Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Show-me]

US President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize


OSLO — The Norwegian Nobel Committee says U.S. President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iAekET4T1D_vzDMN4JW_xZyvgezAD9B7FOR00

[Show-me]

This is ridiculous.

[James48843]

In a surprise, Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

By KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers Karl Ritter And Matt Moore, Associated Press Writers – 36 mins ago


OSLO – President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.

The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_nobel_peace

[Buster]

WOW!

[Show-me]

I can't stand this, what has he done. Nothing yet! He has not been President a year yet. Why not wait until his first term is over before you prematurely ejaculate all over yourselves. For Pete sakes, he won the Senate seat by default.

[James48843]

I predict stocks will react positively today.

[Show-me]

For that matter he won the Presidency by default too. Running against any Republican, much less a crusty OLD guy and a air brain beauty queen.

Were is that list of Countries, I need to move.

[James48843]

FSTE, CAC and DAX all just changed direction- had been headed down, now approaching positive territory.

[Show-me]

Was President TWO WEEKS WHEN NOMINATED. WHAT BULL ****!

[James48843]

Credit where credit is due.

Congratulations Mr. President.

[Show-me]

For what? He has not done anything but run up our deficit. Nothing else. He succeeded one of the worst Presidents of all times and that rates a Nobel?

[Show-me]

Who nominated him. Dick Durbin?

[Show-me]

This is just another jab at the Bush legacy and the Republicans.

[Show-me]

I may need to call in sick.

[James48843]

Citation: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. "In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations."


He added that the committee endorsed "Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'"

[nnuut]

OMG!:laugh:?

[nnuut]

I guess doing nothing is peaceful? The NO NUC MAN!:rolleyes:

[WorkFE]

Citation: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

Bandwagon jumper. There have been some big efforts by some very influential people working on these items for quite awhile. Sounds like being at the right place at the right time.

[Show-me]

BHO has been in the right place at the right time since his Senate race. So far all talk and no action except in spending. Talk is like campaign speechs, sounds good and that is all.

[CountryBoy]

Yeah we're defenseless. Putin pulled the wool over this neophytes eye's and if ya believe Putin..... well I don't want to get banned. :D

Global warming ... if China, India or Russia doesn't get on board then all we end up doing is destroying this country thru highewr costs and losts job's and don't tell me we are going to creat high Tech job's. Check out Spain and we aren't producing American's with the intellect to run these high tech jobs. Al we want to save are assembly line job's and they are far from high tech, now the code writers that run the assembly lines.. that's high tech.

CB

[Show-me]

I predict stocks will react positively today.

Based on his pro business policies.

[CountryBoy]

Based on his pro business policies.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[CountryBoy]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

From the UK

[coolhand]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

From the UK

It is absurd and this article is right on target. Nothing against the President, but this is an overt political statement more than a meaningful award.

[James48843]

Statement from the Nobel Peace Prize Committee:

http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/home/announce-2009/


Announcement

The Norwegian Nobel Committee

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

[James48843]

Can't you guys just accept the fact that we have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the White House now? And that many around the world--not just those in the U.S. that voted for him, appreciate that?

Sheese.

GET OVER IT.

This is our President, and every American should be proud. Whether you agree or disagree with the selection of the Nobel Peace Prize committe, the fact is they have selected him.

Congratulations, Mr. President.

Yes, we can.

[coolhand]

Can't you guys just accept the fact that we have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the White House now? And that many around the world--not just those in the U.S. that voted for him, appreciate that?

Sheese.

GET OVER IT.

This is our President, and every American should be proud. Whether you agree or disagree with the selection of the Nobel Peace Prize committe, the fact is they have selected him.

Congratulations, Mr. President.

Yes, we can.

It's okay james, you don't have to champion the President. He's a grown man and can accept political BS better than you can. :rolleyes:

[CountryBoy]

Don't we still have, for the time being, the freedom to freely express our opinions and view. :confused: The last I looked this is still the USA and not the ussa. Sheesh, don't get in such a hurry. ;)

[Frixxxx]

Wow,

I'm speechless, Congrats to you Mr. President. I am totally amazed that an unbiased, non-political organization would pick a guy that has basically just gotten started in his worldly career.

I hope you can use this recognition to instigate change and stop all the civil unrest at all those town meetings and tea parties that are plaguing the U.S. Oh, and sorry for not meeting your deadline on closing Gitmo, I know you are trying. Oh, and thanks for looking at the extra troops in Afghanistan....I know Pakistan loves you for it.

Oh wait, you probably want to get started closer to home and stop all that in-fighting with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, but it should be easy since you have been bring the whole world together.

Oh, and get President Carter over for a beer...you two are equals now.....

Congrats again!

P.S. Can you donate the prize to a bill writer that can actually use normal English rather than Legal Speak? Might help get that HealthCare passed.

[James48843]

• Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.

Fact: More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

from "Common Misconceptions about the Nobel Peace Prize"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_myths

[coolhand]

•

Fact: More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_myths

Like I said, political BS.

[nnuut]

Yeah Jimmy won one of these in 2002, figures.:suspicious:

The Nobel Peace Prize 2002

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/norway.jpgEnglish
Norwegian (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/press-no.html)

The Nobel Peace Prize 2002 6941

The Norwegian Nobel Committee (http://nobelprize.org/redirect/links_out/prizeawarder.php?from=/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/press.html&object=nobelpeaceprize.org&to=http://nobelpeaceprize.org/) has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development. [more]
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/press.html

[Frixxxx]

Fact: More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.



The Norwegian Nobel Committee (http://nobelprize.org/redirect/links_out/prizeawarder.php?from=/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/press.html&object=nobelpeaceprize.org&to=http://nobelpeaceprize.org/) has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.
hmm...what you do or what you're going to do????

Sorry James, I think the myth is a myth.:cool:

[Steadygain]

Don't we still have, for the time being, the freedom to freely express our opinions and view. :confused:

To all Prise and Glory be Given to GOD - who alone gives us our freedom and the ability to comprehend whatever can possibly be grasped -- and through the Abilities we pocess because of God - we most certainly have the genuine 'Freedom to freely express our opinions and views'

BUT - LET THIS FREEDOM deliver us 'out of darkness' the darkness that keeps us from seeing the truth ....

the TRUTH is -- A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE -- is perhaps the Greatest Honor that can be achieved by any person on our planet ~ SO let us all be willing to be 'objective' to soften up a little and accept Obama with greater acceptance and appreciation.

The last I looked this is still the USA and not the ussa. Sheesh, don't get in such a hurry. ;)

I am only in a hurry --- to see everyone more in harmony -- finding things all of us can unanimously celebrate in.

Our President - the First Black President of the United States ---- the One who took Charge at the Worst Possible Time ...

has WON - the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE !!:D:D


Good ta see ya back CB ---- been missin' ya

[JTH]

Let's please not forget it's not his fault. Poor guy's gonna get a bunch of crap over something he didn't do. :cheesy:

[coolhand]

Let's please not forget it's not his fault. Poor guy's gonna get a bunch of crap over something he didn't do. :cheesy:

Yeah, he's probably wishing folks would stop doing him "favors". :laugh:

[James48843]

At least the markets are reacting favorably.
It is unusual to have five days in a row in positive territory- but at least for the moment, that is the case....

S&P 500: http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/fi/03rd/up_g.gif 2.27 (+0.21%)

Come on baby...Daddy needs a new pair of shoes....

[coolhand]

Let's please not forget it's not his fault. Poor guy's gonna get a bunch of crap over something he didn't do. :cheesy:

This really drives home my simple point.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html

From the article:

The deadline for nominations for the prize was Feb. 1 -- two weeks after Mr. Obama was inaugurated.

[CountryBoy]

Good ta see ya back CB ---- been missin' ya[/B]

Thanks Steady. :D

CB

[Silverbird]

According to NPR (yes I know some of you are going to be ill at the source, but they do have a strong local DC presense) President Obama woken up at 6:00 or so this morning with the news. Had no comment ready, and wasn't awake, apparently just about as surprised as the audience at the announcement.

Of course he's "humbled", he's probably wondering what the heck the Nobel commitee is thinking as his nomination could not have happend any later than two weeks into his Presidency.

Yes, his ideas are a major change from the "take our toys and walk away" attitude of the former Administration - which only made it easier for everyone else to simply ignore the US or blame the US for anything that went wrong around the world. It was impossible to negotiate anything, cause everyone else just ignored the US cause they knew we would just walk out and pout, and they would get free points for making the US pout.

There has been a change. But even liking him, I'm a tad shocked.

Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt are the other two Presidents that got the Prize during their terms (and contrary to the crazy reporting that the Nobels only go to Democrats -that's a Democrat and a Republican - unless you call Theodore a Bull Moose). That's NOT the same size shoe.

[Handballer]

What? That has to be the joke of the day :o

[Steadygain]

US President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize


Yes my friend --- and at a TIME when world tentions were at their highest point in history


This is ridiculous.

I understand your feelings of wanting to give him more...

but the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE is the highest honor he could receive

It goes beyond the Shrine we could build in Gainesville, FL and even goes beyond renaming 'The Blue Ridge Parkway' - 'The Obama Parkway'




I can't stand this, what has he done?

Perhaps the more appropriate question is What Hasn't He Done

The Norwegian Nobel Committee says U.S. President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Please tell me anything that any LEADER -- that any President of the USA could do to surpass 'extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples'

I think it's WONDERFUL !!! and I would a thousand times over rather be associated with this kind of President and the 'outlook' others should see..... than the one before him.


Wow many posts since I started ..... was only these 3

[Gumby]

Yes my friend --- and at a TIME when world tentions were at their highest point in history



I understand your feelings of wanting to give him more...

but the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE is the highest honor he could receive

It goes beyond the Shrine we could build in Gainesville, FL and even goes beyond renaming 'The Blue Ridge Parkway' - 'The Obama Parkway'




Steady,

Your inspiration cracks me up. :laugh:

[Minnow]

Wow... how do those Nobel Peace Prize guys feel now that America has bombed the moon?

Come on, what did those moon folks do to deserve getting bombed?

....egg in your face moment for the Nobel folks indeed.

[JTH]

Can you guess which of these two received the same prize?
6951

[alevin]

the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE is the highest honor he could receive

It goes beyond the Shrine we could build in Gainesville, FL and even goes beyond renaming 'The Blue Ridge Parkway' - 'The Obama Parkway'

I would a thousand times over rather be associated with this kind of President and the 'outlook' others should see..... than the one before him.




Wow, mixed feelings. I'm with Silverbird on this one. surprised, he's set a tone, yes, but accomplishments? too soon, too soon. And Steady, I grew up with the Parkway, my first job out of HS was near/on the Parkway so I would very very much object to renaming a beautiful place that has no party-affiliation for anyone in the country. Don't give people ideas, please? I feel as strongly about that one as I did and still do about renaming Dulles, which I've flown in and out more times than I can count-prior to renaming.

[Frixxxx]

Wow... how do those Nobel Peace Prize guys feel now that America has bombed the moon?

Come on, what did those moon folks do to deserve getting bombed?

....egg in your face moment for the Nobel folks indeed.
Just a show of force, Minnow.

Millions of years of Peace are maintained by our Show of Force....!!! Hand out the next prize!:laugh:

[tsptalk]

I think it was the beer summit that put him over the top. :)

[coolhand]

I think it was the beer summit that put him over the top. :)

Your analysis is on target as usual Tom. :laugh:

[Birchtree]

Steady,

Gainesville, Fla. is way to busy right now to bother with BHO. We are in the process of celebrating gay pride week. I like to hold hands and march in the parade - it's such fun. Can you imagine the warmth and hugs we share - even Showme would melt with glee.

[Steadygain]

but the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE is the highest honor he could receive

It goes beyond the Shrine we could build in Gainesville, FL and even goes beyond renaming 'The Blue Ridge Parkway' - 'The Obama Parkway'

I think it's WONDERFUL !!! and I would a thousand times over rather be associated with this kind of President and the 'outlook' others should see..... than the one before him.


Wow, mixed feelings. I'm with Silverbird on this one. surprised, he's set a tone, yes, but accomplishments? too soon, too soon. And Steady, I grew up with the Parkway, my first job out of HS was near/on the Parkway so I would very very much object to renaming a beautiful place that has no party-affiliation for anyone in the country. Don't give people ideas, please? I feel as strongly about that one as I did and still do about renaming Dulles, which I've flown in and out more times than I can count-prior to renaming.

Alevie -- Wow it's been awhile -- and I'm honored.

Well FIRST OFF --- whenever you see me making any kind of Post about Gainesville or about the 'Blue Ridge Parkway' ....

Please know it's just my silly way of saying: 'Hey Birch - I luv ya'

He is currently in Gainesville (only reason why I mentioned that)
and plans to get his Retirement Dream Home -- by the Lake in the Blue Ridge Mountains.... so that's how I came up with that..:embarrest:

But he's a Grizzly Marine and I'm kick ass Special Forces ... so I just can't come out and say it outloud... have to use cryptic writing...:cheesy:
Will avoid BRP in the future (one of my favorite places BTW)

As far as the other stuff -- gosh Alevie -- I'm mainly just trying to tip the balance ;) and nothing more. I mean if you look at just the first 3 posts....which is when I started writting.... my intent was to throw a twist on things (using his stuff :D) -- cause I thought it was way too lopsided...

Anyway - he's just another politician to me -- but if someone get the Nobel Peace Prize --- I think he deserves a little credit no matter who he is.

[Steadygain]

Steady,

Gainesville, Fla. is way to busy right now to bother with BHO. We are in the process of celebrating gay pride week. I like to hold hands and march in the parade - it's such fun. Can you imagine the warmth and hugs we share - even Showme would melt with glee.

:D:D One of your best by far :D:D

We were writting at the same time

[alevin]

Alevie -- Wow it's been awhile -- and I'm honored.

Well FIRST OFF --- whenever you see me making any kind of Post about Gainesville or about the 'Blue Ridge Parkway' ....

Please know it's just my silly way of saying: 'Hey Birch - I luv ya'

He is currently in Gainesville (only reason why I mentioned that)
and plans to get his Retirement Dream Home -- by the Lake in the Blue Ridge Mountains.... so that's how I came up with that..:embarrest:

No prob Steady, I forgot about BTs retirement plans.;)

Will avoid BRP in the future (one of my favorite places BTW)


As far as the other stuff -- gosh Alevie -- I'm mainly just trying to tip the balance ;) and nothing more. I mean if you look at just the first 3 posts....which is when I started writting.... my intent was to throw a twist on things (using his stuff -- cause I thought it was way too lopsided...

Absolutely right. Silly man, think I didn't know that? :nuts: And might I add, you did a very good job of it too.

