The Respectfully Republican Conversation
Comments
-
Linda-- I find more in The Chicago Sun Times- LOL
Folks--While you are looking at Summers Newsbuster link--Also take a peak at the Newsbuster article about McCain's Atlantic cover............Eyeopening to say the least.about Atlantic........Bad enough that Andrew Sullivan has become the media muckraker outdoing the Daily Kos for Atlantic-----But this photographer business is beyond despicable.
I went to her page and the stuff was nauseating-----
So big deal, the Atlantic didn't use the manipulated photo.............she made sure that the normal retouching on the picture used for anyone did not take place in order to make him look sinister and cast him in the worst possible light. --unbelievable...............
I do have to ask--what were McCain's handlers thinking????---someone messed up big-time---and when is his campaign ever going to learn--Atlantic is not your friend--Neither are the women at The View!
-
The links provided here are very disturbing. It makes me downright sick!
Summer, I wrote ABC about their edited, biased interview. I will NEVER watch a political interview by ANY of their journalists. And I said I was passing on the transcript. Haven't read the entire transcript yet...I've been gone half the day. Had to take one of my cats to the animal ER. Then, tomorrow she goes to her vet. I'll have to read the rest of the interview later that has a link provided on the site. What I did read that was provided made me so angry I wanted to throw something through my computer monitor. Then, I thought..NO NO NO..Shirley. You'd be only hurting your pocketbook! LOL
Shirley
-
I like the McCain campaign quote "...all the insults in the world are not going to bring change to Washington."
-
Yes, I don't get why BO gets the media blessing but McCain is getting screwed.
-
NYT is in meltdown mode, 3 slams on SP in one day.
-
Glad they are not bailing them out with taxpayer money......This may be painful now but good longterm----Fed may have to temporarily loosen credit rates.
AIG could weather this if everyone keeps their head and not throw more fuel on the fire. Having a run on financial services is not to anyones benefit. The candidates have to pick their words in the next few days very carefully---to do otherwise would be irresponsible......
-
I regret the tough times America is going through right now. AIG has been in Canada for about 40 years as well.
Summer
Dx 10/12/2001, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 3, 0/8 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2- -
Summer, I feel bad for what's happening in the U.S., but to be honest, what really frustrates me is how much these problems affect the Canadian stock market and other global markets. It wasn't just the Dow that lost over 500 points today; the Toronto Stock Exchange lost over 500 points too. The British exchange and the German exchange are each down 23% this year. Yet the problem that's driving all this is the mortgage crisis in the U.S. - something that no one in the rest of the world had anything to do with. We didn't have the same lending practices in Canada. Our housing market has been strong. But Canadians - our businesses and any individuals who own mutual funds or have money in the stock market - are being hurt just as badly as Americans are. I don't wish this problem on anyone, but to those who were asking, this shows how much Canada, and the whole world, is affected by what goes on in the U.S.. This is why there is so much interest worldwide in American elections. American fiscal policy affects everyone, not just Americans.
-
Yes American policy reaches beyond its borders.
-
A Failure to Lead
by KARL ROVE
The Democratic Congress is more interested in acting out than in taking positive action.
Friday, November 9, 2007 12:01 a.m. ESTThis week is the one-year anniversary of Democrats winning Congress. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably aren't in a celebrating mood. The goodwill they enjoyed after their victory is gone. Their bright campaign promises are unfulfilled. Democratic leadership is in disarray. And Congress's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in history.
The problems the Democrats are now experiencing begin with the federal budget. Or rather, the lack of one. In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It's been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in.
Even worse, the Democrats have made clear all their talk about "fiscal discipline" is just that--talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. And the opening wedge of this binge is $22 billion more in spending proposed for the coming year. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a "relatively small" difference.
Let's also be clear about what it means to roll back the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as the Democrats want to do. Every income-tax payer will pay more as all tax rates rise. Families will pay $500 more per child as they lose the child tax credit. Taxes on small businesses would go up by an average of about $4,000. Retirees will pay higher taxes on investment retirement income. And now we have the $1 trillion tax increase proposed as "tax reform" by the Democrats' chief tax writer last month.
Failing to pass a budget, proposing a huge spike in federal spending and offering the biggest tax increase in history are not the only hallmarks of this Democratic Congress.
