McDuck's Post about 2008 Election

[McDuck]

http://www.wnd.com/images/PATsname.jpghttp://www.wnd.com/images/BUCHANAN%28COLOR%292.jpg
http://www.wnd.com/images/header_commentary.gif


The Barack backlash
Posted: October 17, 2008

As Americans render what Catholics call temporal judgment on George Bush, are they aware of the radical course correction they are about to make?

This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history. Consider.

As of today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, anticipates gains of 15-30 seats. Sen. Harry Reid, whose partisanship grates even on many in his own party, may see his caucus expand to a filibuster-proof majority where he can ignore Republican dissent.

Headed for the White House is the most left-wing member of the Senate, according to the National Journal. To the vice president's mansion is headed Joe Biden, third-most liberal as ranked by the National Journal, ahead of No. 4, Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders.

What will this mean to America? An administration that is either at war with its base or at war with the nation.

America may desperately desire to close the book on the Bush presidency. Yet there is, as of now, no hard evidence it has embraced Obama, his ideology, or agenda. Indeed, his campaign testifies, by its policy shifts, that it is fully aware the nation is still resisting the idea of an Obama presidency.

In the later primaries, even as a panicked media were demanding that Hillary drop out of the race, she consistently routed Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania and crushed him in West Virginia and Kentucky.

By April and May, the Democratic Party was manifesting all the symptoms of buyer's remorse over how it had voted in January and February.

Obama's convention put him eight points up. But, as soon as America heard Sarah Palin in St. Paul, the Republicans shot up 10 points and seemed headed for victory.

What brought about the Obama-Biden resurgence was nothing Obama and Biden did, but the mid-September crash of Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, the stock market, where $4 trillion was wiped out, the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street that enraged Middle America – and John McCain's classically inept handling of the crisis.

In short, Obama has still not closed the sale. Every time America takes a second look at him, it has second thoughts, and backs away.

Even after the media have mocked and pilloried Palin and ceded Obama and Biden victory in all four debates, the nation, according to Gallup, is slowly moving back toward the Republican ticket.

Moreover, Obama knows Middle America harbors deep suspicions of him. Thus, he has jettisoned the rhetoric about the "fierce urgency of now," and "We are the people we've been waiting for," even as he has jettisoned position after position to make himself acceptable.

His "flip-flops" testify most convincingly to the fact that Obama knows that where he comes from is far outside the American mainstream. For what are flip-flops other than concessions that a position is untenable and must be abandoned?

Flip-flopping reveals the prime meridian of presidential politics. If an analyst will collate all the positions to which all the candidates move, he will find himself close to the true center of national politics.

Thus, though he is the nominee of a party that is in thrall to the environmental movement, Obama has signaled conditional support for offshore drilling and pumping out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

While holding to his pledge for a pullout of combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months, he has talked of "refining" his position and of a residual U.S. force to train the Iraqi army and deal with al-Qaida.

On Afghanistan, he has called for 10,000 more troops and U.S. strikes in Pakistan to kill bin Laden, even without prior notice or the permission of the Pakistani government.

Since securing the nomination, Obama has adopted the Scalia position on the death penalty for child rape and the right to keep a handgun in the home. He voted to give the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding in Bush wiretaps. This onetime sympathizer of the Palestinians now does a passable imitation of Ariel Sharon.

No Democrat has ever come out of the far left of his party to win the presidency. McGovern, the furthest left, stayed true to his convictions and lost 49 states.

Obama has chosen another course. Though he comes out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left, he has shed past positions like support for partial-birth abortion as fast as he has shed past associations, from William Ayers to ACORN, from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to his fellow parishioners at Trinity United.

One question remains: Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the left that brought him the nomination, or resist his ex-comrades' demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jesse and Wright have long dreamed of?

Whichever way he decides, he will be at war with them, or at war with us. If Barack wins, a backlash is coming.

[CountryBoy]

http://www.wnd.com/images/PATsname.jpghttp://www.wnd.com/images/BUCHANAN%28COLOR%292.jpg
http://www.wnd.com/images/header_commentary.gif


The Barack backlash
Posted: October 17, 2008

As Americans render what Catholics call temporal judgment on George Bush, are they aware of the radical course correction they are about to make?

This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history. Consider.