[Viva_La_Migra]

For what? He has not done anything but run up our deficit. Nothing else. He succeeded one of the worst Presidents of all times and that rates a Nobel?
No, he went on the "Apologize for America" tour right after his inauguration. It appears to me that if you criticize America (Carter, Obama) or present junk science that moves countries towards socialim (Gore), then you too could be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

I think they just felt bad for Obama not getting the Olympic games and thought his popularity would be further damaged if he wasn't awarded the Nobel.

[Viva_La_Migra]

Can't you guys just accept the fact that we have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the White House now? And that many around the world--not just those in the U.S. that voted for him, appreciate that?

Sheese.

GET OVER IT.

This is our President, and every American should be proud. Whether you agree or disagree with the selection of the Nobel Peace Prize committe, the fact is they have selected him.

Congratulations, Mr. President.

Yes, we can.
I accept that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but I don't think he deserved it. I wonder who else was on the short list for the prize?

[OBGibby]

Figured out why he won...he was the 10th caller.

[Steadygain]

It appears to me that if you criticize America (Carter, Obama) or present junk science that moves countries towards socialim (Gore), then you too could be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

:D:D Man you're pretty cool !!

Thanks for not being a Wimp or like a Pansy :cool:

If I could make a wish right now -- this very second --- we'd be eating pizza and drinkn' a beer

[phil]

It's a great and noble thing. Our President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Considering what he has inherited, I think it's well deserved. What's even more rewarding is the reaction from the right wing. Nothing could be sweeter.

[WorkFE]

I gotta tell ya, I'm no fan of the democratic party, but I am embarrassed to call myself a republican today.
We can sit here on the MB all we want but when a leading republican who is in the media lime light says "What has he accomplished" well it shows me that you need replaced. What a loser. It is people like that which caused us to lose the presidency in the first place. We want our government officials to act like professionals instead of like the spoiled rich A$$es they are.
The man said he did not feel he deserved it.

“What has President Obama actually accomplished?” said Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Get over it Steele, figure out who's going to run in 2012 and while your at it how about some good ideas to counter the democrats stimulas plan and healthcare. Quit putting $h!t in the "to hard to do column"

[Silverbird]

Yeah, yeah, Carter Carter Carter, he got it for what he did AFTER he was President. Al Gore got it what he did AFTER he was Vice President.

The winners we should be looking at for a comparison are the two Presidents who got it. One was a Republican, and if you told him he was some commie sympathizer and the US should apologize for anything he'd get you with his big stick (Thank you Theodore)!

[CountryBoy]

True, the right wing does tend to believe that you work hard for rewards, money, food shelter etc, you kinda get the gist dontcha? So bHo deserves this award, even though he only had 2 weeks as Prez before the nominations had to be in? He didn't do anything. I wish I could do that.

And you're saying that the left wing/Dems believe, you don't have to do anything to be rewarded etc? Well I guess that fits with your socialist leanings, tax the hard working productive people and give to those that don't work hard? And no, I'm not speaking in absolutes, since your kind always come back to that to deflect from the point.

No suprise from this side in your beliefs, since you've admitted your socialist leanings. :laugh: I sure don't want our youth to have those beliefs of no works and you'll get a participation trophy, whether you produce or not. "shakes head in sadness and disbelief" .

CB

[Frixxxx]

Jimmy Carter should be very upset right now. He was elected in 1975 to be President of the United States from 1976-1980. He was voted in on the work he did in the south to mediate and help make Georgia a bipartisan state. When he got to the Oval Office, he was nothing but the pure southern gentlemen and the other side took advantage of it. 2 Faults do not make it right. He should have been as forceful as the Republicans were to him.

Loses to Ronald Reagan.

Starts Habitat for Humanity. Now here is and endeavor that crosses the social, cultural, and economic bounds across the globe. He has a serious bid to show that he has the clout, determination and intestinal fortitude to use his accomplishments to get things done for those without. Relationship building? You bet, Global? Awesome.

Now, take out the few stupid comments about the Palestinians and Republicans in general, and I could vote For President Carter to win the Nobel Peace Prize 26 years after showing you don't have to be the President of the United States just to get things done in this world.

But to give it to a rookie that hasn't done more than shake hands and TRY to get some legislation passed? Please..

Putting Presidents Carter and Obama on the same level...EMBARASSING.

26 years from now, I would be willing to give President Obama an award if he accomplishes 1/3 of what President Carter has accomplished.

Your certified Republican,
FRIXXXX

P.S. Soon as I find a redeeming quality in Arafat, I'll post it.

[phil]

By the way, the Norwegians aren't even a part of the EU. The committee is completely independent from the Swedes, too, consisting of 5 people from the broad political spectrum (left and right). The Norwegian Parliament appoints them. It was Alfred Nobel's wish to give the Norwegians the authority, not his own countrymen.

I think they wanted to make a strong statement about our involvement internationally. It's an affirmation of American leadership.

They're right. By the way, the Taliban didn't like the idea of President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize either. So....maybe some people are in good company.

[coolhand]

By the way, the Norwegians aren't even a part of the EU. The committee is completely independent from the Swedes, too, consisting of 5 people from the broad political spectrum (left and right). The Norwegian Parliament appoints them. It was Alfred Nobel's wish to give the Norwegians the authority, not his own countrymen.

I think they wanted to make a strong statement about our involvement internationally. It's an affirmation of American leadership.

They're right.

No. They're left. :D

[Steadygain]

It's a great and noble thing. Our President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Considering what he has inherited, I think it's well deserved. What's even more rewarding is the reaction from the right wing. Nothing could be sweeter.


By the way, the Norwegians aren't even a part of the EU. The committee is completely independent from the Swedes, too, consisting of 5 people from the broad political spectrum (left and right). The Norwegian Parliament appoints them. It was Alfred Nobel's wish to give the Norwegians the authority, not his own countrymen.

I think they wanted to make a strong statement about our involvement internationally. It's an affirmation of American leadership.

They're right.


By far - your BEST POSTS so far !!!


Have a great weekend Phil !! ;)

[ChemEng]

I think this says more about the award than it does anything about Obama,,,

[coolhand]

These kinds of threads always have a habit of starting one of these...

http://tinyurl.com/ld3fgn

[Frixxxx]

Just waiting on the invocation of Godwin's Law.:nuts:

[Thunderhorse]

Next years Nobel Peace Prize Winner - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Excerpt from Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN General Assembly last month:

"Today, our nation seeks to create a world in which justice and compassion prevail. We announce our commitment to participate in the process of building a durable peace and security worldwide for all nations based on justice, spirituality and human dignity, while being dedicated to strongly defending our legitimate and legal rights. To materialize these goals, our nation is prepared to warmly shake all those hands which are honestly extended to us. No nation can claim to be free from the need to change and reform in this journey towards perfectness. We welcome real and humane changes and stand ready to actively engage in fundamental global reforms."
---
Retrospect on one man's hope - Neville Chamberlain, 30 September, 1938:

"My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts.And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds."

Peace!

[coolhand]

Just waiting on the invocation of Godwin's Law.:nuts:

I had to look that one up. Good one! I'll avoid that comparison. :cheesy:

[Handballer]

Can you guess which of these two received the same prize?

No but Obama is in good company with both of these goons.

[McDuck]

Carter was elected in 1976. He was governer in GA just one term. He was not well liked in Ga. He was Pres from 77thru81 during which really mucked things thing royally and we still have some the problems that he caused.


Jimmy Carter should be very upset right now. He was elected in 1975 to be President of the United States from 1976-1980. He was voted in on the work he did in the south to mediate and help make Georgia a bipartisan state. When he got to the Oval Office, he was nothing but the pure southern gentlemen and the other side took advantage of it. 2 Faults do not make it right. He should have been as forceful as the Republicans were to him.

Loses to Ronald Reagan.

Starts Habitat for Humanity. Now here is and endeavor that crosses the social, cultural, and economic bounds across th. e globe. He has a serious bid to show that he has the clout, determination and intestinal fortitude to use his accomplishments to get things done for those without. Relationship building? You bet, Global? Awesome.

Now, take out the few stupid comments about the Palestinians and Republicans in general, and I could vote For President Carter to win the Nobel Peace Prize 26 years after showing you don't have to be the President of the United States just to get things done in this world.

But to give it to a rookie that hasn't done more than shake hands and TRY to get some legislation passed? Please..

Putting Presidents Carter and Obama on the same level...EMBARASSING.

26 years from now, I would be willing to give President Obama an award if he accomplishes 1/3 of what Pres ident Carter has accomplished.

Your certified Republican,
FRIXXXX

P.S. Soon as I find a redeeming quality in Arafat, I'll post it.

[James48843]

Obama Peace Prize Quotes:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee: "For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.' "

President Obama: “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize -- men and women who have inspired me, and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace," Mr. Obama said. "Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," Mr. Obama said,.

SHOWING SUPPORT:

World Leaders:

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described the peace prize as "great news". "President Obama embodies the new spirit of dialogue and engagement on the world's biggest problems: climate change, nuclear disarmament and a wide range of peace and security challenges,"

South Africa's Desmond Tutu. "It is an award that anticipates an even greater contribution towards making our world a safer place for all," Tutu said.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy wrote to Obama expressing his 'very great joy' on learning his US counterpart getting the Nobel Peace Prize. Sarkozy said the Nobel honor is a tribute to Mr. Obama's commitment to "tolerance and dialogue between states, cultures and civilizations." The French leader said the choice of Mr. Obama confirms the "return of America into the hearts of the people of the world."

Japan's Kyodo news agency quoted Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama as saying that he was "really pleased" at Obama's win and wanted to congratulate him "from the heart."

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter described the Obama selection as "a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment to peace and harmony in international relations".

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he was "very happy" for Obama and believes "such a prize augments his capacity and reputation around the world, and that will help us accomplish things for all of humanity."

Arab League chief Amr Mussa said he is “very happy” Obama has won the award, which comes less than a
year after he took office and with the jury hailing his “extraordinary” diplomatic efforts on the international stage. “This is an expression that the world is convinced of what (Obama) talked about in his speeches,” Mussa said. “We hope this prize will help intensify efforts to reach peace in the Middle East and contain negative efforts opposed to peace,” he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres were among leaders who offered their congratulations. “This award also expresses the hope that your presidency will usher in a new era of peace and reconciliation,” said Netanyahu.

Kuwait’s Emir H H Sheikh Sabah Al Ahmed Al Sabah, praised Obama for “his extraordinary efforts in the service of international diplomacy and of cooperation among peoples.”

Former Vice President Al Gore, who won two years ago, said Obama's prize was "extremely well deserved." "I think that much of what he has accomplished already is going to be far more appreciated in the eyes of history, as it has been by the Nobel committee," Gore said.

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, who chairs the Democratic National Committee, called the award "an affirmation of the fact that the United States has returned to its long-standing role as a world leader."

OPPOSED:

“We believe he has been rewarded or judged based on good intentions toward peace but not on his achievement,” said Ahmed Yousef, Deputy Foreign Defense Minister of Hamas.

“He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan,” wrote Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. “…We condemn the institute’s awarding him the peace prize. We condemn this year’s peace prize as unjust.”

Erick Erickson, writing on the conservative RedState.com (http://redstate.com/), suggested Obama won in part because he is black. "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news," Erickson wrote. "There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period."

Rush Limbaugh: “I think that everybody is laughing. Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban.”

Fox News Correspondent Wendell Goler: “If you want to look at it this way, the RNC and the Taliban are basically on the same page. It’s an unusual situation…,” he said

[James48843]

Michael Moore, on Obama Peace Prize:





Congratulations President Obama on the Nobel Peace Prize -- Now Please Earn it!



Friday, October 9th, 2009



Dear President Obama,

How outstanding that you've been recognized today as a man of peace. Your swift, early pronouncements -- you will close Guantanamo, you will bring the troops home from Iraq, you want a nuclear weapon-free world, you admitted to the Iranians that we overthrew their democratically-elected president in 1953, you made that great speech to the Islamic world in Cairo, you've eliminated that useless term "The War on Terror," you've put an end to torture -- these have all made us and the rest of the world feel a bit more safe considering the disaster of the past eight years. In eight months you have done an about face and taken this country in a much more sane direction.

But...

The irony that you have been awarded this prize on the 2nd day of the ninth year of our War in Afghanistan is not lost on anyone. You are truly at a crossroads now. You can listen to the generals and expand the war (only to result in a far-too-predictable defeat) or you can declare Bush's Wars over, and bring all the troops home. Now. That's what a true man of peace would do.

There is nothing wrong with you doing what the last guy failed to do -- capture the man or men responsible for the mass murder of 3,000 people on 9/11. BUT YOU CANNOT DO THAT WITH TANKS AND TROOPS. You are pursuing a criminal, not an army. You do not use a stick of dynamite to get rid of a mouse.

The Taliban is another matter. That is a problem for the people of Afghanistan to resolve -- just as we did in 1776, the French did in 1789, the Cubans did in 1959, the Nicaraguans did in 1979 and the people of East Berlin did in 1989. One thing is certain through all revolutions by people who wish to be free -- they ultimately have to bring about that freedom themselves. Others can be supportive, but freedom can not be delivered from the front seat of someone else's Humvee.

You have to end our involvement in Afghanistan now. If you don't, you'll have no choice but to return the prize to Oslo.



Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com (http://www.michaelmoore.com/)

P.S. Your opposition has spent the morning attacking you for bringing such good will to this country. Why do they hate America so much? I get the feeling that if you found the cure for cancer this afternoon they'd be denouncing you for destroying free enterprise because cancer centers would have to close. There are those who say you've done nothing yet to deserve this award. As far as I'm concerned, the very fact that you've offered to walk into the minefield of hate and try to undo the irreparable damage the last president did is not only appreciated by me and millions of others, it is also an act of true bravery. That's why you got the prize. The whole world is depending on the U.S. -- and you -- to literally save this planet. Let's not let them down.

[Birchtree]

The message is simple - it's about building the african-american self esteem. That's what they preach in our schools - multiculturalism.

[Viva_La_Migra]

Figured out why he won...he was the 10th caller.
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!:laugh:

[phil]

On Michael Moore: well said! It's time to come home. It's time to be Americans again.

[James48843]

On Michael Moore: well said! It's time to come home. It's time to be Americans again.


It's MORNING IN AMERICA!

[James48843]

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!:laugh:

Yes, that was!!!