Beholden to MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups, Democratic leaders have ignored the progress made in Iraq by the surge, diminished the efforts of our military, and wasted precious time with failed attempts to force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They continue to try to implement this course, which would lead to chaos in the region, the creation of a possible terror state with the third largest oil reserves in the world, and a major propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden as well as for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.
After promising on the campaign trail to "support our troops," Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy. For 19 Senate Democrats, this was simply a bridge too far, so they voted against their own leadership's proposal. Democrats also tried to stuff an emergency war-spending bill with billions of dollars of pork for individual members. Now the party's leaders are stalling an emergency supplemental bill with funding for body armor, bullets and mine-resistant vehicles. After pledging a "Congress that strongly honors our responsibility to protect our people from terrorism," Democrats have refused to make permanent reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the Director of National Intelligence said were needed to close "critical gaps in our intelligence capability." Their presidential candidates fell all over each other in a recent debate to pledge an end to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Then Senate Democratic leaders, thinking there was an opening for political advantage, slow-walked the confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general. It's obvious that this is a man who knows the important role the Justice Department plays in the war on terror. Delaying his confirmation is only making it harder to prosecute the war.
Democrats promised "civility and bipartisanship." Instead, they stiff-armed their Republican colleagues, refused to include them in budget negotiations between the two houses, and have launched more than 400 investigations and made more than 675 requests for documents, interviews or testimony. They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn't be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children's health-care program at risk would score political points. Instead, it left them looking cynical.
The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences.Democrats had a moment after the 2006 election, but now that moment has passed. They've squandered it. They have demonstrated both the inability and unwillingness to govern. Instead, after more than a decade in the congressional minority, they reflexively look for short-term partisan advantage and attempt to appease the party's most strident fringe. Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power, their true colors are coming out and the public doesn't like what it sees.
The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.
Mr. Rove is a former adviser to President George W. Bush.
-
Summer, I only wish more Americans were as observant about what is going with congress as you are. They are still blaming Bush for the economy when Congress holds the purse strings. When I bring this up to people, they say it is Bush's fault. Yet they will not credit Bush for the fact that we have not had a terror attack in 7 years. I just do not get it. One of the reasons I was actually glad that the dems took over the house was because the republicans wouldn't be blamed for everything, but it just did not happen. This is the most do nothing Congress in US history. They are sitting around waiting for their king to take the throne so they can have carte blanche. I think it is going to backfire. People are not as dumb as they think we are. Not only will Obama lose, but I think that a lot of democratic congressmen are going to lose too.
I am so sick of these government bailouts. The banks should have never given loans to these people. They were offereing them like candy, with no money down. When the rates went up, people just walked away. They had no money invested so why should they stay. The banks brought this on themselves. And now the 98% of Americans who pay their mortgages are going to be taxed to pay for these bums. I am sick of it!
Yeah it affects your economy up north and the rest of the world too. As the saying goes:
"When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold".
-
I was raised as a democrat, but when I was on my own some 42 years ago, I have always considered myself an independent. I just never talk politics with my family! hahaha
-
New York Post had this article today --If true it's very disturbing...........
Mind you Taheri seems to have some credibility problems but then, it's Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari that is on record with this..........
I've posted the New York Post article in its entirety at the end of the McCain campaign's response.
McCain campaign is responding to the report:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
McCain Responds to Obama's Reported Undermining of the Commander-In-Chief During Wartime [Andy McCarthy]
The McCain Campaign has issued a statement responding to the report from Amer Taheri (see today's web briefing) that Sen. Obama secretly negotiated with the Iraqi government regarding U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. McCain spokesman Randy Scheunemann stated as follows:
At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
By AMIR TAHERI
September 15, 2008 --
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."
"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.
Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.
While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.
Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.
By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.
Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.
Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.
According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.
Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.
Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.
Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."
Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."
Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.
Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.
Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.
-
Ellen, I know how you feel. I can't even talk to my father! He would vote for an ax murderer if the guy was a dem. He always told me to vote for Italians. I asked him if he would vote for Guiliani? He said no because he was not a real Italian, he was from South America. I reminded him that his mother had emigrated through S America because it was easier than NYC. Didn't make a difference to him. Guiliani was a republican! I do not understand this kind of narrowmindedness.