As of today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, anticipates gains of 15-30 seats. Sen. Harry Reid, whose partisanship grates even on many in his own party, may see his caucus expand to a filibuster-proof majority where he can ignore Republican dissent.

Headed for the White House is the most left-wing member of the Senate, according to the National Journal. To the vice president's mansion is headed Joe Biden, third-most liberal as ranked by the National Journal, ahead of No. 4, Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders.

What will this mean to America? An administration that is either at war with its base or at war with the nation.

America may desperately desire to close the book on the Bush presidency. Yet there is, as of now, no hard evidence it has embraced Obama, his ideology, or agenda. Indeed, his campaign testifies, by its policy shifts, that it is fully aware the nation is still resisting the idea of an Obama presidency.

In the later primaries, even as a panicked media were demanding that Hillary drop out of the race, she consistently routed Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania and crushed him in West Virginia and Kentucky.

By April and May, the Democratic Party was manifesting all the symptoms of buyer's remorse over how it had voted in January and February.

Obama's convention put him eight points up. But, as soon as America heard Sarah Palin in St. Paul, the Republicans shot up 10 points and seemed headed for victory.

What brought about the Obama-Biden resurgence was nothing Obama and Biden did, but the mid-September crash of Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, the stock market, where $4 trillion was wiped out, the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street that enraged Middle America – and John McCain's classically inept handling of the crisis.

In short, Obama has still not closed the sale. Every time America takes a second look at him, it has second thoughts, and backs away.

Even after the media have mocked and pilloried Palin and ceded Obama and Biden victory in all four debates, the nation, according to Gallup, is slowly moving back toward the Republican ticket.

Moreover, Obama knows Middle America harbors deep suspicions of him. Thus, he has jettisoned the rhetoric about the "fierce urgency of now," and "We are the people we've been waiting for," even as he has jettisoned position after position to make himself acceptable.

His "flip-flops" testify most convincingly to the fact that Obama knows that where he comes from is far outside the American mainstream. For what are flip-flops other than concessions that a position is untenable and must be abandoned?

Flip-flopping reveals the prime meridian of presidential politics. If an analyst will collate all the positions to which all the candidates move, he will find himself close to the true center of national politics.

Thus, though he is the nominee of a party that is in thrall to the environmental movement, Obama has signaled conditional support for offshore drilling and pumping out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

While holding to his pledge for a pullout of combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months, he has talked of "refining" his position and of a residual U.S. force to train the Iraqi army and deal with al-Qaida.

On Afghanistan, he has called for 10,000 more troops and U.S. strikes in Pakistan to kill bin Laden, even without prior notice or the permission of the Pakistani government.

Since securing the nomination, Obama has adopted the Scalia position on the death penalty for child rape and the right to keep a handgun in the home. He voted to give the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding in Bush wiretaps. This onetime sympathizer of the Palestinians now does a passable imitation of Ariel Sharon.

No Democrat has ever come out of the far left of his party to win the presidency. McGovern, the furthest left, stayed true to his convictions and lost 49 states.

Obama has chosen another course. Though he comes out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left, he has shed past positions like support for partial-birth abortion as fast as he has shed past associations, from William Ayers to ACORN, from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to his fellow parishioners at Trinity United.

One question remains: Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the left that brought him the nomination, or resist his ex-comrades' demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jesse and Wright have long dreamed of?

Whichever way he decides, he will be at war with them, or at war with us. If Barack wins, a backlash is coming.

I've talked to my father at lengths about this election, he's 84 and a yellow dog Dem and he even fears for this country. This is an election guide by hate, hatred of Bush, hatred of republican and now hatred of McCain/Palin, especially Palin. When a vote is made thru the vision of hatred, it will be one that we'll eventually regret, because hatred blinds people to the truth. I'm voting for what I think is best for America. Do I want us to continue our slide towards socialism or stay as a democratic republic. Am I happy with McCain, heck no, but I vote on values and principles and unfortunately, compromised is required.

But this is still America, so I should be able to vocie my opinion, without being called names. Only time will tell what we have brought on ourselves, but I believe the seeds were sown in 1976, when Carter was elected over Ford, because of the hatred for Ford pardoning Nixon. I even voted for Carter, not from hatred, but becasue I was thought Carter was the best man for the job. Well we all have things we're ashamed of. :laugh:

I just see hatred and color, deciding this election and not what would be best for the majority of America, we'll always have our poor, every country does, even those countries that some call a workers paradise.