[Viva_La_Migra]

On Michael Moore: well said! It's time to come home. It's time to be Americans again.
Speak for yourself! I've always been an American!;)

[James48843]

A call to action

Friday, October 9, 2009 6:49 PM

From: "President Barack Obama" <info@barackobama.com>

To: James48843


Obama for America

james48843--

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

[grandma]

AM I understanding this right - that the nominations for the Nobel closed two weeks after Sen Obama was sworn in and became President Obama?
So what had he accomplished in those two weeks that was so profound? The science awards were given to three people who had already accomplished a great feat with tracking bacteria; they had finished that stage of their work. And aren't the literature guys given theirs for what they've already published? Because of these thoughts I look askance at this award, and even more so, then, that he didn't already know it was in the works as a `done deal.' Otherwise, why would such (sometimes) honored prizes be given out on promises to produce, campaign promises? I'm sorry - this makes absolutely no sense to me, especially when I read the accolades of why he deserved it. - no relaitonship as far as I can interpret....
but then, my TSPtalk teachers finally had to give up on me :embarrest: getting any of that either! They let me stay on board, tho! :D

[coolhand]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6868905.ece

Gasps echoed through the Nobel Hall in Oslo yesterday as Barack Obama was unveiled as the winner of the 2009 Peace Prize, sparking a global outpouring of incredulity and praise in unequal measure.

Mr Obama was sound asleep in the White House when the Norwegian Nobel Committee made the shock announcement. It said that he was being honoured for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”.

In a clear swipe at his predecessor, George W. Bush, the committee praised the “change in the international climate” that the President had brought, along with his cherished goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future,” it added.

International reaction ranged from delight to disbelief. The former winners Kofi Annan and Desmond Tutu voiced praise, the latter lauding the Nobel Committee’s “surprising but imaginative choice”.

But Lech Walesa, the dissident turned Polish President, who won the Peace Prize in 1983, spoke for many, declaring: “So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far.”

Mr Obama’s domestic critics leapt on the award as evidence of foreigners fawning over an untested “celebrity” leader. Rush Limbaugh, the US right-wing commentator, said: “This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama."

Speaking later, Mr Obama said that he was “surprised and deeply humbled” by the unexpected decision and announced that he would donate the £880,000 prize, due to be awarded in December, to charity.

“Let me be clear. I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishments but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," he said.

The Nobel Peace Prize is a notoriously difficult award to predict, but yesterday's decision was clearly a political choice, with three of the past six peace awards going to Bush adversaries.

In 2002 the prize went to Jimmy Carter as an explicit rejection of the Bush presidency in the build-up to the Iraq war. In 2005 Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN atomic agency chief who had clashed with Washington over the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was honoured. In 2007 Al Gore received the prize for his warnings on climate change, denounced by President Bush as a liberal myth.

The award is also an example of what Nobel scholars call the growing aspirational trend of Nobel committees over the past three decades, by which awards are given not for what has been achieved but in support of the cause being fought for.

Thorbjørn Jagland, the committee chairman, made clear that this year’s prize fell in that category. “If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do,” he said. “It could be too late to respond three years from now.”

But Bobby Muller, who won the Nobel Prize as co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, told The Times: "I don't have the highest regard for the thinking or process of the Nobel committee. Maybe Norway should give it to Sweden so they can more properly handle the Peace Prize along with all the other Nobel prizes."

[Buster]

The President said he will donate the $1.4M prize money to charity..:)

[phil]

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegians at the express wishes of the founder, Alfred Nobel.

He gave it to the Norwegians, possibly because he saw them as being without an international agenda, as honest brokers.

They must think he's doing a good job. In my experience, the Norwegians have always tried to do the right thing. They seem to always be punished for it, but that's okay.

[CountryBoy]

Gandhi was nominated for 3 Nobel Peace prizes…how many did he win… ZERO and bHo can’t even carry Gandhi’s shoes when it comes to his contribution to mankind and peace. But then Gandhi is not some fat left wing nut or socialist.

Committee excerpt – The committee has increasingly given the peace prize to honor the awardees' causes, even when their aspirations are not matched by concrete accomplishments.

Oh it’s all in the name in symbolism, well now ain’t that right up a libs alley…all talk but no walk. :laugh: What a joke award.

CB

[Show-me]

Gandhi was nominated for 3 Nobel Peace prizes…how many did he win… ZERO and bHo can’t even carry Gandhi’s shoes when it comes to his contribution to mankind and peace. But then Gandhi is not some fat left wing nut or socialist.

Committee excerpt – The committee has increasingly given the peace prize to honor the awardees' causes, even when their aspirations are not matched by concrete accomplishments.

Oh it’s all in the name in symbolism, well now ain’t that right up a libs alley…all talk but no walk. :laugh: What a joke award.

CB

That's right, I can walk around talking about helping children for years. It's all talk until you open your home and heart. Nobel Peace Prize, aka bull **** award.

Peace on earth good will toward man has been around much longer that BHO. Walking around on the world stage at the expense of the taxpayer talking don't make it so.

Wake up, and goooood morning.:D

[James48843]

Winning 365 electoral votes and 53% of the popular vote nationwide: $740.6 million.

Bailing out the financial mess in the automobile industy that your freemarketing NAFTA predecessor left you, after destroying 400,000 American manufacturing jobs? $39.1 billion.

Funding the troubled asset relief (TARP) program that the prior President and Congress passed one month before the election, leaving you no choice but to pay out their shakedown theft from the U.S. Treasury? $700 billion.

Watching the right wingnuts go ballistic when you win the Nobel Peace Prize just nine months into office?

Priceless.

[James48843]

and bHo can’t even carry Gandhi’s shoes...

I don't care who you are, THAT is hillarious...

http://www.agiftofinspiration.com.au/stories/personalgrowth/Ghandi.shtml

[poolman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbcDk-bNoc8&feature=sub

[OBGibby]

Nobel Fleece Prize

[phil]

That's funny! Isn't it great when all of the dems rallied around the president after 9/11? Isn't it truly priceless when all of the republicans rallied around the president now? I mean, after all, they handed him (and us) all of the problems after 8 years. Ron Paul makes the observation that the administration did too much after 9/11. Sorry Ron, but I think you're 8 years a little too late.




Winning 365 electoral votes and 53% of the popular vote nationwide: $740.6 million.

Bailing out the financial mess in the automobile industy that your freemarketing NAFTA predecessor left you, after destroying 400,000 American manufacturing jobs? $39.1 billion.

Funding the troubled asset relief (TARP) program that the prior President and Congress passed one month before the election, leaving you no choice but to pay out their shakedown theft from the U.S. Treasury? $700 billion.

Watching the right wingnuts go ballistic when you win the Nobel Peace Prize just nine months into office?

Priceless.

[CountryBoy]

I don't care who you are, THAT is hillarious...

http://www.agiftofinspiration.com.au/stories/personalgrowth/Ghandi.shtml

Feeling is definately mutual. :D Nice comment for a Mod, I'm sure you're going to be impartial.

CB

[McDuck]

It's like a kid gets admitted to Harvard as a freshman, then after 2 weeks of classes they give him and B.S. and M.S. degrees.

[McDuck]

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs255.snc1/10226_168883507336_129215977336_3263342_3816417_n. jpg

[blancaster82]

Barack Obama's peace prize starts a fight

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6868905.ece

[grandma]

Barack Obama's peace prize starts a fight

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6868905.ece
I may be too hyper over `Them Hawgs' - but I'm not finding a fight here ...help me out. Thanx - grandma

[phil]

Funny Kanye West post, McDuck!

[phil]

If only we and the mass media had listened to the message sent by the Nobel Prize Committee when they awarded the Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter in 2002, and to Mohamed ElBaradei in 2005. America would still be the most respected nation in the world,thousands of people would not have lost their lives, and there would have been no loss of foreign markets, collapse of the economy, soaring unemployment, and the loss of home and retirement assets of millions of people.

I think the Nobel Committee has been trying to send us an important message for some time now. I know, maybe we should listen.

[tsptalk]

Funny Kanye West post, McDuck!
That was good McDuck. :laugh:

[OBGibby]

If only we and the mass media had listened to the message sent by the Nobel Prize Committee when they awarded the Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter in 2002, and to Mohamed ElBaradei in 2005. America would still be the most respected nation in the world,thousands of people would not have lost their lives, and there would have been no loss of foreign markets, collapse of the economy, soaring unemployment, and the loss of home and retirement assets of millions of people.

I think the Nobel Committee has been trying to send us an important message for some time now. I know, maybe we should listen.

Phil,

Of course! If only we would listen to a group of five Norwegians, who obviously have the inherent wisdom and forethought to know what is best for our country. I know it’s old fashioned, but I still cling to two notions: that we have the greatest country in the history of mankind, and that we should always act in our interest first, then the interests of the “world” at large.

If only we had known that the secret to our success lay in the hands of the Committee! Imagine the untold prosperity in peace and treasure the world would have seen!!!! You’re right, we should have listened to the Nobel Committee when they honored Carter with their award – at that exact moment we should have listened and taken note that the committee was utterly void of usefulness, and undeniably a partisan tool of the European liberal elite in furtherance of their agenda . Jimmy Carter!?!? Are you kidding me? Give him an award for Habitat for Humanity, that is a truly noble cause. But don’t bestow accolades on a man who sides more often with Palestinian terrorist groups than Israel, who directly meddles in U.S. foreign affairs long after his nightmarish administration left office, and continues to rouse the rabble with his incendiary racist rhetoric in an effort to do what no one but the peanut farmer himself comprehends.

Mohamed ElBaradei – championed by Western elite and the anti-American bloc. Been in the job several years now, all the while “trying” to prevent Iran from developing the bomb when in fact he seems more content ridiculing America, Israel and anyone else who says Iran is close to bomb fruition. He claims the Iranian ruling elite aren’t “fanatics,” and claims “Israel is the number one threat to [the] Middle East.” Even France accused him of withholding critical information relative to Iran’s progress in their pursuit of the bomb. His credibility is worthless – but that didn’t stop the Nobel Committee from lauding his accomplishments in checking U.S. intentions.

Victor Hanson Davis summed up ElBaradei perfectly the other day:

"Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei is a living metaphor for all that is wrong with post-Western society. He now proclaims that Israel — democratic and constitutional — is the "number one threat" to the Middle East. That he made this comment from Tehran — after his hosts have serially promised to wipe Israel off the map, and after his own agency missed an entire weapons facility run by an autocratic theocracy — says it all.

ElBaradei, who was educated in the West, and much of whose family lives in the safety and prosperity of the West, has made a career of appeasing Iran, lecturing Westerners about their assorted sins, and saying nothing about the dictatorship in Egypt (for which he once worked). Indeed, beyond Egypt, he has said nothing about the Middle East's self-induced pathologies — from tribalism, gender apartheid, and statism to dictatorship and religious intolerance — which are a far more significant cause of the region's economic stagnation than is Western colonialism.

That ElBaradei has been showered with awards from Western governments and universities — among them the Nobel Prize — reveals how well he understands the West's timidity and lack of principle. He knows that he and his family are safer and freer outside Egypt than they are inside Egypt, and he knows that Israel is not going to nuke its neighbors or announce that it would like to wipe Syria or Egypt off the map. He also knows that elites in the West like to be chided by Westernized non-Westernizers about their assorted sins — it allows those Western elites to alleviate their guilt at very little cost.

In short, if ElBaradei didn't exist, he would have to be invented."


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjZiMzBhNWJhNDIxYjdiMmYxNzFmZjU3ODljZTAxMDc (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjZiMzBhNWJhNDIxYjdiMmYxNzFmZjU3ODljZTAxMDc)=

[grandma]

OBGibby:
Yes! ...what you said !!! :D

[nnuut]

Sometimes it's better to just say NOTHING!
"nnuut":suspicious:

I've looked on many women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. God knows I will do this and forgives me.
Jimmy Carter (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jimmycarte130252.html)
I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
Barack Obama (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barackobam409243.html)
I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.
Barack Obama (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barackobam409244.html)

[Show-me]

I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
Barack Obama (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barackobam409243.html)
I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.
Barack Obama (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barackobam409244.html)

Book mark it! lol:laugh:

[nnuut]

The Tax on my residence went up $400 this year, they canceled the Homestead Exemption and raised the millage!! They said it was due to Declining state revenues during the current recession means there is no money for the state to give tax relief to homeowners, the grants will only be given in the future if state revenues grow at least 3% plus the rate of inflation.
The state also kept my income tax return until the end of September, they said they had a manpower shortage and couldn't process the claims that were submitted by mail for 6 Months. That's a crock, they used my refund money all year and decided to use it for another 6 months, THAT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN!!:nuts:

[phil]

I'm glad you agree. As far as the polemic against both Carter and El-Baradei. Blessed are the peacemakers. It's all well and good to attack both of these people, and I see now why you're attacking President Obama, since he's trying to actually do something about these problems, rather than adding to them.

In short, one need only to read why both of these men were nominated for the prize, and the trouble they've had from us, to realize why they've received the Nobel prize.


Phil,

Of course! If only we would listen to a group of five Norwegians, who obviously have the inherent wisdom and forethought to know what is best for our country. I know it’s old fashioned, but I still cling to two notions: that we have the greatest country in the history of mankind, and that we should always act in our interest first, then the interests of the “world” at large.

If only we had known that the secret to our success lay in the hands of the Committee! Imagine the untold prosperity in peace and treasure the world would have seen!!!! You’re right, we should have listened to the Nobel Committee when they honored Carter with their award – at that exact moment we should have listened and taken note that the committee was utterly void of usefulness, and undeniably a partisan tool of the European liberal elite in furtherance of their agenda . Jimmy Carter!?!? Are you kidding me? Give him an award for Habitat for Humanity, that is a truly noble cause. But don’t bestow accolades on a man who sides more often with Palestinian terrorist groups than Israel, who directly meddles in U.S. foreign affairs long after his nightmarish administration left office, and continues to rouse the rabble with his incendiary racist rhetoric in an effort to do what no one but the peanut farmer himself comprehends.

Mohamed ElBaradei – championed by Western elite and the anti-American bloc. Been in the job several years now, all the while “trying” to prevent Iran from developing the bomb when in fact he seems more content ridiculing America, Israel and anyone else who says Iran is close to bomb fruition. He claims the Iranian ruling elite aren’t “fanatics,” and claims “Israel is the number one threat to [the] Middle East.” Even France accused him of withholding critical information relative to Iran’s progress in their pursuit of the bomb. His credibility is worthless – but that didn’t stop the Nobel Committee from lauding his accomplishments in checking U.S. intentions.

Victor Hanson Davis summed up ElBaradei perfectly the other day:

"Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei is a living metaphor for all that is wrong with post-Western society. He now proclaims that Israel — democratic and constitutional — is the "number one threat" to the Middle East. That he made this comment from Tehran — after his hosts have serially promised to wipe Israel off the map, and after his own agency missed an entire weapons facility run by an autocratic theocracy — says it all.

ElBaradei, who was educated in the West, and much of whose family lives in the safety and prosperity of the West, has made a career of appeasing Iran, lecturing Westerners about their assorted sins, and saying nothing about the dictatorship in Egypt (for which he once worked). Indeed, beyond Egypt, he has said nothing about the Middle East's self-induced pathologies — from tribalism, gender apartheid, and statism to dictatorship and religious intolerance — which are a far more significant cause of the region's economic stagnation than is Western colonialism.