Susie, if that story is true, it will be such a bombshell! I am always amazed that you find these stories before they hit the news! We'll see if the mainstream media touches this one. They are so busy checking out what Sarah got on her 6th grade Alegebra test, they probably do not have time for this one.
Paulette and Rosemary, we miss you! Hope you are doing okay!!!
-
People need to think outside the box in this campaign.
-
I thought this article was interesting. I never thought about the connection to economics and the whole "global warming" scare.
Klaus Against the Greens by Susan Easton (more by this author) Posted 09/16/2008 ET
For most people, being the president of a country would be enough to keep one busy, but not so for Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic. He directs as much time and energy as he possibly can to campaigning against those he characterizes as global warming alarmists. That is why Klaus was delighted when a major Czech daily newspaper ran the complete text of a speech he gave last week -- in Tokyo -- to the The Mont Pelerin Society, a prestigious international economics organizationof which he is a member. Klaus, who has been President of the Czech Republic since 1993, holds a doctorate in economics.
The Tokyo meeting gave President Klaus an opportunity to introduce his new book, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles." The book's subtitle -- What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? -- reveals Klaus's concern about the totalitarian agenda of environmentalists. He sees no difference between the ideology of communism and that of climate change. He says he is no longer simply concerned about the consequences of politicians using global warming to gain and wield power over ordinary citizens. Klaus describes himself now as "angry." He agrees with author Michael Crichton. "The greatest challenge facing mankind is distinguishing between reality and fantasy, truth from propaganda" as regards global warming.
After he delivered his talk before the MPS, President Klaus sat down for a private interview with HUMAN EVENTS. The man whom Al Gore refused to debate in public when the Czech President challenged him had much to say.
"I am frustrated by the fact that many people, including some leading politicians who privately express similar views to my own, are publicly silent," Klaus began. He believes the global warming issue "is not being debated in a rational way, but is being thrust into the public consciousness as one-sided propaganda." He invokes the term "silent majority" to describe rationally thinking people who do not speak out against global warming propagandists.
Klaus believes that the goal of climate change alarmists is nothing less than a continuation of the socialist model of the centralization of economic control. "They invoke the image of apocalyptic imminent danger in order to trigger the need in others to have a savior -- a messiah," Klaus contends. Then he adds: "The constraints of political correctness are tougher than ever. They are being enforced and only one permitted truth is -- yet again -- imposed on us. Everything else is being denounced."
Klaus contends that global warming has also become "a false identity for the failed United Nations which seeks power over governments and the citizens of the world." Although he concedes that environmentalism evolved from humble and legitimate origins, Klaus calls Al Gore's claim -- that Earth is headed toward "a planetary emergency" -- absurd. He labels it as "scaremongering." "What is being attempted now (by the environmentalist movement) is a form of human behavioral modification, not for purposes of improvement, but for political power."
"Environmentalism has become a quasi-religion," Klaus asserts. "It is an ideology that shares much in common with Marxism. Climate change is the new recruiting strategy for the anti-capitalist, socialist, communist army. They are both monolithic belief systems designed to suppress human freedom." Klaus sees those "who would otherwise reject socialism for what it is -- a system which destroys personal freedom" as being regrettably receptive to global climate change fears. "Propaganda on the false impact of global warming is now being taught by so-called environmentalists to high school students -- just as virtues and correct thinking was taught under communism decades ago."
These are strong words for someone who had to survive under Soviet domination for decades.
"Politicians have been searching for a new topic -- for a very long time -- through which they could control the people because communism and socialism is dead. Global warming is perfect because of escapism. We are far away from the future so that politicians cannot be held responsible for their actions now," Klaus observes.
"When I listened to the G8 meeting in Tokyo a few months ago, each politician proposed ever more ridiculous goals to reduce global warming -- the results of which would not be realized for 100 years. Since the so-called Kyoto global warming treaty was signed, the countries agreed to a reduction of 50% in CO2 goals. Japan's emissions are up 6% -- yet Japan's Prime Minister promised to cut Japan's emissions by 80% in 100 years. Since that meeting just a few months ago, half of those leaders have gone. The Japanese Prime Minister resigned in the first week of September. I am now in Tokyo to meet the head of government. Who should I meet?"
"We will command the wind and the rain! This was an old communist saying well known in the Czech Republic. When I listen to Al Gore, I hear the same objective, except now it's not the wind and the rain they want to control, it's the global environment.