Whatever happens, I'll survive, because if what I think happens this country will be turned on its head, and not for the good.

Well it's not 4:30 yet, but it is Saturday and this is enough heavy thinking for a weekend.

CB

[ChemEng]

I'm voting for what I think is best for America. Do I want us to continue our slide towards socialism or stay as a democratic republic.Its interesting CB, that I am using the same exact measuring stick to decide my vote. It just takes me to the other side. I just really can't dissociate McCain from Bush at all. The man has >90% voting record with Bush, why would you think he would do anything different in office than Bush did?

[VirginiaBob]

With a Democrat controlled house and Senate, I see no problems with McCain siding against them and vetoing everything they do. We these morons (on both sides of the aisle), no action by our government is the best course of action. The problem with McCain though is that he won't oppose them enough, but at lease he will oppose them more than Obama.

[The HalfBreed]

Its interesting CB, that I am using the same exact measuring stick to decide my vote. It just takes me to the other side. I just really can't dissociate McCain from Bush at all. The man has >90% voting record with Bush, why would you think he would do anything different in office than Bush did?

+1

I too, am an intelligent, American Citizen and use my intellect to cast my vote. My intellect tells me there were never Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, but the focus has now shifted to "We're there because of the Terrorists". This administration has shifted the blame and failed to see the original intent on responding to 9-11, IMO, due in part by GW's disguised intent to finish the Saddam Hussein issue his father encountered. Afghanistan was, and still is the real issue, but to say that aloud in some circles would portray me as UNamerican and UNpatriotic.....McCarthyism at it's worst....but played out by many over the last 5 years for enrichment of their motives and objectives, however skewed.

If Bush had been as "Friendly" with Monica, it certainly would've been a better choice than what he has displayed as what I consider one of the WORST presidents to ever "Grace (?)" the White House.

He should've never left Texas, but that's moot at this point.

McCain....well, that says it all. Even some of those in the most conservative side of his party have dire reservations of his 'strange choice' of Veeps.

McCain would be better than Bush, and neither is as good as OBama.
But, beware of the Bubba Vote.

[McDuck]

+1

I too, am an intelligent, American Citizen and use my intellect to cast my vote. My intellect tells me there were never Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, but the focus has now shifted to "We're there because of the Terrorists". This administration has shifted the blame and failed to see the original intent on responding to 9-11, IMO, due in part by GW's disguised intent to finish the Saddam Hussein issue his father encountered. Afghanistan was, and still is the real issue, but to say that aloud in some circles would portray me as UNamerican and UNpatriotic.....McCarthyism at it's worst....but played out by many over the last 5 years for enrichment of their motives and objectives, however skewed.

If Bush had been as "Friendly" with Monica, it certainly would've been a better choice than what he has displayed as what I consider one of the WORST presidents to ever "Grace (?)" the White House.

He should've never left Texas, but that's moot at this point.

McCain....well, that says it all. Even some of those in the most conservative side of his party have dire reservations of his 'strange choice' of Veeps.

McCain would be better than Bush, and neither is as good as OBama.
But, beware of the Bubba Vote.

That is pure junk. You must get all your info from Al Jazeera like fabijo.

[fabijo]

That is pure junk. You must get all your info from Al Jazeera like fabijo.

yup. :D That's where I get ALL my info.

[Buster]

I hope to Allah that Obama wins..this way we smart ones can sit back and say 'I told ya so" suckers, now you have to live with him for at least the next four years....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHa:D

[fabijo]

lol :laugh:

[The HalfBreed]

That is pure junk. You must get all your info from Al Jazeera like fabijo.

Regardless of where I get my information, my education is born in the USA.
However, seeing that you like to quote a known NEOCON like Pat Buchanan makes my choices even more palatable and believable....

Pat's a moron.:sick:

[CountryBoy]

Its interesting CB, that I am using the same exact measuring stick to decide my vote. It just takes me to the other side. I just really can't dissociate McCain from Bush at all. The man has >90% voting record with Bush, why would you think he would do anything different in office than Bush did?