That ElBaradei has been showered with awards from Western governments and universities — among them the Nobel Prize — reveals how well he understands the West's timidity and lack of principle. He knows that he and his family are safer and freer outside Egypt than they are inside Egypt, and he knows that Israel is not going to nuke its neighbors or announce that it would like to wipe Syria or Egypt off the map. He also knows that elites in the West like to be chided by Westernized non-Westernizers about their assorted sins — it allows those Western elites to alleviate their guilt at very little cost.

In short, if ElBaradei didn't exist, he would have to be invented."


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjZiMzBhNWJhNDIxYjdiMmYxNzFmZjU3ODljZTAxMDc (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjZiMzBhNWJhNDIxYjdiMmYxNzFmZjU3ODljZTAxMDc)=

[James48843]

The Tax on my residence went up $400 this year, they canceled the Homestead Exemption and raised the millage!! They said it was due to Declining state revenues during the current recession means there is no money for the state to give tax relief to homeowners, the grants will only be given in the future if state revenues grow at least 3% plus the rate of inflation.
The state also kept my income tax return until the end of September, they said they had a manpower shortage and couldn't process the claims that were submitted by mail for 6 Months. That's a crock, they used my refund money all year and decided to use it for another 6 months, THAT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN!!:nuts:

That's not very nice.

Amazing that they did that- when your governor is a republican, the state senate is controlled by republicans, and the state house is controlled by republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/150th_General_Assembly_of_the_State_of_Georgia

So how is it they were able to get such tax increases passed?

Just wondering.


(fire them all, everywhere, and start from scratch.)

[McDuck]

Amazing that they did that- when your governor is a republican, the state senate is controlled by republicans, and the state house is controlled by republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/150th_General_Assembly_of_the_State_of_Georgia

So how is it they were able to get such tax increases passed?
)
Property taxes are set by the local county. Metro Atlanta is as Dimoratic as Detroit.

[CountryBoy]

Those pesky ol' facts, and ALWAYS so dad burned quick to blame the same old folks all the time. That'll git ya into trouble and also show a lack of....:D Thank goodness for the socialists reference of choice, wiki. :laugh: Note to self or.... someone...;) must do more indepth research.

CB

[nnuut]

That's not very nice.

Amazing that they did that- when your governor is a republican, the state senate is controlled by republicans, and the state house is controlled by republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/150th_General_Assembly_of_the_State_of_Georgia

So how is it they were able to get such tax increases passed?

Just wondering.


(fire them all, everywhere, and start from scratch.)


Property taxes are set by the local county. Metro Atlanta is as Dimoratic as Detroit.

Politicians!!! they all have numerous traits in common, you know that Jim. :cool:

[James48843]

Property taxes are set by the local county. Metro Atlanta is as Dimoratic as Detroit.

The State controls the homestead exemption tax in Georgia, and the governor has power to set certain tax rates. In addition, the state government in Georgia has the power to direct local governments to change rates.

http://aysps.gsu.edu/frc/files/Rpt_174FIN.pdf

It looks like they don't call it a tax increase, if the value of the property goes down. They only call it a tax increase if the OVERALL amount collected goes down.

Go figure.

Seems to me like Georgia suffers from too much of that "local control"--allowing local government to set taxes too easily.
I guess that is the flip side of doing property taxes that way. I wonder if the citizens will get "up in arms" about it, and decide to change who controls the tax base and process.

[phil]

Outrageous! The state is controlled by Republicans, and they're STILL raising local taxes on poor McDuck? I don't know the specifics, but it seems to me that something isn't quite right here.

[Birchtree]

I've just now realized that the Nobel folks still have their affirmative action quota system still intact - that's so outdated.

[OBGibby]

...President Obama, since he's trying to actually do something about these problems, rather than adding to them...

Pray tell, my dear comrade, what exactly is President Obama doing about "these problems?" If you equate "talking" with "doing," as I suspect you are, I am afraid you confuse the issue.

Of course, the larger issue lost in translation is that a great many do not consider the "problems" the president and his many admirers trumpet as "problems," are, in fact problems. Rather, they reflect the realities of the world we live in (strangely, something conveniently forgotten by supporters of the self-proclaimed "realist" president).

The utopian vision of the world you and the president espouse as a worthy goal has it's uses (however slight), but none so seriously endanger our hard-fought position as the leader of the free world as the singular issue that this administration seem so intent on achieving: returning our United States to the status of a mere equal amongst nations. The very thought is so utterly cockeyed it begs credibility, yet deserves scorn from anyone who thinks of the implications of such a demonstratively naïve sentiment. It’s no wonder echoes of the “amateur hour” refrain is heard around the world as this administration manages to makes it way through each day.

No inclination is as absurd - or dangerous - as this direct refutation of the blood, sweat and tears poured out by Americans on battlefields near and far, as well as the hard work and innovation that has made our economy the envy of the world (you don't think the European Union came about because they liked those shiny Euro coins do you?). Just imagine the world of the past one hundred years without a United States providing leadership - not just “talk”, but the action and actual “walk” to back it up. Imagine the untold suffering and utter destruction if but for the grace of American values and willingness to do the right thing when it would have been all too easy to sit back, rest on our laurels, and hope that the evil in this world would consume itself. Thankfully, our country has bred men and women in every generation who know better than to risk our own prosperity and freedom on the words of world opinion that rarely (if ever) has the interests of the United States foremost amongst its intentions.

So, remember, while you sit back, snugly under the blanket of freedom and security our country provides, all the while denigrating that very country, there are millions – nay, billions – who would gladly change places with you. I hope that is not lost in translation.

[coolhand]

So, remember, while you sit back, snugly under the blanket of freedom and security our country provides, all the while denigrating that very country, there are millions – nay, billions – who would gladly change places with you. I hope that is not lost in translation.

Yeah, what he said. nyuk, nyuk.

6961

[jimijr]

Hey, nominations for next year's prize ought to be opening soon. Send in your cards and letters!

But does any one here know anything about the winners of the ECONOMICS prize? Want to hear what got them the award?

"Professor Oliver E Williamson, the academy said, developed a theory where business firms served as structures for conflict resolution.

The University of Berkeley California academic has argued that hierarchical organisations such as companies represent alternative governance structures, which differ in their approaches to resolving conflicts of interest.

"Over the last three decades, these seminal contributions have advanced economic governance research from the fringe to the forefront of scientific attention," the academy said.

They're saying that in our time of globalisation of manufacturing and finance, the boardroom has overtaken the cabinet in global governance, and that business now has the means to supercede government in resolving disputes. It has long been true that our largest corporations have larger revenues and expenditures than many many countries.

It looks like the title CEO will mean more than POTUS within our lifetimes. So pick the leader of your favorite company and write 'em in!

I'd like to see the government get out of war altogether and leave the field to private industy. -- Joseph Heller

[James48843]

NEXT AWARD....


Help President Obama win the Heisman Trophy.

Cast your vote here:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Next-help-Obama-win-the-Heisman-63851657.html

[OBGibby]

NEXT AWARD....


Help President Obama win the Heisman Trophy.

Cast your vote here:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Next-help-Obama-win-the-Heisman-63851657.html


Actually, I have it on good authority that he's the odds-on favorite for Miss World...

[OBGibby]

American Exceptionalism (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/gordon/123902)

John Steele Gordon (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions?author_name=gordon) - 10.12.2009 - 9:13 AM

The winners of the Nobel Prize in economics were announced today (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/business/economy/13nobel.html?_r=1&hp). They are two Americans, Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University and Oliver Williamson of UC Berkeley.

So now that all the 2009 prizes have been awarded, let’s recap: The Nobel in medicine went to three Americans. The Nobel in physics went to three Americans. The Nobel in chemistry went to two Americans and one Israeli. The Nobel in literature went to a German. The Nobel Peace Prize went to an American, and now the Nobel in economics has gone to two Americans.

Thus, of the 13 winners this year, 11 are Americans. A country with 4 percent of the world’s population produced 85 percent of the winners. To be sure, we are to some extent playing with numbers here. After all, Israel, with .08 percent of the world’s population, produced 7 percent of the winners. But over the 108 years they have been handing out Nobel Prizes, the number won by American citizens is exceptionally large.

I wonder if that fact embarrasses this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner.

American Exceptionalism (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/gordon/123902) - John Gordon, Contentions

[phil]

I think that the "talking" that people did was what brought about our engagement with the rest of the world. We've seen the results of our policy of acting unilaterally around the world. No, I don't confuse the issue. I just don't think unilateralism is the best course for us. That's where realism comes in. I recognize that we don't operate in a vacuum around the world. Bringing the US as an equal amongst nations? I think that was why we helped to create the UN and NATO, to provide some forum for nations to cooperate with each other to resolve problems, not to dictate, but educate.

Sitting snugly? I don't think so. Thanks for the ad hominem.

Finally, it's not about me, but about President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I think it's always a good thing when our president wins international recognition.


Pray tell, my dear comrade, what exactly is President Obama doing about "these problems?" If you equate "talking" with "doing," as I suspect you are, I am afraid you confuse the issue.

Of course, the larger issue lost in translation is that a great many do not consider the "problems" the president and his many admirers trumpet as "problems," are, in fact problems. Rather, they reflect the realities of the world we live in (strangely, something conveniently forgotten by supporters of the self-proclaimed "realist" president).

The utopian vision of the world you and the president espouse as a worthy goal has it's uses (however slight), but none so seriously endanger our hard-fought position as the leader of the free world as the singular issue that this administration seem so intent on achieving: returning our United States to the status of a mere equal amongst nations. The very thought is so utterly cockeyed it begs credibility, yet deserves scorn from anyone who thinks of the implications of such a demonstratively naïve sentiment. It’s no wonder echoes of the “amateur hour” refrain is heard around the world as this administration manages to makes it way through each day.

No inclination is as absurd - or dangerous - as this direct refutation of the blood, sweat and tears poured out by Americans on battlefields near and far, as well as the hard work and innovation that has made our economy the envy of the world (you don't think the European Union came about because they liked those shiny Euro coins do you?). Just imagine the world of the past one hundred years without a United States providing leadership - not just “talk”, but the action and actual “walk” to back it up. Imagine the untold suffering and utter destruction if but for the grace of American values and willingness to do the right thing when it would have been all too easy to sit back, rest on our laurels, and hope that the evil in this world would consume itself. Thankfully, our country has bred men and women in every generation who know better than to risk our own prosperity and freedom on the words of world opinion that rarely (if ever) has the interests of the United States foremost amongst its intentions.

So, remember, while you sit back, snugly under the blanket of freedom and security our country provides, all the while denigrating that very country, there are millions – nay, billions – who would gladly change places with you. I hope that is not lost in translation.

[PessOptimist]

I find the use, misuse and over stretched use of ad hominem to be getting ad nauseam.

Gotta admit using phrases from a dead classical language sur makes me look edumacated:D

[phil]

Well worth reading.

George C. Marshall' Acceptance Speech on the occasion of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, December 10, 1953.

On 10 December in the university Aula, just as Marshall was accepting the prize from Dr. Hambro, vice-chairman of the committee, some communist journalists interrupted the ceremony, dropping leaflets from the balcony and shouting, "We protest!" King Haakon VII indignantly rose to his feet and led the audience in applause for Marshall. The general turned to Hambro and commented drily that in his own country he was more accustomed to such treatment from the anticommunists.*

[OBGibby]

I think that the "talking" that people did was what brought about our engagement with the rest of the world. We've seen the results of our policy of acting unilaterally around the world. No, I don't confuse the issue. I just don't think unilateralism is the best course for us. That's where realism comes in. I recognize that we don't operate in a vacuum around the world. Bringing the US as an equal amongst nations? I think that was why we helped to create the UN and NATO, to provide some forum for nations to cooperate with each other to resolve problems, not to dictate, but educate.

Sitting snugly? I don't think so. Thanks for the ad hominem.

Finally, it's not about me, but about President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I think it's always a good thing when our president wins international recognition.

Results? Please educate me, as only a longtime academic like the Community Organizer-in-Chief can, of the “results” you speak of. Iran and North Korea – wow, all that “talking” sure has delivered results. All that “talking” about the “sins” of the United States, that sure has shown some positive results around the world. Inviting communist Cuba into the OAS really worked wonders. And what about Fidel’s good time buddy, Hugo? Surely the president’s talking has converted that despot into a friend of freedom. Honduras discards a president seeking an illegal extension of his presidency and President Obama finds it useful to “talk” about the travesty of the ouster (I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried!) Thousands march for freedom in Tehran and what happens? The president’s “talking” goes on mute. Well, not exactly. He did find the time to blame America for Iran’s problems by bringing up U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup (1953!). “Talking” with Russia has sure improved our relations with Eastern Europe. Just ask Poland and the Czech Republic. He did a lot of “talking” about Afghanistan being a ‘war of necessity’ yet can’t seem to find his voice anymore. Seems like the Dem’s political ploy of 2006 to talk down Iraq while championing Afghanistan was just that - talk.

Talk is cheap. Talk without the willingness to back it up is even cheaper. Our friends and foes alike notice these things.

What exactly has resulted in the president’s nine months in office? A European electorate enamored with Barak Obama? That and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. But in the real currency of the world, it doesn’t amount to squat. Don’t worry – I’m not expecting you to actually write anything – I have better things to do with my time than wait months upon months upon the hope of any “results” miraculously appearing within this thread.

When acting unilaterally means protecting U.S. interests and advancing freedom around the world - count me as an ardent supporter. It still puzzles me as to how ‘unilateral’ became such a pejorative term in the context of national interest. Every country acts unilaterally when it is in their own best interest, and the United States should be no different.

The United Nations, however good the intentions were at its birth, has lost any semblance of credibility. One need look no further than the Oil-for-Food scandal to realize that the U.N. has no credibility. What, exactly, has the United Nations accomplished in its history? It seems much more adept at being able to hamstring the United States than doing the good it was meant to do. It seems much more skillful at jabbing its collective finger in the eye of our country than actually righting any wrongs around the world, all the while the countries/councils/commissions doing the finger pointing feign as if their **** don’t stink. Absurdity that only a liberal could rationalize and then champion.

Abdicating our leadership position is foolhardy, and begs the question: If not us, who?

The danger of retreating from our leadership around the world has dangerous consequences. While its supporters undoubtedly believe it is in the national interest of the United States to do so, it is based on the faulty assumption that the new approach to the world will engender good will from our foes, and even greater cooperation from our friends. That’s a bet that America should NEVER make.

[phil]

And what sort of results did we have from the previous administration, pray tell? From any of these issues?

Let's review: North Korea had nukes during the Bush admininistration, and has them now. The Iran issue is hardly new.

You need to do a fact check on the Honduras situation. It's a little complicated, particularly on the rule of law category.