Most people make the mistake of thinking that Mr. Putin is their enemy. They are wrong. Their real enemy -- who would steal their money and personal freedoms -- is Mr. Al Gore."
It is no surprise then that Klaus views global warming quotas and promises by politicians as a means of inflicting untested ideas -- in the form of market controls -- on the international economic engine. This, Klaus says, "gives new life to top down government and controls over people's lives."
"Serious economic consequences are seldom, if ever, discussed," he notes. "Cost benefit studies on plans to reverse global warming are not carried out. Economic theory is discounted." Sadly, he points out, "Less developed countries have been taken hostage by this debate. Environmentalists have placed the growth ability of lesser-developed countries in jeopardy by limiting progress via increasing controls and restrictions. The ultimate victims of green ideology will be the world's poorest people."
"Environmentalism is a movement that intends to change the world radically regardless of the consequences (at the cost of human lives and severe restrictions on individual freedom). It intends to change humankind, human behavior, the structure of society, the system of values -- simply everything," Klaus warns.
President Klaus stresses this point because of his commitment to free market economics. The economist who most influenced his worldview was the late Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, whom Klaus regards as the greatest economist of the 20th century. Friedman was one of the original founders of The Mont Pelerin Society.
Klaus describes himself as a short run pessimist, but a long-term optimist. He believes that rationality will trump global warming fundamentalism. He thinks that future generations will look back on this era with amusement and pity for the passion with which this wrong-headed ideology took hold over the minds of primitive 21st century humanity.
In one of his previous books -- which is comprised of speeches given in both Europe and the U.S. between 1996 and 2004 -- Klaus writes, "I came to politics at the age of 48 (after the Velvet Revolution) without thinking about it and without consciously preparing for it." Critics of Sarah Palin, please take note.
You can purchase "Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom" by Vaclav Klaus here.Susan Easton is a third career theologian. She holds a B.A. and M.A. in Religious Studies and Theology from the Jesuits. Susan and her husband of 37 years, Terry, divide their time between homes in the Bay Area and London. -
Linda --I've heard that Michael Crichton actually recieved death threats for writing his novel -State of Fear
I've also heard Jonah Goldberg author of Liberal Fascism talk about the connection.
As to the Post article I posted --
Here is a response from the Obama spokesman and a comment from Instapundit and Hotair
THIS OBAMA DENIAL DOESN'T SOUND LIKE MUCH OF A DENIAL TO ME:
In the New York Post, conservative Iranian-born columnist Amir Taheri quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying the Democrat made the demand when he visited Baghdad in July, while publicly demanding an early withdrawal.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview, according to Taheri. . . .
But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.
In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.--------------
From Instapundit
I'm not seeing a lot of daylight between what Taheri said and the Obama campaign's response here.
posted at 07:41 AM by Glenn Reynolds------------
from Ed Morrisey at Hotair
"Which is exactly what Taheri wrote. Barack Obama went to Iraq and interfered with the diplomatic efforts of the elected United States government, in a war zone no less, by telling the Iraqis to stop negotiating with the President. How exactly does that make Taheri’s column untruthful?
It wasn’t enough for Obama to fail at forcing the nation into a defeat in Iraq when he opposed the surge. Now he has interfered with our efforts to stabilize Iraq and provide for its security after the surge succeeded in keeping Iraq from falling into a failed state. And when he got caught working for failure and defeat, he tried making it into a smear against John McCain.
That’s not leadership America needs from a Senator, let alone a President. The Senate should investigate this as a gross violation of the Constitution and the separation of powers between the branches of government. " -
A little more----How long the press can ignore this ---we shall see.........We need to know the truth here............
-------------------
Obama’s Questionable Diplomacy in Iraq
September 16, 2008 - by Bob Owens
Did Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama attempt to dally in U.S. foreign and military policy during his first trip to Iraq in July?
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari in Amir Taheri’s [1] op-ed in Monday’s New York Post, Obama used his trip to privately lobby Iraqi government officials to delay an agreement that would reduce the number of American soldiers in Iraq, while at the same time publicly calling for a unilateral withdrawal.