ChemEng, I just can’t dissociate obama from socialism and being very soft on terrorism. To start with, I’m voting for McCain, (holding nose), for my belief that obama will lead us further down the road of socialism, bigger government, what ever you want to call it and I also don’t trust his people judgment abilities, just look who he selected as advisors. His current track record of friends/advisors, reads like a who’s who against America and hatred, his preacher (thrown under the bus after 20 years), Ayers (unrepentant terrorist), Calypso Louis, Joe Resko, ACORN, just to name a few. They’ve even kept his wife out of the limelight for her “reported” whitey statements and angry comments on America and it's peopel. I just don’t trust him. Also his stance on the 2nd Amendment and Infantcide. That is just a few of the reasons that I’ll vote reluctantly for McCain.

I think McCain, will be against budget earmarks, Bush spent like a drunken sailor, and Mac will be more pro active in protecting this country, than obama. Without security, this country will have no economy. Is McCain perfect? Hell no and I wish we had 2 real choices for president and not a couple of C grade students.

This is more of a “What I believe in” vote for me, this time around, because neither one gives me any confidence that they can solve the problems of this country. :(

CB

[CountryBoy]

+1

I too, am an intelligent, American Citizen and use my intellect to cast my vote. My intellect tells me there were never Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq,


That's the only way I vote is my intelligence and beliefs.

20/20 hind sight and Monday morning QB'ing. This is just a smattering of our officials and their beliefs on WMD's and Saddam. I left out the documented comments of the same Pols, beseeching then Prez Clinton, to attack Saddam, but a simple google will bring it all up with the associated documentation.

Bottom Line: If the Bush administration was lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then so too were many leading Democrats. Just a few examples so as not to make this so long. We were not so much lied to, as we had very bad intellengence and Saddam's shouldn't have bluffed us and told the UN where they could stick their decade long list of resolutions wher the sun doesn't shine.

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.)
"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." • Congressional Record, October 9, 2002

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)
"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." • Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
"[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States." • Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
"We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly." • Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” • Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002

President Bill Clinton
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." • Remarks at the Pentagon , February 17, 1998

"[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." • Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." • Remarks at the White House , December 16, 1998

Vice President Al Gore
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people." • Larry King Live, December 16, 1998

"Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen." • ABC News’ "Special Report,” December 16, 1998

This is just a short list of such comments and beliefs, both sides believed Saddam had these weapons and would use them.

Just adding a little reality check to the subject.

CB

[James48843]

We'll all know November 5th.

(hopefully).


And then we can, once again, focus on making the best America we all can.

Love thy neighbor.

[KevinD]

I hope to Allah that Obama wins..this way we smart ones can sit back and say 'I told ya so" suckers, now you have to live with him for at least the next four years....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHa:D

I think O is gonna win and I wish him (and us) luck. But the worst thing about an O win is going to be the "poor winners." I can take/understand a poor looser easier than a poor winner... :rolleyes:

[Buster]

I think O is gonna win and I wish him (and us) luck. But the worst thing about an O win is going to be the "poor winners." I can take/understand a poor looser easier than a poor winner... :rolleyes:
Well put Kevin...I agree too..;)

[McDuck]

We'll all know November 5th.


We won't know until Wednesday tonight (the 5th).
This year, voting is across 2 days. Republicans vote on Tuesday and Dims vote on Wednesday.

[McDuck]

Archbishop criticizes Obama... (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081019/D93TGS480.html)

[tsptalk]

You must get all your info from Al Jazeera like .......
Warning... Please watch the personal attacks greg.

[McDuck]

Warning... Please watch the personal attacks greg.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you have a problem with what the Archbishop said, then take it up with him.

Have you not read what the Dims (including a moderator) has been posting here?

[CountryBoy]

Bottom Line: If the Bush administration was lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,....

Just adding a little reality check and TRUTH to the subject.

CB

And more reality and truth.

Subject: American Troops find 550 Metric Tons of Uranium in Iraq

For verification of this information, click on these link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumyellowcake.htm


This was received via email from an eye witness, that is known in the building and saw the last plane take off.

On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled:
Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq . The opening paragraph is as follows:

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program (a huge
stockpile of concentrated natural uranium) reached a Canadian port
Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week
airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

See anything wrong with this picture?

We have been hearing from the far left for more than five years how Bush lied. Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam's yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy.

It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uraniuim in 2003 after invading Iraq . They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand berms surrounding the site.

This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the blogo-sphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about Saddam's nuclear ambitions, one would think that the mainstream media would report the true story. Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide.