I think most Americans took a good look around, and realized that we had engaged in far too many foreign adventures (sort of like the former Soviet Union), and had succeeded only in losing trillions of dollars, with little security to show, and an enormous foreign debt. In the end, the Soviets came apart from putting too much money in one basket, it seems.

As for Castro and Hugo: I believe that making faces at them just didn't seem to work well, did it? I mean, we've been doing that for over 50 years now to Cuba. We even tried to INVADE once, which failed horribly.

Taking the time to analyze Afghanistan is really necessary. Look how we all REALLY got snookered into the Iraq war. I'd take some time too. Tell you what, just read the 9/11 report, it's all there. Any idea how much money it cost? Did it hurt, or help, Al-Qaeda?

On Iran: we have intervened inside their country before, in 1953. I think talking about it is probably a good thing. Just like now....

Talking with Russia probably is much better than other options. We've always talked with them. Well and good to rattle sabers, but in the end we always talk and work out some agreement. Trust me, it's probably a better thing.

Protecting US interests: what US interests are we protecting exactly? I probably need to be educated on that. After all, after our invasion of Iraq, oil prices started to go way up, not down. There seemed to be a correlation there between our political willingness to believe anything, and our ability to pay at the pump. Were we really that gullible?

As far as the UN's credibility: I think that after the presentation on WMD in Iraq, I really think that's exactly what they say about us.

I always admired George C. Marshall. He also won the Nobel Prize. You should read his acceptance speech. He was a great General, and a great diplomat.



Results? Please educate me, as only a longtime academic like the Community Ornizer-in-Chief can, of the “results” you speak of. Iran and North Korea – wow, all that “talking” sure has delivered results. All that “talking” about the “sins” of the United States, that sure has shown some positive results around the world. Inviting communist Cuba into the OAS really worked wonders. And what about Fidel’s good time buddy, Hugo? Surely the president’s talking has converted that despot into a friend of freedom. Honduras discards a president seeking an illegal extension of his presidency and President Obama finds it useful to “talk” about the travesty of the ouster (I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried!) Thousands march for freedom in Tehran and what happens? The president’s “talking” goes on mute. Well, not exactly. He did find the time to blame America for Iran’s problems by bringing up U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup (1953!). “Talking” with Russia has sure improved our relations with Eastern Europe. Just ask Poland and the Czech Republic. He did a lot of “talking” about Afghanistan being a ‘war of necessity’ yet can’t seem to find his voice anymore. Seems like the Dem’s political ploy of 2006 to talk down Iraq while championing Afghanistan was just that - talk.

Talk is cheap. Talk without the willingness to back it up is even cheaper. Our friends and foes alike notice these things.

What exactly has resulted in the president’s nine months in office? A European electorate enamored with Barak Obama? That and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. But in the real currency of the world, it doesn’t amount to squat. Don’t worry – I’m not expecting you to actually write anything – I have better things to do with my time than wait months upon months upon the hope of any “results” miraculously appearing within this thread.

When acting unilaterally means protecting U.S. interests and advancing freedom around the world - count me as an ardent supporter. It still puzzles me as to how ‘unilateral’ became such a pejorative term in the context of national interest. Every country acts unilaterally when it is in their own best interest, and the United States should be no different.

The United Nations, however good the intentions were at its birth, has lost any semblance of credibility. One need look no further than the Oil-for-Food scandal to realize that the U.N. has no credibility. What, exactly, has the United Nations accomplished in its history? It seems much more adept at being able to hamstring the United States than doing the good it was meant to do. It seems much more skillful at jabbing its collective finger in the eye of our country than actually righting any wrongs around the world, all the while the countries/councils/commissions doing the finger pointing feign as if their **** don’t stink. Absurdity that only a liberal could rationalize and then champion.

Abdicating our leadership position is foolhardy, and begs the question: If not us, who?

The danger of retreating from our leadership around the world has dangerous consequences. While its supporters undoubtedly believe it is in the national interest of the United States to do so, it is based on the faulty assumption that the new approach to the world will engender good will from our foes, and even greater cooperation from our friends. That’s a bet that America should NEVER make.

[grandma]

Results? Please educate me, as only a longtime academic like the Community Organizer-in-Chief can, of the “results” you speak of... ...... a bet that America should NEVER make.

You have my Nomination and Vote for the Post of the day ! Thank you -
Very well put, very well said!:D

[Show-me]

And what sort of results did we have from the previous administration, pray tell? From any of these issues?

Let's review: North Korea had nukes during the Bush admininistration, and has them now. The Iran issue is hardly new.

You need to do a fact check on the Honduras situation. It's a little complicated, particularly on the rule of law category.

I think most Americans took a good look around, and realized that we had engaged in far too many foreign adventures (sort of like the former Soviet Union), and had succeeded only in losing trillions of dollars, with little security to show, and an enormous foreign debt. In the end, the Soviets came apart from putting too much money in one basket, it seems.

As for Castro and Hugo: I believe that making faces at them just didn't seem to work well, did it? I mean, we've been doing that for over 50 years now to Cuba. We even tried to INVADE once, which failed horribly.

Taking the time to analyze Afghanistan is really necessary. Look how we all REALLY got snookered into the Iraq war. I'd take some time too. Tell you what, just read the 9/11 report, it's all there. Any idea how much money it cost? Did it hurt, or help, Al-Qaeda?

On Iran: we have intervened inside their country before, in 1953. I think talking about it is probably a good thing. Just like now....

Talking with Russia probably is much better than other options. We've always talked with them. Well and good to rattle sabers, but in the end we always talk and work out some agreement. Trust me, it's probably a better thing.

Protecting US interests: what US interests are we protecting exactly? I probably need to be educated on that. After all, after our invasion of Iraq, oil prices started to go way up, not down. There seemed to be a correlation there between our political willingness to believe anything, and our ability to pay at the pump. Were we really that gullible?

As far as the UN's credibility: I think that after the presentation on WMD in Iraq, I really think that's exactly what they say about us.

I always admired George C. Marshall. He also won the Nobel Prize. You should read his acceptance speech. He was a great General, and a great diplomat.


Change.........has not done a thing..........Nobel Peace Prize! Any questions?:D

[Steadygain]

The wedding I attended over the weekend really did me some good in regards to 'Politicians'.

You see the both the Bride and Groom are up and comming big names in the 'Music World'. The Bride has songs playing on the radio and the Groom's music will also pop up here and there.

Even better was the Lady who got up and sang a song as they were about to be 'wed' as she is firmly established and has been in the limelight for years --- as has another band that played throughout the reception.

THE IMPORTANT THING TO ME - is knowing beyond the 'appearance' are very solid and wonderful people. Yes they 'look different' and from the outsiders perspective many of them would have 'looked strange'. But that's their world -- the world of Music -- and for them it's everything. Yet for anyone like me -- who knows them deeply and their families --- they are as Solid and Real and Wonderful as anyone you could ever find anywhere.

SO - Maybe I need to soften my view of Politicians -- and recognize that deep down BEYOND the Appearance --- they are genuinely 'good people at heart'.

So Mr. President (said with the utmost level of respect and honor) I not only congratulate you for winning the Nobel Peace Prize -- but all the more I admire the humbleness by which you accepted it.

[OBGibby]

Still waiting on those results, Phil. I'll settle for one. Just one measley result. Wait, wait, don't tell me! I'm predicting a result now. But we'll have to wait a little longer for this result to come to fruition. We'll have to wait until the tuesday after the first monday of November 2010. The result will be a humiliating loss for the President's agenda at the polls. Now, that's change I can believe in!

[phil]

Here it is. We finally have a President who can't be led around by the nose on world issues. I'm waiting on the healthcare issue, like everyone. Unfortunately he's faced with opposition from inside and outside. But I think things are going much much better now. Cutting out a lot of completely unnecessary spending is only the start, of course. He's got 3 1/2 years to complete it.

Of course, I'm sure he's coming up with a smarter answer than invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Whew! Cutting out a lot of nuclear weapons is also a good thing.

Did you not read the post? Not willing (or able) to respond?



And what sort of results did we have from the previous administration, pray tell? From any of these issues?

Let's review: North Korea had nukes during the Bush admininistration, and has them now. The Iran issue is hardly new.

You need to do a fact check on the Honduras situation. It's a little complicated, particularly on the rule of law category.

I think most Americans took a good look around, and realized that we had engaged in far too many foreign adventures (sort of like the former Soviet Union), and had succeeded only in losing trillions of dollars, with little security to show, and an enormous foreign debt. In the end, the Soviets came apart from putting too much money in one basket, it seems.

As for Castro and Hugo: I believe that making faces at them just didn't seem to work well, did it? I mean, we've been doing that for over 50 years now to Cuba. We even tried to INVADE once, which failed horribly.

Taking the time to analyze Afghanistan is really necessary. Look how we all REALLY got snookered into the Iraq war. I'd take some time too. Tell you what, just read the 9/11 report, it's all there. Any idea how much money it cost? Did it hurt, or help, Al-Qaeda?

On Iran: we have intervened inside their country before, in 1953. I think talking about it is probably a good thing. Just like now....

Talking with Russia probably is much better than other options. We've always talked with them. Well and good to rattle sabers, but in the end we always talk and work out some agreement. Trust me, it's probably a better thing.

Protecting US interests: what US interests are we protecting exactly? I probably need to be educated on that. After all, after our invasion of Iraq, oil prices started to go way up, not down. There seemed to be a correlation there between our political willingness to believe anything, and our ability to pay at the pump. Were we really that gullible?

As far as the UN's credibility: I think that after the presentation on WMD in Iraq, I really think that's exactly what they say about us.

I always admired George C. Marshall. He also won the Nobel Prize. You should read his acceptance speech. He was a great General, and a great diplomat.

[coolhand]

We finally have a President who can't be led around by the nose on world issues.

Geopolitics demands concessions of any President. Agendas are rampant and the President's hand can be pressured or forced in the face of geopolitical reality. There are many things the public will never fully know or understand when it comes to foreign policy. At least not real time.

[phil]

And a strong president won't let his hand be forced. He's in charge. Many things the public won't know/understand? If that's the case, then maybe it's time for another Church committee.

Hiding warts doesn't work too well. Examining the intelligence that led up to the war in Iraq will show us where the mistakes are and let us know who made them.



Geopolitics demands concessions of any President. Agendas are rampant and the President's hand can be pressured or forced in the face of geopolitical reality. There are many things the public will never fully know or understand when it comes to foreign policy. At least not real time.

[Show-me]

And a strong president won't let his hand be forced. He's in charge. Many things the public won't know/understand? If that's the case, then maybe it's time for another Church committee.

Hiding warts doesn't work too well. Examining the intelligence that led up to the war in Iraq will show us where the mistakes are and let us know who made them.

Did not George Tenent provide adequate intelligence? :D

[Steadygain]

And a strong president won't let his hand be forced. He's in charge.

Well shoot !!

I hate to end the day on this kind of note :o:(

A strong president is largely a political display of power -- generated to appease the overall population.

In all probability - and the overwhelming liklihood - is that the president is a pupet to the industries and companies in Power and more over and especially to the Small Group that Controls the Powerful Nations in charge. This group is 'unknown to us'

The USA has likely completely changed from what the Founding Fathers had hoped for --- into something the Powerful Industries Control and all the more China now essentially owns. We have largely been reduced to a Nation that feds on the 'greed' of others...

But the Sun comes up tomorrow and we can count on the Bigger and More Sustainable Things beyond our control to continue providing the more essentials for our existence.

[phil]

I guess you'll need to read his book, Center of the Storm, to find out. I have a copy. I assume you do mean Mr. Tenet? Mr. Tenet gave his resignation in June 2004 for "personal reasons".

Also, for further reading, try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

I think that will tell you from where information to decision makers was being stovepiped. Do read the Inspector General's report in there.

Did you follow any of this on the news? I thought everyone knew.

Anyway, glad to educate.:D

This is all about President Obama's award, not about what went so horribly wrong. If you want to do that, just look back at Gulf of Tonkin, where we became involved in another war based on faulty information.


Did not George Tenent provide adequate intelligence? :D

[Frixxxx]

Hey, If I quote a story based off of chalk scriblings from a semi-retired poli-sci professor while drinking coffee at Starbucks, can I post that too?!?!:mad:

[phil]

Sure. Knock yourself out. Maybe you could just check the story from any number of sources, including Tenet's book, or look up the names in the article. Some of those people also wrote books.

The best one was probably written by Scott McClellan, the former spokesman for the administration. He only had the public side of the issue, but hey, that's up to you. Try Richard Clarke's book, or listen to his testimony. He served for 30 years.

You could also look at the foreign press, but that might be a bit much. After Abu Ghraib many of them became highly sceptical.

What makes you angry?:confused:

I'm just glad the President won a Nobel Prize. Back on topic.


Hey, If I quote a story based off of chalk scriblings from a semi-retired poli-sci professor while drinking coffee at Starbucks, can I post that too?!?!:mad:

[coolhand]

Nobel Geopolitics
October 12, 2009 | 1908 GMT

By George Friedman

U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize last week. Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, established the prize, which was to be awarded to the person who has accomplished “the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the promotion of peace congresses.” The mechanism for awarding the peace prize is very different from the other Nobel categories. Academic bodies, such as the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, decide who wins the other prizes. Alfred Nobel’s will stated, however, that a committee of five selected by the Norwegian legislature, or Storting, should award the peace prize.

The committee that awarded the peace prize to Obama consists of chairman Thorbjorn Jagland, president of the Storting and former Labor Party prime minister and foreign minister of Norway; Kaci Kullmann Five, a former member of the Storting and president of the Conservative Party; Sissel Marie Ronbeck, a former Social Democratic member of the Storting; Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, a former member of the Storting and current senior adviser to the Progress Party; and Agot Valle, a current member of the Storting and spokeswoman on foreign affairs for the Socialist Left Party.

The peace prize committee is therefore a committee of politicians, some present members of parliament, some former members of parliament. Three come from the left (Jagland, Ronbeck and Valle). Two come from the right (Kullman and Ytterhorn). It is reasonable to say that the peace prize committee faithfully reproduces the full spectrum of Norwegian politics.

A Frequently Startling Prize

Prize recipients frequently have proved startling. For example, the first U.S. president to receive the prize was Theodore Roosevelt, who received it in 1906 for helping negotiate peace between Japan and Russia. Roosevelt genuinely sought peace, but ultimately because of American fears that an unbridled Japan would threaten U.S. interests in the Pacific. He sought peace to ensure that Japan would not eliminate Russian power in the Pacific and not hold Port Arthur or any of the other prizes of the Russo-Japanese War. To achieve this peace, he implied that the United States might intervene against Japan.

In brokering negotiations to try to block Japan from exploiting its victory over the Russians, Roosevelt was engaged in pure power politics. The Japanese were in fact quite bitter at the American intervention. (For their part, the Russians were preoccupied with domestic unrest.) But a treaty emerged from the talks, and peace prevailed. Though preserving a balance of power in the Pacific motivated Roosevelt, the Nobel committee didn’t seem to care. And given that Alfred Nobel didn’t provide much guidance about his intentions for the prize, choosing Roosevelt was as reasonable as the choices for most Nobel Peace Prizes.