The delay was a “key theme” of his discussions with Iraqi leaders according to Zebari, and Obama reportedly asked those leaders to delay an agreement until after the U.S. presidential election. Zebari claimed that in doing so, Obama attempted to argue that it was not in Iraq’s interest to negotiate with the current adminstration, and insisted that the U.S. Congress should be involved.
During the same visit to Iraq, Obama may have also tried to convince a series of American commanders, including General David Petraeus, to offer a “realistic withdrawal date” to pull soldiers out of Iraq. All commanders reportedly declined.
General Petraeus is presently engaged in a change of command in Iraq, leaving Lieutenant General Ray Odierno in charge of Coalition forces as Petraeus is promoted to lead U.S. Central Command, overseeing both the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns. Pajamas Media was unable to confirm through official military channels if Obama did press U.S. commanders for a withdrawal date, and considering the military’s duty to remain apolitical they may not be free to even confirm or deny such a claim.
When asked for comment, the duty officer for the Multi-National Force Iraq Press Desk candidly explained via email that:
I truly do not know the answer to this question and would not expect to be able to find out if this happened or not. The military is not a political group. We take our direction from our current commanders, which Mr. Obama is not one of. He may have had discussion with senior military leaders while he was here but the topic of those discussion were not made public by MNF-I.
If the claims in the article are correct, Barack Obama was telling Iraqis to keep the number of American troops at current levels, while pressuring American officers for a withdrawal date and telling the far left anti-war base of his supporters that he was pledged to a nearly unconditional withdrawal.
But before we begin to dissect these claims, and to be completely fair to Senator Obama, it is important to note that the author of the Post article is Iranian-born writer Amir Taheri. Taheri has had significant credibility problems in the not too distant past, claiming in a Canadian newspaper that Iran was implementing a system of color-coded badges that religious minorities would have to wear, evoking imagery of the Nazi Party in Germany more than six decades ago. That claim turned out to be [2] completely false. In his current article in the New York Post, however, Taheri directly quotes a named Iraqi government official, lending the claim at least the appearance of more credibility.
The only [3] response to the article by the Obama campaign thus far has been an unnamed staffer accusing Taheri of confusing the [4] Status of Forces agreement (which defines legal protections for U.S. military personnel and property in Iraq) with a Strategic Framework Agreement, a [5] much broader document.
Curiously, the New York Post reports that the Obama campaign has not called the editorial department to ask for a correction or retraction of the Taheri article. The Obama campaign has also refused to respond to requests by Pajamas Media to confirm or deny the story. For the time being, let’s interpret the lack of a more forceful response by the Obama campaign to be acquiescence, and give Zebari, who has been the Iraqi foreign minister since 2003 (through Iraq’s interim, transitional, and permanent governments) some credit as a legitimate source.
If the claims in Taheri’s article are accurate, then Senator Obama is playing a dangerous and duplicitous game.
It would mean Barack Obama attempted to pressure American military commanders to make a declaration that he would have used as a political tool during his presidential campaign to undermine both his opponent and the current president, perhaps undermining the credibility of the U.S. military as an apolitical group loyal to the United States instead of political parties. It was wrong to attempt to put American commanders at war in such a predicament, where their words could be used against their sitting commander-in-chief as a political bludgeon. Either Obama did not think of that, or he was simply untroubled by the thought of abusing the careers of American commanders for political gain.
Obama would have used any timeline offered to shore up Obama’s support on the far left wing of the Democratic Party, a fringe that advocates an immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, regardless of the resulting security vacuum or the possibilities of political and security instabilities that would be the likely result.
Many in this radicalized wing, while thankfully only a fraction of the overall party, openly desire a too-quick retreat in order to secure an American defeat and a failed Iraqi state. They would tout that as a failure of the “Bush doctrine,” specifically the part that justifies preemptive war to depose foreign governments that pose a threat to the security of the United States, even if that government is not an imminent threat.
But even as Senator Obama may have been pandering to his anti-war base by trying to pressure U.S. commanders for a withdrawal date that would be used as a political tool, he was concurrently trying to keep his same core group of radicals stirred up by attempting to slow the signs of progress in Iraq by manipulating a key statistic progressive blogs and other anti-war activists keyed on the most heavily: the number of American forces in Iraq.