That never happened, due in large part, I believe, to the fact that the mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush's war motives all along. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it said, "The removal of 550 metric tons of yellowcake, the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy."

Closing the book on Saddam's nuclear legacy? Did Saddam have a nuclear legacy after all? I thought Bush lied? As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife.

Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism and convinced the CIA to send her husband on a fact finding mission in February 2002, seeking to determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger . The CIA and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that purpose but needed proof.

During his trip to Niger , Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger , Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations" for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake.

Wilson chose to overlook Mahaki's remarks and reported to the CIA that there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellow cake from Niger .

However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of 2003. Outraged by Bush's insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in the summer of 2003 slamming Bush.

Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy the yellowcake from Niger . The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki's claim. This meant nothing to Wilson who was opposed to the Iraq war and thus had ulterior motives in covering up the prime minister's statements.

It was a simple tactic, really. If the far-left and their friends in the media could prove Bush lied about Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger , it would undermine President Bush's credibility and give them more cause for asking what other lies he may have told.

Yet the real lie came from Wilson, who interpreted his own meaning from the prime minister's statements and concluded all by himself that the claim of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was "unequivocally wrong." Curiously the CIA sat on this information and did not inform the CIA Director, who sided with Bush on the yellowcake claim. This was made
public in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in July 2004.

Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign by spreading the notion that the Bush Administration outed her as a CIA agent. Never mind that it was Richard Armitage - no friend of the Bush administration - who leaked Plame's identity to the press. Never mind that Plame had not been in the field as a CIA agent in some six years.

The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the mainstream media, and their left-wing friends on the blogo-sphere engaged in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration. Now that Saddam's uranium has been made public and is no longer a threat to the world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit they were wrong?

Don't count on it.

The rest of the American people should hear the truth about Saddam's uranium. It is up to you and me to inform them.


As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that Bush lied, we should tell them to "have the yellowcake and eat it too."


Again for verification of this information, click on this link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumyellowcake.htm

CB

[McDuck]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/09/07/PH2007090702320.gif

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ssi/globalnav/wpdotcom_190x30.gif (http://www.washingtonpost.com/?nav=pf) http://ad.doubleclick.net/imp;v7;j;208392133;0-0;0;20636842;0/0;28718037/28735916/1;;%7Eaopt=2/1/280065/1;%7Eokv=;dir=gersonnode;dir=opinion;dir=columns;d ir=gerson;heavy=y;dcopt=ist;ad=pop;pos=ad5;del=js; rs=j10063;rs=j10128;rs=j10298;rs=j10375;rs=j10390; fromrss=n;rss=n;poe=no;page=article;front=n;pageId =wpni-wp-dyn-content-article-2008-10-14-AR2008101402563_pf;wpid=opinioncolumnsgerson_ar200 8101402563_pf;cn=yes;pnode=technology;ad=ss;ad=bb; sz=160x600,300x250;tile=1;%7Ecs=m%3fhttp://m1.2mdn.net/dot.gif

Ambushed By History

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, October 15, 2008

For all their talk about respecting the constraints of reality, conservatives generally hold to the "great man" theory of history. It is leftists who embrace economic determinism. Conservatives read biographies of Winston Churchill and wait in constant expectation for the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Charisma and truth, in this view, can always overwhelm material conditions.

And this often leads to the "small man" theory of electoral setbacks. A losing Republican is not merely unfortunate; he must be incompetent, politically blind and betrayed by his bumbling underlings. If he is not a winner, he is a fool.

John McCain has reached this stage of criticism among conservatives. Some attack him for "frenetic improvisation," while others urge him to frenetically improvise. His campaign is in a "defensive crouch" while also being "obnoxious" in its "phony populism." McCain's running mate is a "fatal cancer" who should "read more books."

This kind of cheap shot is, thank goodness, the prerogative of the commentator -- an option I will doubtlessly exercise in the future. But having once been on the political side of the divide, I remember how truly obnoxious such advice can become. If only the candidate would fire his entire campaign staff and travel the country in a used Yugo, speaking in the parking lots of 7-Elevens, the gap would be closed. If only the candidate would buy three hours in prime time and give a bold, historic speech (which has been helpfully sent under separate cover), the entire election would be turned around. If only the candidate would finally highlight his opponent's ties to Colombian drug cartels, the illuminati and the British royal family -- or perhaps abandon all this suicidal negativity -- the election could certainly be won. And yes, above all, the candidate must be himself.