In recent years, the awards have gone to political dissidents the committee approved of, such as the Dalai Lama and Lech Walesa, or people supporting causes it agreed with, such as Al Gore. Others were peacemakers in the Theodore Roosevelt mode, such as Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger for working toward peace in Vietnam and Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin for moving toward peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Two things must be remembered about the Nobel Peace Prize. The first is that Nobel was never clear about his intentions for it. The second is his decision to have it awarded by politicians from — and we hope the Norwegians will accept our advance apologies — a marginal country relative to the international system. This is not meant as a criticism of Norway, a country we have enjoyed in the past, but the Norwegians sometimes have an idiosyncratic way of viewing the world.

Therefore, the award to Obama was neither more or less odd than some of the previous awards made by five Norwegian politicians no one outside of Norway had ever heard of. But his win does give us an opportunity to consider an important question, namely, why Europeans generally think so highly of Obama.

Obama and the Europeans

Let’s begin by being careful with the term European. Eastern Europeans and Russians — all Europeans — do not think very highly of him. The British are reserved on the subject. But on the whole, other Europeans west of the former Soviet satellites and south and east of the English Channel think extremely well of him, and the Norwegians are reflecting this admiration. It is important to understand why they do.

The Europeans experienced catastrophes during the 20th century. Two world wars slaughtered generations of Europeans and shattered Europe’s economy. Just after the war, much of Europe maintained standards of living not far above that of the Third World. In a sense, Europe lost everything — millions of lives, empires, even sovereignty as the United States and the Soviet Union occupied and competed in Europe. The catastrophe of the 20th century defines Europe, and what the Europeans want to get away from.

The Cold War gave Europe the opportunity to recover economically, but only in the context of occupation and the threat of war between the Soviets and Americans. A half century of Soviet occupation seared Eastern European souls. During that time, the rest of Europe lived in a paradox of growing prosperity and the apparent imminence of another war. The Europeans were not in control of whether the war would come, or where or how it would be fought. There are therefore two Europes. One, the Europe that was first occupied by Nazi Germany and then by the Soviet Union still lives in the shadow of the dual catastrophes. The other, larger Europe, lives in the shadow of the United States.

Between 1945 and 1991, Western Europe lived in a confrontation with the Soviets. The Europeans lived in dread of Soviet occupation, and though tempted, never capitulated to the Soviets. That meant that the Europeans were forced to depend on the United States for their defense and economic stability, and were therefore subject to America’s will. How the Americans and Russians viewed each other would determine whether war would break out, not what the Europeans thought.

Every aggressive action by the United States, however trivial, was magnified a hundredfold in European minds, as they considered fearfully how the Soviets would respond. In fact, the Americans were much more restrained during the Cold War than Europeans at the time thought. Looking back, the U.S. position in Europe itself was quite passive. But the European terror was that some action in the rest of the world — Cuba, the Middle East, Vietnam — would cause the Soviets to respond in Europe, costing them everything they had built up.

In the European mind, the Americans prior to 1945 were liberators. After 1945 they were protectors, but protectors who could not be trusted to avoid triggering another war through recklessness or carelessness. The theme dominating European thinking about the United States was that the Americans were too immature, too mercurial and too powerful to really be trusted. From an American point of view, these were the same Europeans who engaged in unparalleled savagery between 1914 and 1945 all on their own, and the period after 1945 — when the Americans dominated Europe — was far more peaceful and prosperous than the previous period. But the European conviction that the Europeans were the sophisticated statesmen and prudent calculators while the Americans were unsophisticated and imprudent did not require an empirical basis. It was built on another reality, which was that Europe had lost everything, including real control over its fate, and that trusting its protector to be cautious was difficult.

The Europeans loathed many presidents, e.g., Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan. Jimmy Carter was not respected. Two were liked: John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Kennedy relieved them of the burden of Dwight D. Eisenhower and his dour Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who was deeply distrusted. Clinton was liked for interesting reasons, and understanding this requires examining the post-Cold War era.

reprinted with permission:
www.Stratfor.com

[coolhand]

The United States and Europe After the Cold War

The year 1991 marked the end of the Cold War. For the first time since 1914, Europeans were prosperous, secure and recovering their sovereignty. The United States wanted little from the Europeans, something that delighted the Europeans. It was a rare historical moment in which the alliance existed in some institutional sense, but not in any major active form. The Balkans had to be dealt with, but those were the Balkans — not an area of major concern.

Europe could finally relax. Another world war would not erase its prosperity, and they were free from active American domination. They could shape their institutions, and they would. It was the perfect time for them, one they thought would last forever.

For the United States, 9/11 changed all that. The Europeans had deep sympathy for the United States post-Sept. 11, sympathy that was on the whole genuine. But the Europeans also believed that former U.S. President George W. Bush had overreacted to the attacks, threatening to unleash a reign of terror on them, engaging in unnecessary wars and above all not consulting them. The last claim was not altogether true: Bush frequently consulted the Europeans, but they frequently said no to his administration’s requests. The Europeans were appalled that Bush continued his policies in spite of their objections; they felt they were being dragged back into a Cold War-type situation for trivial reasons.

The Cold War revolved around Soviet domination of Europe. In the end, whatever the risks, the Cold War was worth the risk and the pain of U.S. domination. But to Europeans, the jihadist threat simply didn’t require the effort the United States was prepared to put into it. The United States seemed unsophisticated and reckless, like cowboys.

The older European view of the United States re-emerged, as did the old fear. Throughout the Cold War, the European fear was that a U.S. miscalculation would drag the Europeans into another catastrophic war. Bush’s approach to the jihadist war terrified them and deepened their resentment. Their hard-earned prosperity was in jeopardy again because of the Americans, this time for what the Europeans saw as an insufficient reason. The Americans were once again seen as overreacting, Europe’s greatest Cold War-era dread.

For Europe, prosperity had become an end in itself. It is ironic that the Europeans regard the Americans as obsessed with money when it is the Europeans who put economic considerations over all other things. But the Europeans mean something different when they talk about money. For the Europeans, money isn’t about piling it higher and higher. Instead, money is about security. Their economic goal is not to become wealthy but to be comfortable. Today’s Europeans value economic comfort above all other considerations. After Sept. 11, the United States seemed willing to take chances with the Europeans’ comfortable economic condition that the Europeans themselves didn’t want to take. They loathed George W. Bush for doing so.

Conversely, they love Obama because he took office promising to consult with them. They understood this promise in two ways. One was that in consulting the Europeans, Obama would give them veto power. Second, they understood him as being a president like Kennedy, namely, as one unwilling to take imprudent risks. How they remember Kennedy that way given the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the coup against Diem in Vietnam is hard to fathom, but of course, many Americans remember him the same way. The Europeans compare Obama to an imaginary Kennedy, but what they really think is that he is another Clinton.

Clinton was Clinton because of the times he lived in and not because of his nature: The collapse of the Soviet Union created a peaceful interregnum in which Clinton didn’t need to make demands on Europe’s comfortable prosperity. George W. Bush lived in a different world, and that caused him to resume taking risks and making demands.

Obama does not live in the 1990s. He is facing Afghanistan, Iran and a range of other crises up to and including a rising Russia that looks uncannily similar to the old Soviet Union. It is difficult to imagine how he can face these risks without taking actions that will be counter to the European wish to be allowed to remain comfortable, and worse, without ignoring the European desire to avoid what they will see as unreasonable U.S. demands. In fact, U.S.-German relations already are not particularly good on Obama’s watch. Obama has asked for troops in Afghanistan and been turned down, and has continued to call for NATO expansion, which the Germans don’t want.

The Norwegian politicians gave their prize to Obama because they believed that he would leave Europeans in their comfortable prosperity without making unreasonable demands. That is their definition of peace, and Obama seemed to promise that. The Norwegians on the prize committee seem unaware of the course U.S.-German relations have taken, or of Afghanistan and Iran. Alternatively, perhaps they believe Obama can navigate those waters without resorting to war. In that case, it is difficult to imagine what they make of the recent talks with Iran or planning on Afghanistan.

The Norwegians awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the president of their dreams, not the president who is dealing with Iran and Afghanistan. Obama is not a free actor. He is trapped by the reality he has found himself in, and that reality will push him far away from the Norwegian fantasy. In the end, the United States is the United States — and that is Europe’s nightmare, because the United States is not obsessed with maintaining Europe’s comfortable prosperity. The United States cannot afford to be, and in the end, neither can President Obama, Nobel Peace Prize or not.

reprinted with permission:
www.Stratfor.com

[coolhand]

The below reply is in two parts (start with the lower one)

[Birchtree]

It's a shame Phil doesn't do investing - he could probably be a good asset.

[mick504]

Why did Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize....I really don't know...that he was the best choice. I guess pleasing...placating to the crowd...bowing to Muslims....saying I'm sorry to other nations of the world for our past sins....I guess is why!

[Birchtree]

He won because he was filling an affirmative action quota - that's easy.

[Frixxxx]

What makes you angry?:confused:
- After thousands of years of history and the "condemnable actions" of the worst types of leaders, it seems you put alot of emphasis on the "last" administration.
-What makes me angry? That Thomas Jefferson, who wrote a book, clearly stated that the "general welfare" would be bastardize to the level it is to allow certain ways of thinking be used against this country.
-What makes me angry? That anyone with an internet connection can be a freaking brainiac on issues that shows up on wikipedia. All of which is so much fluff and propoganda it is taken as truth by those who are willing to believe it.
-What makes me angry? That a self proclaimed retired marine thinks that the worlds problems are the United States government. Let alone that you disagree with the Republican side more than the Democrat side in an argument when each onion can be peeled down to the most common denominator and be found equally as guilty.
-What makes me angry? That you have not presented a case where the United States has not followed any treaty. The United Nations has not stepped in to stop us. The entity you claim is the overseer of world politics has not once stepped in.
-What makes me angry? Thinking that every time we go into the Middle East, it must be the oil. How many countries over there are our allies? Oh but no, we're not there for them....we're there for us... If the Marines thought that way, Oh, were here for everyone except the officers, or were here just for the US and not for the protection of our allies, then we wouldn't be the powerhouse we are today.
-What makes me angry? That the people we swear to defend by word, treaty and duty do not take up the banner of freedom in the same manner as we do as American's and fight until the death. I have that banner in my hand, and just because your id card is blue, should only emphasize the need to "impress upon" our allies ~ unity instead of diversity. You wedge that diversity as deep as you can with your rhetoric and inuendo.

Ad hominem? I make my attack against your argument. Not against you. Because I do not know who you are except a self-proclaimed retired marine officer. By the way, does not tell me much.

What's next Ad hominem tu quoque? How many other terms do you think you can google before we are really impressed?

Read Thomas Jefferson in entirety. Then read about Thomas Jefferson.
Cite the people who founded this country before you cite those who "think" they know what is a good nation!

[Buster]

President Obama watched two hours of College Football this past weekend...He's now in the running for the Heisman Trophy..:rolleyes:





I'm joking , I'm joking..sit back down...:D

[Frixxxx]

It's a shame Phil doesn't do investing - he could probably be a good asset.
Understatement ~ tenacious!:cool:

[Steadygain]

Well kids I'm heading home :)


The President is my hero and I'm proud of him. (please picture a Southern beauty saying this with an exaggerated Southern Accent)


Nighty night ya'll -- said the same way

[phil]

Then why the attack? I never write emotionally. It's good advice for you. Listen to NPR, or watch C-SPAN. I'm really not trying to impress anyone, but let me again congratulate our President on his award. If you want to read Thomas Jefferson, that's fine, but I don't think he was anywhere near this in any way.

I don't really think I support Dems more than Republicans. I've been on both sides, and I don't blame the government, just certain policies in the government. By the way, I've never attacked you on a personal level, so why not keep things civil?

The UN: they have stepped into many different conflicts.

Sources: quote your own if you like. Wouldn't bother me. As I said, if you don't like them, just read the books many other people have written.


- After thousands of years of history and the "condemnable actions" of the worst types of leaders, it seems you put alot of emphasis on the "last" administration.
-What makes me angry? That Thomas Jefferson, who wrote a book, clearly stated that the "general welfare" would be bastardize to the level it is to allow certain ways of thinking be used against this country.
-What makes me angry? That anyone with an internet connection can be a freaking brainiac on issues that shows up on wikipedia. All of which is so much fluff and propoganda it is taken as truth by those who are willing to believe it.
-What makes me angry? That a self proclaimed retired marine thinks that the worlds problems are the United States government. Let alone that you disagree with the Republican side more than the Democrat side in an argument when each onion can be peeled down to the most common denominator and be found equally as guilty.
-What makes me angry? That you have not presented a case where the United States has not followed any treaty. The United Nations has not stepped in to stop us. The entity you claim is the overseer of world politics has not once stepped in.
-What makes me angry? Thinking that every time we go into the Middle East, it must be the oil. How many countries over there are our allies? Oh but no, we're not there for them....we're there for us... If the Marines thought that way, Oh, were here for everyone except the officers, or were here just for the US and not for the protection of our allies, then we wouldn't be the powerhouse we are today.
-What makes me angry? That the people we swear to defend by word, treaty and duty do not take up the banner of freedom in the same manner as we do as American's and fight until the death. I have that banner in my hand, and just because your id card is blue, should only emphasize the need to "impress upon" our allies ~ unity instead of diversity. You wedge that diversity as deep as you can with your rhetoric and inuendo.

Ad hominem? I make my attack against your argument. Not against you. Because I do not know who you are except a self-proclaimed retired marine officer. By the way, does not tell me much.

What's next Ad hominem tu quoque? How many other terms do you think you can google before we are really impressed?

Read Thomas Jefferson in entirety. Then read about Thomas Jefferson.
Cite the people who founded this country before you cite those who "think" they know what is a good nation!

[Frixxxx]

Then why the attack? I never write emotionally. It's good advice for you.
If you write about the market, fine. I can see every aspect of it. It shows trends and you can analyze it for the benefit of our well being financially.:D

If you write about core beliefs, then most people get emotional.:suspicious:

That's why there is emotion in my writing. My core beliefs that I defend a country who is out to blanket the world in the comfort of freedom. If you keep attacking that core belief, then I am a pit bull. But if you provide me with concrete fact like the following:

President Obama worked with lawmakers to put into legislation a hard and fast Health Care Program that implemented much needed TORT reform as well as encompassed the needs of the uninsured and also kept the capitalistic ventures of the Health Industry. (Man I wish I WISH it was that easy)

Instead I get this:

President Obama had beers at the White House today while lawmakers couldn't agree on how to get TORT reform into the new health care bill.