If American forces began to withdraw significant numbers of soldiers from Iraq , it would undermine Obama’s core campaign message that to elect anyone else would result in the continuance of a war without end. For Senator Obama to keep his base motivated, he needs Iraq to either appear that it is either failing or deadlocked. A reduction in forces prior to the 2008 presidential election could prove damaging to a core element of his platform of “change.” If “change” in Iraq occurs prior to the November elections, a substantial reason for voting for Obama is removed.
By lobbying Iraqi leaders to keep the status quo until after the U.S. presidential election, Senator Obama would have been attempting to undermine the foreign policy of a sitting president to shore up his own political base.
In response to the Taheri article, John McCain spokesman Randy Scheunemann [6] stated
At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq’s Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama’s judgment and it demands an explanation.
It is worth noting that the McCain campaign felt the story was credible enough to release such a statement.
If this charge is false, the Obama campaign must push forcefully for and get a substantial correction, if not a full retraction of the Taheri article.
If they don’t, then longtime accusations of Obama’s naked self-interest may doom an already flailing campaign.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
-
Obama is back on the stump with his teleprompter, giving his prefabricated speeches. He is really blasting McCain. I do not understand how he can accuse McCain of being so nasty, when all he does is talk about McCain. Obama is back to preacher mode.I can't wait for the debates. Hopefully he will not speak so well off the cuff. Meanwhile Michele is off in the corner somewhere so that no one will hear her put her foot in her mouth. Didn't it seem odd that she did not even show up at ground zero. Are they that afraid she will embarass him?
Susie, my bet is the main stream media will not touch this story with a 10 foot pole!
-
Earlier I had referred to The despicable photos by a photographer that The Atlantic chose to hire. They used one they were pleased with even though the photographer purposely did not do the normal retouching to show him inan unflattering light. It may have backfired on her though, because it seems to rather show him battle tested and strong.
The Atlantic is pleased with the cover but is issuing an apology to McCain and considering a lawsuit against the photographer----
Here is The Atlantic's cover story on McCain
-
Since much of my feeling about McCain and for that matter Palin is in my gut regarding judgement and character, I found this article in Contentions very reflective of my thinking so, I thought I'd share it.................
Experience and Character
Peter Wehner -There is a lot of discussion these days about Sarah Palin and her qualifications to be Vice President. The fair-minded skeptics are represented by writers like David Brooks; he argues that good governance requires acquired skills and, most of all, prudence. And prudence, in turn, is acquired through experience.
Over the years my own views have evolved somewhat away from David’s. I still believe possessing experience is better than not. But experience is not itself the sine qua non for success in a national leader, and inexperience is not necessarily a big drawback.
In my estimation, experience matters less than character and temperament in selecting a president. Here I define character and temperament fairly broadly, having to do not only with honesty and integrity (which are crucial), but one’s disposition and mind-set, equanimity and self-possession, courage and calmness, a lack of pettiness and resentment, the mix of steadfastness and flexibility, and the willingness to re-assess one’s own decisions in light of evidence.
It involves the capacity to put oneself in the place of others and marshal their talents, absorbing new information and acting wisely on incomplete information, the ability to discern the currents of history and shape them in a constructive way, and the capacity to understand, and act on, the great moral issues of an era. This list, while long, is not itself exhaustive. But it does touch on the qualities that can be vital to leadership.
It’s very hard to know in advance which leaders will possess these (and other) traits, or even what the best training ground to learn them might be. One would have thought that based on their experience, Lincoln would have been, at best, an average President (he turned out to be our greatest one), and Madison, the “father of the Constitution” and one of our most impressive founders, would have been in the top rank of presidents (he is not). One would have thought Lyndon Johnson would excel, and Harry Truman would fail. Yet the opposite happened. Ulysses Grant was able to win a war, but he couldn’t run an Administration. As governor, Ronald Reagan had very little national security experience - but it turned out that his instincts and insights were more correct than Henry Kissinger’s when it came to the matter of détente and, more broadly, the strength of the West in its struggle against Soviet Communism.
Joseph Biden has a huge amount of national security experience–but as I tried to demonstrate here, his judgment has been consistently wrong. I would argue the same about Obama; his inexperience is a legitimate issue, as it is with Palin; but Obama’s philosophy, stances on policy, and decisions in office worry me a good deal more. To put it another way: one’s judgment, attitudes, and world view matter more than experience. So does executive temperament, which is something quite different than experience.