McCain might benefit from shifts in strategy: a retooled stump speech has already been rolled out. But sometimes a candidate who is down in the polls is not an incompetent but a bystander. While America remains a center-right country, this may well be a Marxist election in which economic realities are determining the political superstructure.

The diverging political fortunes of Barack Obama and McCain can be traced to a single moment. In the middle of September, the net favorable rating for each candidate was about the same. By Oct. 7, Obama was ahead on this measure by about 16 points. Did McCain suddenly become a stumbling failure? No, the world suddenly went into an economic slide. Americans blamed the party with executive power, which is also the party most closely tied in the public mind to bankers and Wall Street. None of this was fair to McCain, who has never been the Wall Street type. But party images are vivid, durable and almost impossible to shift on short notice.

Previous to this economic free fall -- and after his transformative vice-presidential choice -- McCain was about tied in a race he should have been losing by a large margin. The public clearly had questions about Obama's leadership qualities. But the McCain campaign also proved itself capable of constructing an effective narrative: Obama as lightweight celebrity, McCain as maverick reformer. Until history intervened.

Following the onset of the crisis, McCain was left with flawed options. He reasonably chose to work for a responsible bailout while hoping the markets would stabilize quickly. Instead, the bailout proved politically unpopular and the markets gyrated like the Pussycat Dolls. Then McCain raised Obama's past association with William Ayers -- a valid attack if properly raised. (Can anyone doubt that the past political association of McCain with a right-wing terrorist would attract some attention?) But this accusation naturally looks small compared to the nation's outsized economic fears.

Obama's task has been easier. He needs only to ride a historical current instead of fighting it. And this plays to his greatest political strength: the easy, laid-back self-assurance of a 1940s crooner. During the financial crisis Obama has contributed nothing of note or consequence. His only recent accomplishment has been to say questionable things in the debates -- attacking Republicans and capitalism for a credit meltdown that congressional Democrats helped to cause, blaming America for Iran's nuclear ambitions, talking piously about genocide prevention when his own early Iraq policies might have resulted in genocide -- all while sounding supremely reassuring and presidential.

Obama's current success is not enjoyable for conservatives. But this does not make McCain an incompetent. Maybe he is a great man running at the most difficult of times.

[McDuck]

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/special-10-22-08.asp

[James48843]

Greg, I feel sorry for you. I really do.


The Iraqi yellowcake was there from pre=1981. It was to be used in the facility that Israel bombed. We knew it was there. The U.N. Inspectors monitored it for 12 years after the 1991 Gulf war. None of is was missing, none of it was processed, we guarded it, had access to it, the weapons inspectors went and looked at it, measured it, counted it before the Invasion.

It was not a threat to anyone.

We shipped it out via plane to Diego Garcia, and then by ship to Canada.

Would Saddam have turned it into a bomb?

He didn't have the technology to do it.

But you'll never believe it.

Sorry Greg, but dude, you really need to get a life.

[McDuck]

Greg, I feel sorry for you. I really do.


The Iraqi yellowcake was there from pre=1981. It was to be used in the facility that Israel bombed. We knew it was there. The U.N. Inspectors monitored it for 12 years after the 1991 Gulf war. None of is was missing, none of it was processed, we guarded it, had access to it, the weapons inspectors went and looked at it, measured it, counted it before the Invasion.

It was not a threat to anyone.

We shipped it out via plane to Diego Garcia, and then by ship to Canada.

Would Saddam have turned it into a bomb?

He didn't have the technology to do it.

But you'll never believe it.

Sorry Greg, but dude, you really need to get a life.

CountryBoy posted the info that you are referring to.

Jimbo, you must cracking-up !

"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.”
- - Eleanor Roosevelt

[The HalfBreed]

That's the only way I vote is my intelligence and beliefs................................
Just adding a little reality check to the subject.

CB


Look at the numbers of those who voted to give Bushy the authority to go to war. You will find the majority of Dems voted NO, and the majority of Repubs voted in lockstep/rubber stamp mode.

More reality checks..........

The information was cooked, and at least the Dems knew it. However, the Repubs brought forth the McCarthyism attacks...."If you aint wit us, you're either a xxx or an xxx". You know the words.