I think you can understand why praising this "image" as opposed to demanding he do his job, Executive Branch can infuriate some people.

I would like to see hard concrete items from this President. Lift Don't, Ask Don't Tell. Don't allow any increased taxes to those making under $250,000.

Just don't say you are going to do something. DO IT!

Yes you did attack me, you criminally attacked a president of the United States of America. You attack any of them, you attack me.

[WorkFE]

President Obama watched two hours of College Football this past weekend...He's now in the running for the Heisman Trophy..:rolleyes:





I'm joking , I'm joking..sit back down...:D


Voting started, it seems to early in the season. Man time is flying by.:D

[phil]

We elected President Obama to be the President, not the dictator of the US, or dictator of the world. Last I checked, all appropriations have to go through the Congress of the United States. In fact, all federal disbursements goes via Congress. No President can do otherwise. I remember well the government shutdown.

Basically, what you're saying is that you want our President to be some sort of dictator. He's not. Nor do I believe that he should dictate to people around the world, or to Congress. I think that's where we differ.

What has happened is that we have tried to bring this freedom, as you say, at the barrel of a gun. It seems to me that that's exactly what the soviets were trying to do. Look what happened to them. It's a short trip. They were also busy blanketing the world for democracy. When they went into Afghanistan, they thought they were liberating the country, but they ended up losing everything in the end. Now, we have 2 wars going on, trying to bring democracy by force.

How's that worked? About a trillion dollars worth in Iraq....so far. I didn't see oil getting any cheaper. By the way, all that time, did you know that American ships carried Iranian oil? An interesting fact.

Don't get emotional, not even about core beliefs. Be a realist instead. In the end, the Soviets learned much more than we did. I'm sure many of them were also very emotional about what they believed in as well. They also had some very firm core beliefs.




If you write about the market, fine. I can see every aspect of it. It shows trends and you can analyze it for the benefit of our well being financially.:D

If you write about core beliefs, then most people get emotional.:suspicious:

That's why there is emotion in my writing. My core beliefs that I defend a country who is out to blanket the world in the comfort of freedom. If you keep attacking that core belief, then I am a pit bull. But if you provide me with concrete fact like the following:

President Obama worked with lawmakers to put into legislation a hard and fast Health Care Program that implemented much needed TORT reform as well as encompassed the needs of the uninsured and also kept the capitalistic ventures of the Health Industry. (Man I wish I WISH it was that easy)

Instead I get this:

President Obama had beers at the White House today while lawmakers couldn't agree on how to get TORT reform into the new health care bill.

I think you can understand why praising this "image" as opposed to demanding he do his job, Executive Branch can infuriate some people.

I would like to see hard concrete items from this President. Lift Don't, Ask Don't Tell. Don't allow any increased taxes to those making under $250,000.

Just don't say you are going to do something. DO IT!

Yes you did attack me, you criminally attacked a president of the United States of America. You attack any of them, you attack me.

[phil]

I "criminally" attacked a President? When, where and how?

[James48843]

...
I think you can understand why praising this "image" as opposed to demanding he do his job, Executive Branch can infuriate some people.

I would like to see hard concrete items from this President. Lift Don't, Ask Don't Tell. Don't allow any increased taxes to those making under $250,000.

Just don't say you are going to do something. DO IT!

Yes you did attack me, you criminally attacked a president of the United States of America. You attack any of them, you attack me.

Note- Frixxxx- look carefully before thinking the President can change everything overnight.

The President CAN'T "JUST DO IT" on Don't ask, don't tell.

That's not an executive branch policy. It's a law. Only Congress can do anything about it, and Congress will not do it until it is clear that the Military leadership is ok with it.

Here is the law- Public Law 103-160:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



H.R.2401



National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)



Public Law No: 103-160.

p>
`Sec. 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
`(a) FINDINGS- Congress makes the following findings:
`(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
`(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
`(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
`(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
`(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
`(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
`(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
`(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that--
`(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
`(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
`(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
`(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military


(etc, etc. etc.)


`(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
`(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
`(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
`(b) POLICY- A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
`(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that--
`(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;
`(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
`(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
`(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
`(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
`(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.


--------------------------


It's not up to the President to wave a magic wand. This is at Congress's feet to initiate change. It's up to them.

[James48843]

The problem is you are expecting one man, the President, to make major changes that require the U.S. Congress to pass laws. Laws take time. Priorities are set, and they are worked through. The Economy is the priority- hence the bailout bills. Health Care is a priority- hence the last five months of dealing with Health care. Plus getting people in place, nominations and confirmation hearings, etc, etc.etc all take time.

One thing at a time.

Change is in process.

Change takes time.

You want our President to undo what took the last 8 years to mess up. It's on the way. President Obama has been in office eight months. Give him time, and support- to make change.

[Show-me]

The problem is you are expecting one man, the President, to make major changes that require the U.S. Congress to pass laws. Laws take time. Priorities are set, and they are worked through. The Economy is the priority- hence the bailout bills. Health Care is a priority- hence the last five months of dealing with Health care. Plus getting people in place, nominations and confirmation hearings, etc, etc.etc all take time.

One thing at a time.

Change is in process.

Change takes time.

You want our President to undo what took the last 8 years to mess up. It's on the way. President Obama has been in office eight months. Give him time, and support- to make change.

And the Nobel was thrown at his feet just for showing up. :D

[Intrepid_Timer]

BREAKING NEWS: This just in!!!
Obama wins the Heisman Trophy
after watching a college football
game!!!

[Frixxxx]

I "criminally" attacked a President? When, where and how?
When you said he went into Iraq under the "guise" of taking out Weapons of Mass Destruction. They were there, ask Syria where they are hiding them.


Note- Frixxxx- look carefully before thinking the President can change everything overnight.

The President CAN'T "JUST DO IT" on Don't ask, don't tell.

That's not an executive branch policy. It's a law. Only Congress can do anything about it, and Congress will not do it until it is clear that the Military leadership is ok with it.
.....
It's not up to the President to wave a magic wand. This is at Congress's feet to initiate change. It's up to them.
James, I'm asking him to pick up the wand. I respect the office automatically. If I don't, the system I protect is flawed. But the person IN the office needs to repsect that the people he promised to "change" things is not doing it. Have beers, date night, karaoke parties on the lawn is not getting things done.

Sorry to lump my response together, but I feel this thread is done with me. I stated my peace and must retrun to the markets already in progress.:cool:

[Birchtree]

Frixxxx,

You should know by now that it's impossible to talk to a liberal.

[Steadygain]

I never write emotionally.

Phil, by allowing myself to find a way to 'respect you' I can not only tollerate you - - but actually enjoy you.

I learned this by example when Birch enjoyed Mr. Recognizer and I (and most others) couldn't stand him.

You write emotionally everytime you express yourself and you most certainly do your best to get at other's emotions.

That's the part of you I find kind of entertaining.... :toung:

It's good advice for you.

This is probably you're most prominent tactic --- You are always taking the stand to advise and direct everyone else. You have an incredibly 'condenscending manner' ;)

I'm really not trying to impress anyone.
You are doing your very BEST -- to impress everyone -- trying to sound like the 'expert on everything' like you know the real scoop. :rolleyes:

By the way, I've never attacked you on a personal level, so why not keep things civil?
You attack the general MB almost everytime you make a post because you say many things in a way that strikes against the grain. For instance your comment about the Bay of Pigs...



We elected President Obama to be the President, not the dictator of the US, or dictator of the world.
Hummm -- no emotions -- no attack intended

Basically, what you're saying is that you want our President to be some sort of dictator.

Why Frixxxx -- I'm amazed !! How could he know your deeper beliefs and intentions better than the rest of us (better than you even know yourself)

He's not.
Is this a lesson your trying to teach the general MB??

Nor do I believe that he should dictate to people around the world. I think that's where we differ.
You honestly do not see this as an attack??

Now, we have 2 wars going on, trying to bring democracy by force.
Maybe that is strictly your view my friend. I personally do not see that at all -- never once did I think Iraq/Iran/Afgan... were about Democracy... perhaps there is something you're missing altogehter.

How's that worked? About a trillion dollars worth in Iraq....so far.
You see my friend -- this is loaded with emotion and expressed in a way that is majorly insulting to anyone that has remotely kept up with the cost....

Iraq alone easily exceeds 7 Trillion... but then you're the expert.

I didn't see oil getting any cheaper.
Nor did you see the OIL - stop altogether --- so keep that in mind.

By the way, all that time, did you know that American ships carried Iranian oil? An interesting fact.
OIL is OIL -- and by far most comes from the Mid East... so why should that stand out.

Don't get emotional, not even about core beliefs.
Well thank you for your Advise -- Grand and Masterful FATHER to the MB --- but we are 'human beings' and core beliefs are the foundation of who and what we are (as are our emotions)

Be a realist instead.
And what is a 'Realist' if what you believe is based on myths and lies and distorted information ??

In the end, the Soviets learned much more than we did.

Then we should start another Tread -- worshipping the Soviets and showing everyone how vastly superior they are.

Humm -- again 'No Emotions' ... and 'No Attack'

Keep it comming my friend .... I find you entertaining.

[Buster]

You attack the general MB almost everytime you make a post because you say many things in a way that strikes against the grain. For instance your comment about the Bay of Pigs...



Then we should start another Tread -- worshipping the Soviets and showing everyone how vastly superior they are.

Humm -- again 'No Emotions' ... and 'No Attack'

Keep it comming my friend .... I find you entertaining.
Glad you fixed your spelling of "intertaining" to entertaining...I was gonna say something about 2nd grader spelling..but let it slide..:toung::D

[Steadygain]

Glad you fixed your spelling of "intertaining" to entertaining...I was gonna say something about 2nd grader spelling..but let it slide..:toung::D


That's a GREAT PIC -- you have of me. ;)

My press agent assured me the public would never be able to find it

...and here it's your Ativar :p

[Viva_La_Migra]

BREAKING NEWS: This just in!!!
Obama wins the Heisman Trophy
after watching a college football
game!!!
He should also get an Emmy for all of the shows he's appeared on; an Oscar for any movie he's gone to; a Tony since he went to a Broadway show with Michelle; a Grammy since he gave the Queen of England an IPOD; a Marconi since he does a weekly radio address, and a Razzie to keep it fair and balanced! :D

[phil]

President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I still think that's a good thing. I also see that the Nobel Committee members have defended themselves against all sorts of outside attacks. That's okay too. When one of our Presidents win an award, I'm always supportive.

Well, let's see: I express myself in some way that goes "against the grain". I'm not really sure why expressing an opinion that many others don't agree with would cause such consternation, and result in personal attacks.

I'm glad to provide some entertainment, but everything I've said has been true. The problem may be that this truth doesn't fit in with the general views that many people may have. I'm really okay with their views. I never make personal attacks. That would be weak.

I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about, but you're welcome to continue. All opinions are welcome. However, I never make it personal, just factual. I guess that's like waving a red flag here. It reminds me of the Soviet state. If you'd like to start a thread on the former Soviets, go ahead. It doesn't bother me.

Tell you what, just ignore the facts. Instead of arguing, just change the subject.....to me. That way, you won't be required to do anything too difficult. That seems to be popular here. I've been a target before. It's not too hard for me.

As far as other people who expressed their opinions that go against the grain, I can probably tell you why many of them left. It just becomes tiresome. Particularly the passive aggressive behavior.

I'll leave you with General Marshall's sentiments:On 10 December in the university Aula, just as Marshall was accepting the prize from Dr. Hambro, vice-chairman of the committee, some communist journalists interrupted the ceremony, dropping leaflets from the balcony and shouting, "We protest!" King Haakon VII indignantly rose to his feet and led the audience in applause for Marshall. The general turned to Hambro and commented drily that in his own country he was more accustomed to such treatment from the anticommunists.





You attack the general MB almost everytime you make a post because you say many things in a way that strikes against the grain. For instance your comment about the Bay of Pigs...



Then we should start another Tread -- worshipping the Soviets and showing everyone how vastly superior they are.

Humm -- again 'No Emotions' ... and 'No Attack'

Keep it comming my friend .... I find you entertaining.

[Steadygain]

I'm not really sure why expressing an opinion that many others don't agree with would cause such consternation,

Who knows my friend ..... lots of strange people in this world

and result in personal attacks.

Well given the fact I (and others) can't get ya in a headlock and give ya a dutch rub ... we're simply reduced to talking crap..

I'm glad to provide some entertainment,

Thanks man --- then please try to come by more often! :)

but everything I've said has been true.
I know it's crazy man .... how come everyone can't see that

The problem may be that this truth doesn't fit in with the general views that many people may have.
The problem is the 'general views' that many have are FOS.

I'm really okay with their views.
How can you be.. when they're so 'out of wack' ?
I mean seriously don't ya just want to say -- wake up idiot and look at the facts ... stop hiding behind delusions....

I never make personal attacks.
And that's the way it should be --- you, me and Birch should stick together.

That would be weak.
And there's enough weakness without 'us' getting involved.

I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about, but you're welcome to continue.
Thanks man --- you're cool :cool: and I'm enjoying ya.

All opinions are welcome.

Well I think we should pick a few at random and say -- hey man your opinions are NOT welcome... I mean somewhere we should draw the line and say 'THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE'

However, I never make it personal, just factual.

Well when facts come from the Internet Dictionary ... that is wholly open to anyone saying whatever.... or possible questionable sources.... don't know we can really call that FACT .... but it's cool

I guess that's like waving a red flag here.

Man you're not kidding .... was a hard lesson for me to learn too.. it's like 'Ahh say what ya want but just make sure it's what we want to hear .... even if there is no shread of truth...'

It reminds me of the Soviet state.

So how long did you live there. Are the girls sexey?

If you'd like to start a thread on the former Soviets, go ahead. It doesn't bother me.

No -- I don't sqat about that stuff..

Tell you what, just ignore the facts.

You - the man of truth --- are telling me to ignore the facts ???

Instead of arguing, just change the subject.....to me.

Ahh .. I'm not arguing..... I'm just throwing out some alternate views.... trying to have some fun and take things lightly...

That way, you won't be required to do anything too difficult.

Actually being 'spontaneous' is a lot harder than you realize

That seems to be popular here.

Don't worry --- eventually they'll come to realize YOU don't fit in the same mold others mindlessly fall into

I've been a target before. It's not too hard for me.

It's because you stand out ... like a Giant among a bunch of ants..

like a genius among the mentally challenged... like a Lion among the lambs...

As far as other people who expressed their opinions that go against the grain, I can probably tell you why many of them left.

It's because they couldn't handle it ... but we're different

It just becomes tiresome. Particularly the passive aggressive behavior.

But what do we do ??? How do we change them ??
It's like they live in the DARK and refuse to acknowledge the light.