The truth is that most people, including those serving in government, didn’t know nearly enough about al Qaeda before the September 11th attacks or the dispute over South Ossetia and Abkhazia before the invasion by Russia to make an immediate decision about what to do. What often matters isn’t prior knowledge; it’s what you do once you are briefed by national security experts.
Too often we speak with certitude about what we should look for in a leader. The truth is that the qualities we want are often hard to discern in a person in advance; that some inexperienced people possess them and some experienced people don’t; and that different times require different traits. For example, the qualities needed in times of war are less important in times of peace and tranquility.
It gets even more complicated. When President Bush stuck with the wrong plan in Iraq for too long, he was castigated for being stubborn and polarizing. But because he was right in championing the surge in the face of enormous opposition, he now looks principled and gutsy. The qualities in the man were the same; what is different is the outcome. If you are successful, weaknesses transmute into strengths, and vice-versa.
Another example: Ronald Reagan’s innate optimism looked to be out of touch to many people during the recession of 1981-1982; when the economy was going gang-busters in 1984, “Morning in America” had enormous appeal. The truth is that results are what matter most. If things are going well, the qualities we see in our leaders almost by definition are worthy of praise - and if things are going poorly, the qualities we see in our leaders are almost by definition ones we tire of.
People on all sides have weighed in with assurance about how qualified Sarah Palin is and how successful a Vice President she would be. But the truth is, we don’t really know. In government and in most of life, we have to act on incomplete information. When it comes to Governor Palin, it’s certainly fair to base our judgment on the available evidence, which includes her record, her philosophical orientation, and her character and temperament. But our judgment about her, and to varying degrees about others, should be preliminary. Even though we speak as if it were otherwise, there is no ready-made template we can reach for in determining how effective a person will be once they are thrust with the duties and burdens of high office. It is among life’s unknowables - and one of the things that makes the political life of a great nation interesting and unpredictable.
-
Biden sticks his foot in it again---Get a gander at this!
Won't play well with those bitter, small town Americans who cling to their guns and religion.........
What a commercial this will make in October.......
Watch the video - your mouth will fall open...The mind boggles.-------This guy needs a keeper!!!!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/09/16/biden-versus-bucket-fluff
-
I mean really.
Goldberg: How Is Biden a Good 'Governing' Pick By Obama's Own Standards?
September 15, 2008 11:11 PM
Teeing off the "Joe Who?" blog post Matt Jaffe and I did yesterday about how the media has largely abandoned covering Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. -- especially compared to the throngs covering Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- The National Review's Jonah Goldberg asks how on earth Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., can consider Biden a good "governing" pick, considering:
- "Obama justified his entire bid against Hillary Clinton on the grounds that he had shown superior judgment by opposing the Iraq war.
- "Obama said over and over that we can't have the same people in different chairs if we want real reform.
- "His ad mocking McCain makes much hay of the fact that McCain came to Washington in 1982.
"Well: Biden supported the Iraq war, he's even more of a Washington insider than McCain (his heroic Amtrak commute notwithstanding) and he was well into his second six-year term in the Senate when McCain was first elected to the House in 1982. Now, either Obama's campaign rhetoric is a lie, or Biden isn't a good governing pick by Obama's own standards."
As Biden might say, "folks, answering this question will literally make your head explode." (Biden is the only person I've ever encountered who never uses the word "literally" literally.)
-
Obama: Attacks on me are unpatriotic!
By Michelle Malkin • September 10, 2008 11:21 PM
You know my favorite part of Barack Obama's response to the lipstick bungle? It's this obnoxious phrase, which hasn't been remarked upon much today:
"I don't care what they say about me but I love this country too much to let them take over another election..."
Yes, yes, because Obama is Truth, Justice, and the American Way! And all who dare mock him or challenge his Absolute Moral Authority suffer from patriotism deficiency.
He loves his country so much he sent his lawyers to stifle the free speech of television stations running ads critical of his terror ties.
He loves his country so much he slimed investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz and pushed his cult followers to shut down Chicago radio station WGN and host Milt Rosenberg, who probed Obama's ties to terrorist Bill Ayers and his failed educational projects.
And then he goes and complains about "lies and phony outrage and Swift Boat politics."
Such a selfless champion of our great nation.
I'm reminded of that old quote attributed to William Randolph Hearst: "A politician will do anything to keep his job, even become a patriot."