Classic, but getting old by now for sure. Hopefully, America learned it's lessons about Rubber Stamp politics. 10 Trillion PLUS in debt, the economy on the verge of collapse, cheap monetary policy and drunken sailers spending the loot in DC since 2000.
If the trickle down theory really worked, those tax cuts for all the wealthy that have been in place for many should have done much better than what's been handed to us by 8 yrs of ineptitude.

[tsptalk]

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you have a problem with what the Archbishop said, then take it up with him.

Have you not read what the Dims (including a moderator) has been posting here?
It seemed you were implying something about fabijo that I doubt was true. I wouldn't be giving you a warning greg, but you seem to moving moving back toward the dark side as at least 95% of your posts are on the election lately. This is concerning to me. At least the others are still talking TSP occasionally.

[Viva_La_Migra]

Look at the numbers of those who voted to give Bushy the authority to go to war. You will find the majority of Dems voted NO, and the majority of Repubs voted in lockstep/rubber stamp mode.

More reality checks..........

The information was cooked, and at least the Dems knew it. However, the Repubs brought forth the McCarthyism attacks...."If you aint wit us, you're either a xxx or an xxx". You know the words.

Classic, but getting old by now for sure. Hopefully, America learned it's lessons about Rubber Stamp politics. 10 Trillion PLUS in debt, the economy on the verge of collapse, cheap monetary policy and drunken sailers spending the loot in DC since 2000.
If the trickle down theory really worked, those tax cuts for all the wealthy that have been in place for many should have done much better than what's been handed to us by 8 yrs of ineptitude.
Bush didn't lie after all. Yellowcake was found in Iraq!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

It's only been in the last year or so that the economy has gone into the crapper. Which party has been in charge of the Budget and Appropriations committees in that time???....that's right, it's been the Democrats!

[CountryBoy]

Look at the numbers of those who voted to give Bushy the authority to go to war. You will find the majority of Dems voted NO, and the majority of Repubs voted in lockstep/rubber stamp mode.

More reality checks..........

The information was cooked, and at least the Dems knew it. However, the Repubs brought forth the McCarthyism attacks...."If you aint wit us, you're either a xxx or an xxx". You know the words.

Classic, but getting old by now for sure. Hopefully, America learned it's lessons about Rubber Stamp politics. 10 Trillion PLUS in debt, the economy on the verge of collapse, cheap monetary policy and drunken sailers spending the loot in DC since 2000.
If the trickle down theory really worked, those tax cuts for all the wealthy that have been in place for many should have done much better than what's been handed to us by 8 yrs of ineptitude.


So the majority of Dems voted NO, is not considered, by you, to be voting in party lockstep or being a rubber stamp for Pelosi, hmmm oookkk, you need to check on your history their bub. ;)

Go ahead and say the words, so they’ll be no misunderstanding. And you really, really ought to read your history if you think the cheap monetary policy is just a recent phenomenon. You do know that Greespan was being grilled by Congress yesterday for his 18 year role in the cheap monetary policy?

This policy goes back decades, but I know how it makes you Bush haters feel warm and fuzzy, believing that all the bad stuff that has occurred, only happened in the past 8 years, while you democrats just sit helplessly by and did nothing (google Barney Franks and the Maes for fingerprints), especially the last 2 years, so I’ll not even try to debate this subject especially on a Friday, with someone who accepts no responsibility for anything bad.

Democrats good, Republicans bad, I’ll not spoil that little dream, plus it’s a Friday and I try not to get into anything to heavy while I’m trying to get into the weekend mode of being carefree and having fun.

Oh BTW, I’m doing much better now than 8 years ago, all debt paid off and retirement savings bigger than I thought and I never believed I’d ever have a ROTH, much less 2, so don’t give me this are you better off crap, cause I am. :laugh: caused we saved our butts off. Of course we live pretty simple lives and don't require alot of frills to be entertained, we ejust enjoy each others company.

Have a good weekend,
CB

[Lostdawg]

10 Trillion PLUS in debt, the economy on the verge of collapse, cheap monetary policy and drunken sailers spending the loot in DC since 2000.

If your going to try and make a derogatory reference to the men and women of the US Navy, at least capitalize the S and spell it write. An aside to this, I do believe "drunken Sailors" at least spend their own money.

Unless your referring to pirates, but then you should have just said so.

Happy Friday.