually know everything that is going on.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Yes, that is the point. Whether by accident or not, and you don't know that for sure, it happened.THERE ARE NO, WERE NO, NEVER HAVE BEEN ANY, WMD's. For the same to be said about Iraq, WMD's would have needed to have been found. Then those WMD's, even if they were planted by us secretly as to not lose credibility, could justify an invasion.But they don't exist, even fake ones. Umm, no. The cease-fire following the Kuwait war was Res. 687. 1441 was claiming that Iraq had breached that cease-fire by having WMD's(which the did NOT), the construction of prohibited types of missiles(which they did NOT have) and the purchase and import of prohibited armaments(which they did NOT do).It was claimed, but never proven.But in any case, the Un Res. 1441 did not authorize the use of force. Don't take my word for it:

quote:

---

The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

​

" [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

​

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

​

"We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.

​

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

​

"Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue."

---

It was not.And whether YOU think it was nonsensical, doesn't matter. Those were the terms. If you don't understand how increasing troops in an area where troop increase is only causing more violence and the deaths of innocent lives, all the while claiming that the troop increase will reduce this, makes one incompetent, then I don't know what to tell you.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Yeah that Jimmy Carter sure had it easy.Oh yeah that Deval Patrick look how they are tearing into him because he is black.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The case for the Maine sinking from a mine seems to be about as strong as the WMD's in Iraq: Republicans | Fox News

quote:

---

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

---

"You provide the pictures; I'll provide the war."Don't you people take history classes? Jesus.Look, I'm sorry, but if your criticism of Barack Obama relies on the historical rehabilitation of William Randolph Hearst you've firmly ensconced yourself in lunacy. Listen to yourself, Theodoric! Unless it's the Presidency of Barack Obama. As soon as a black man is President, then all historical ambiguity goes right out the window. It's funny how quickly the first American black President becomes history's greatest monster to someone like Theodoric.

I don't think, as far as this thread goes, that anyone is applying a harsher standard than the one's we applied to Bush. I have been in many threads with Dronester and his attacks on Obama pale in comparison to his attacks on Bush Jr., Sr., and their whole Admin.I think you're making some wildass accusations for no reason. First of all, yes. It sucks, but he does. In ever job. So does any minority. We HAVE TO work twice as hard, that's just the breaks.But that aside, no one here is applying this social standard.- Oni

Bush wasn't a progressive. Have you even been reading this thread? That's exactly the standard I proved was being used back in Message 17 and Message 18The progressive agenda has had limited success under the administration of Barack Obama, and what neither Theodoric or Dronester have been able to refute is the fact that it's due entirely to the structural limitations of a government that disallows progressive outcomes.