***
"I don't care what they say about me," sayeth The One.
Then what's he doing running to Letterman to carp about what They said?
-
August 18, 2008 7:45 AM
Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown?
A cover-up in the making?
By Stanley KurtzThe problem of Barack Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away. Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s, turning fugitive when a bomb - designed to kill army officers in New Jersey - accidentally exploded in a New York townhouse. Prior to that, Ayers and his cohorts succeeded in bombing the Pentagon. Ayers and Dohrn remain unrepentant for their terrorist past. Ayers was pictured in a 2001 article for Chicago magazine, stomping on an American flag, and told the New York Times just before 9/11 that the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place "makes me want to puke." Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers's and Dohrn's home, Obama has dismissed Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis." For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama. -
FactChecking Obama August 29, 2008 He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them. Summary We checked the accuracy of Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination, and noted the following:
- Obama said he could "pay for every dime" of his spending and tax cut proposals "by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That's wrong - his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain's, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.
- He twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, saying, "When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources." Actually, McCain said in 2003 we "may" muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.
- He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of "working" families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain's plan at 66 million and finds that Obama's plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.
- Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."
- Obama noted that McCain's health care plan would "tax people's benefits" but didn't say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.
- He said McCain, far from being a maverick who's "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
- Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And - math teachers, please note - he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.
-
Where is the do nothing congress when we need it. If congress does nothing the outer continental shelf opens up for drilling on Oct 1, Conrad Pelosivich has in one day put a 290 page energy bill before the house. No committee debates, no admendments no changes, full of pork,no nuclear, taxes on coal, makes permanent barring of drilling on 84 percent on off shore reserves. What off shore it allows is 50 to 100 miles out, but only on approval of state and adjacent state. This with no royalties to state(gulf states now get 37 percent of royalties, new leases will be none.) For first time limits off shore in Alaska to over 50 miles. 2 billion dollars to NY for no energy related reason. I could go on and on. This is smoke and even a mirror will not reflect the image of Pelosivich on this one.
-
FLIP-FLOP PELOSI CAVE$ IN
By CHARLES HURT, DC Bureau Chief
April 2, 2008
WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi retreated yesterday from her earlier efforts to bring a swift end to the nasty Democratic nomination fight after high-rollers supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton threatened to cut cash donations to the party.
"I think the election has to run its course," Pelosi said yesterday.
"I think that for all that I have said about respecting the will of the people, that the inference to be drawn from that is that we have to continue the election in terms of hearing from the people."
Pelosi's comments on ABC's "Good Morning America" were a considerable step back from her statement last month, when she called on the free-agent superdelegates to get behind whichever candidate earned the most pledged delegates through the state primary contests.
That would almost certainly hand the nomination to Barack Obama, who now holds a strong lead over Clinton among those earned delegates.
Pelosi's advice angered wealthy Clinton supporters, who fired off a letter noting their generosity to Democratic causes and ordering her to clarify her statement.
The 20 signers of the letter have given some $24 million to Democrats over the past decade, $3 million of which went to the Democrats' congressional campaign account, which ensures enough Democrats are elected to the House to make Pelosi speaker.
That same group also gave more than a half million dollars to Clinton's presidential campaign, versus just over $50,000 to Obama's.
At first, Pelosi dismissed the letter as inappropriate, but yesterday followed their orders.
Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, who has been unaligned since John Edwards bowed out of the race, said Pelosi's about-face shows how difficult it would be to shut the race down at this point.
"There are just two people who can do that: Clinton and Obama," he said.
churt@nypost.com
-
Hi BinVA,
I was just reading through this very interesting thread for the first time. I'm so disappointed I missed the Tina Fey skit on SNL and cannot pull up the video.
I only saw an itty bitty portion of the skit they ran on the news. From what I saw I'm not so sure I'd be thrilled if I was Sarah Palin. It seemed as if they were mocking her. Maybe I'm wrong and I took the little snippet I saw out of context.
By not seeing the whole thing, I'm confused by your comment . . . "Hope the media got the msg," Can you explain? Thanks!
-
Linda,
This is my first time here and I wanted to say there is lots of eye opening stuff in this thread... comments, articles, links. And everyone is so nice to one another! I'm still sitting on the fence and value what everyone has to say.
Marianne
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team