I'll leave you with General Marshall's sentiments:On 10 December in the university Aula, just as Marshall was accepting the prize from Dr. Hambro, vice-chairman of the committee, some communist journalists interrupted the ceremony, dropping leaflets from the balcony and shouting, "We protest!" King Haakon VII indignantly rose to his feet and led the audience in applause for Marshall. The general turned to Hambro and commented drily that in his own country he was more accustomed to such treatment from the anticommunists.

Sniff ... sniff.... oh Phil ... you should have told me I'd need some kleenex

MAN - I'm glad you're back.... it's kind of boring without you

It's like TSP and money stuff and whatever.. but you are a ray of sunshine .. :nuts:

[phil]

Thanks Steadygain. It's not personal, not even business.


Sniff ... sniff.... oh Phil ... you should have told me I'd need some kleenex

MAN - I'm glad you're back.... it's kind of boring without you

It's like TSP and money stuff and whatever.. but you are a ray of sunshine .. :nuts:

[Steadygain]

Thanks Steadygain.

No Problem my friend

I do enjoy you --- seriously --- I really do

It's not personal, not even business.

Exactly !! Don't let anything get 'too deep' -- 'too serious' -- or come across 'too strongly' ...

take life and all things in stride ---- and let the others get boggled down in garbage if that's their thing.....

but we need to stick togther ... and just have some fun

Later Dude.... it is good to have ya back


Good Night All

[Buster]

...An Ex Marine Officer..hmmmm, Impressive..... oooorah!

And thank you Phil for your dedicated service to our Country..
In my book, you are a ZERO that counts.







Note: Back in my day (when ships were made of wood and had sails) we the enlisted called Officers Zeros.

[tsptalk]

You should know by now that it's impossible to talk to a liberal.
I haven't read this, but thought it might help you B. :D

How to Talk... (http://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Liberal-You-Must/dp/1400054192/ref=cm_lmf_tit_5)

(this is a joke folks. I'm not promoting it. ;) )

[tsptalk]

Majority of Nobel jury 'objected to Obama prize' (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gOy7GLcrP7iQja3yU5Zu4BHMqFdw)

"OSLO — Three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee had objections to the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to US President Barack Obama, the Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang (VG) reported Thursday."

[CountryBoy]

I haven't read this, but thought it might help you B. :D

How to Talk... (http://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Liberal-You-Must/dp/1400054192/ref=cm_lmf_tit_5)

(this is a joke folks. I'm not promoting it. ;) )

Great Footnotes. :D

[Steadygain]

I haven't read this, but thought it might help you B. :D

How to Talk... (http://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Liberal-You-Must/dp/1400054192/ref=cm_lmf_tit_5)

(this is a joke folks. I'm not promoting it. ;) )

Well here's my 2 cents:

Ann Coulter offers a wonderfully huge perspective simply from a 'woman's point of view' --- helps us guys see stuff we usually overlook.

She is highly 'recognized' as an Intellectual

Her book was an instant New York Times bestseller

She is 'conservative' in the things that count -- those things that should seperate the moral and decent from the immoral and indecent. (Politics just happens to be a part of this)

Controversial -- because she's not afraid to tell it like it is.

What comments I did read --- I'm with her !!

[OBGibby]

And what sort of results did we have from the previous administration, pray tell? From any of these issues?

Let's review: North Korea had nukes during the Bush admininistration, and has them now. The Iran issue is hardly new.

You need to do a fact check on the Honduras situation. It's a little complicated, particularly on the rule of law category.

I think most Americans took a good look around, and realized that we had engaged in far too many foreign adventures (sort of like the former Soviet Union), and had succeeded only in losing trillions of dollars, with little security to show, and an enormous foreign debt. In the end, the Soviets came apart from putting too much money in one basket, it seems.

As for Castro and Hugo: I believe that making faces at them just didn't seem to work well, did it? I mean, we've been doing that for over 50 years now to Cuba. We even tried to INVADE once, which failed horribly.

Taking the time to analyze Afghanistan is really necessary. Look how we all REALLY got snookered into the Iraq war. I'd take some time too. Tell you what, just read the 9/11 report, it's all there. Any idea how much money it cost? Did it hurt, or help, Al-Qaeda?

On Iran: we have intervened inside their country before, in 1953. I think talking about it is probably a good thing. Just like now....

Talking with Russia probably is much better than other options. We've always talked with them. Well and good to rattle sabers, but in the end we always talk and work out some agreement. Trust me, it's probably a better thing.

Protecting US interests: what US interests are we protecting exactly? I probably need to be educated on that. After all, after our invasion of Iraq, oil prices started to go way up, not down. There seemed to be a correlation there between our political willingness to believe anything, and our ability to pay at the pump. Were we really that gullible?

As far as the UN's credibility: I think that after the presentation on WMD in Iraq, I really think that's exactly what they say about us.

I always admired George C. Marshall. He also won the Nobel Prize. You should read his acceptance speech. He was a great General, and a great diplomat.

My apologies in advance - I don't have the skill at inserting and changing the colors of my reply within your original quotes, a la Steadygain.

To borrow your terminology, “let’s review:” “North Korea had nukes during the Bush administration,” and the “Iran issue is hardly new.” Thanks for giving us all some excellent insight into how President Obama’s penchant for “talking” has mitigated the threats posed by both North Korea and Iran. Thank you, that was very enlightening. I understand now.

Regarding Honduras – yes, I agree, let us do “fact check.” FACT: Honduran President Zelaya was legally removed from office after he attempted a coup earlier this summer. The manner of coup was via a referendum or direct vote (also known as a plebiscite), which is forbidden by the Honduran constitution. The Honduran constitution further states that any elected official who attempts such is to be automatically removed from office. The Honduran congress and the Honduran supreme court removed Zelaya – legally. He was replaced by another member of Zelaya’s political party, and Zelaya was ultimately exiled in an attempt to avoid any violence. Hugo Chavez and his good-time-buddy Fidel Castro to the north, and Senor Morales in Bolivia, were all bent-outta-shape about the ouster of Zelaya. They were upset because they wanted Zelaya to follow their lead and turn Honduras into a Marxist regime. And who did President Obama take sides with? Well, he certainly didn’t take sides with the legal, democratic institutions within Honduras. No, in grand fashion he pined for the return of Zelaya to rule Honduras. But, I suppose my facts don’t mesh with your “facts.” Funny how that works.

I love your repetitive allusions to the Soviet Union; so appropriate considering some of your comments. The semi-analogies you keep making, as if you want to say the U.S. is on the same trajectory as the former USSR, yet you really can’t bring yourself to say it. What exactly are you saying?

If by “making faces” at Castro and Hugo, you mean how successive administrations, of both parties, have correctly called communist thugs just that – communist thugs, I do think that worked well. While the fall of communism in Cuba cannot come a day too soon, the United States and friends of freedom around the world should be proud that we don’t have more commies running around to the south of us. The fact that Russian isn’t a second language just a few hours flying time from our borders is no small miracle, thanks to those administrations that knew full well the cancer that communism is. Whispering sweet nothings into the ears of tyrants, accepting Marxist tomes from dictators whom you’ve called “mi amigo,” and apologizing for American “sins,” real and imagined, will not stop those that wish to enslave their people, nor will it appease their desires to turn back the tide of freedom.

“Snookered” into Iraq. Really, Phil? I thought you were better than that. Cheap, throw-way lines like that, championed by all the Michael Moore’s of the world, add nothing to the discussion. I’ve read the 9/11 Report. Quite frankly, I’m still trying to make sense of your comments from that paragraph.

Regarding Iran – I’m interesting in why you think talking about the 1953 coup is such a good thing. How does that benefit the U.S.?

Great – talk with Russia. Just don’t sell our friends down the river because you want to make nice with Russia. I have nothing against talking – but don’t talk just to talk, and certainly never talk while compromising American interests, principles and values. When you compromise those things, it whittles away at American credibility.

Not sure your intent on the next paragraph, and I certainly don’t understand your oft-repeated quip about oil prices. Remember, those on the left invented the whole “war for oil” charade. If you want to keep playing that game, go right ahead.

Ah, the WMD presentation at the United Nations! I knew it wouldn’t take long to come out. That’s right, how could I forget. All the principals in the Bush administration conspired and created their own intelligence to hoodwink the entire world, all on live television, at the U.N. no less! Did some of the intelligence eventually prove unreliable and worthless in some cases? You bet it did. But let’s not forget that the vast majority of the U.S. intelligence community agreed with the intelligence presented by the Bush administration. Intelligence first developed and used by the previous administration. Let’s also not forget that every major and reputable intelligence agency around the world agreed with our assessments of Iraq’s WMD – the only differing points were not on the intelligence, but on the way to deal with Iraq (i.e., to invade or not to invade). As much as the left would love to blame the Bush administration for every problem in the world, the facts just don’t support it.

General Marshall was a great American and an appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. The reference to him speaks directly to the heart of this particular thread, in that the vast majority of the poster do not believe President Obama deserved to be honored. The juxtaposition of the president and the general is outstanding, and I’m surprised you missed what is so obvious to the rest of us.

That’s all I have time for tonight – my twenty-minute daily allotment to TSP Talk has expired. I saw you posted some other replies in the thread. I’ll try to get to those this weekend when I have some more time.

[Steadygain]

My apologies in advance - I don't have the skill at inserting and changing the colors of my reply within your original quotes, a la Steadygain.

Wow --- thanks for the recognition !!


That’s all I have time for tonight – my twenty-minute daily allotment to TSP Talk has expired. I saw you posted some other replies in the thread. I’ll try to get to those this weekend when I have some more time.

Whew !! Looks like you're one of the many he stirred up.

My posts were simply to 'confront him' on a different level and I seriously don't think he had a clue the way he was comming across.

Relax man -- be cool and let it slide.... ;):cool::cool:

[CountryBoy]

My apologies in advance - I don't have the skill at inserting and changing the colors of my reply within your original quotes, a la Steadygain.

To borrow your terminology, “let’s review:” “North Korea had nukes during the Bush administration,” and the “Iran issue is hardly new.” Thanks for giving us all some excellent insight into how President Obama’s penchant for “talking” has mitigated the threats posed by both North Korea and Iran. Thank you, that was very enlightening. I understand now.

Regarding Honduras – yes, I agree, let us do “fact check.” FACT: Honduran President Zelaya was legally removed from office after he attempted a coup earlier this summer. The manner of coup was via a referendum or direct vote (also known as a plebiscite), which is forbidden by the Honduran constitution. The Honduran constitution further states that any elected official who attempts such is to be automatically removed from office. The Honduran congress and the Honduran supreme court removed Zelaya – legally. He was replaced by another member of Zelaya’s political party, and Zelaya was ultimately exiled in an attempt to avoid any violence. Hugo Chavez and his good-time-buddy Fidel Castro to the north, and Senor Morales in Bolivia, were all bent-outta-shape about the ouster of Zelaya. They were upset because they wanted Zelaya to follow their lead and turn Honduras into a Marxist regime. And who did President Obama take sides with? Well, he certainly didn’t take sides with the legal, democratic institutions within Honduras. No, in grand fashion he pined for the return of Zelaya to rule Honduras. But, I suppose my facts don’t mesh with your “facts.” Funny how that works.

I love your repetitive allusions to the Soviet Union; so appropriate considering some of your comments. The semi-analogies you keep making, as if you want to say the U.S. is on the same trajectory as the former USSR, yet you really can’t bring yourself to say it. What exactly are you saying?

If by “making faces” at Castro and Hugo, you mean how successive administrations, of both parties, have correctly called communist thugs just that – communist thugs, I do think that worked well. While the fall of communism in Cuba cannot come a day too soon, the United States and friends of freedom around the world should be proud that we don’t have more commies running around to the south of us. The fact that Russian isn’t a second language just a few hours flying time from our borders is no small miracle, thanks to those administrations that knew full well the cancer that communism is. Whispering sweet nothings into the ears of tyrants, accepting Marxist tomes from dictators whom you’ve called “mi amigo,” and apologizing for American “sins,” real and imagined, will not stop those that wish to enslave their people, nor will it appease their desires to turn back the tide of freedom.

“Snookered” into Iraq. Really, Phil? I thought you were better than that. Cheap, throw-way lines like that, championed by all the Michael Moore’s of the world, add nothing to the discussion. I’ve read the 9/11 Report. Quite frankly, I’m still trying to make sense of your comments from that paragraph.

Regarding Iran – I’m interesting in why you think talking about the 1953 coup is such a good thing. How does that benefit the U.S.?

Great – talk with Russia. Just don’t sell our friends down the river because you want to make nice with Russia. I have nothing against talking – but don’t talk just to talk, and certainly never talk while compromising American interests, principles and values. When you compromise those things, it whittles away at American credibility.

Not sure your intent on the next paragraph, and I certainly don’t understand your oft-repeated quip about oil prices. Remember, those on the left invented the whole “war for oil” charade. If you want to keep playing that game, go right ahead.

Ah, the WMD presentation at the United Nations! I knew it wouldn’t take long to come out. That’s right, how could I forget. All the principals in the Bush administration conspired and created their own intelligence to hoodwink the entire world, all on live television, at the U.N. no less! Did some of the intelligence eventually prove unreliable and worthless in some cases? You bet it did. But let’s not forget that the vast majority of the U.S. intelligence community agreed with the intelligence presented by the Bush administration. Intelligence first developed and used by the previous administration. Let’s also not forget that every major and reputable intelligence agency around the world agreed with our assessments of Iraq’s WMD – the only differing points were not on the intelligence, but on the way to deal with Iraq (i.e., to invade or not to invade). As much as the left would love to blame the Bush administration for every problem in the world, the facts just don’t support it.

General Marshall was a great American and an appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. The reference to him speaks directly to the heart of this particular thread, in that the vast majority of the poster do not believe President Obama deserved to be honored. The juxtaposition of the president and the general is outstanding, and I’m surprised you missed what is so obvious to the rest of us.

That’s all I have time for tonight – my twenty-minute daily allotment to TSP Talk has expired. I saw you posted some other replies in the thread. I’ll try to get to those this weekend when I have some more time.

A big Standing O! Well said.

CB

[Viva_La_Migra]

A big Standing O! Well said.

CB
Agreed!

I'd just like to add that there would be no need of the concept of war for oil if we were allowed to drill for our own oil here! DRILL BABY DRILL!

[phil]

I don't have a lot of time, but I'll respond.

So...on the Iran and Korean issues, nothing to offer?

Honduran President Zelaya was legally removed from office after he attempted a coup earlier this summer.

Wow, I never knew of any sitting President to have a coup by plebescite. That's really unique. Then, the Honduran military removed him . Otherwise, democracy would break out, no doubt.
I don't think we can avoid the similarities to the former Soviet Union. Nor, obviously, can you.
On Iraq: Read the reports coming from our own Congress, you don't have to listen to me. Nor should you.

I’m interesting in why you think talking about the 1953 coup is such a good thing. How does that benefit the U.S.?

Whether you're interesting or not, talking to the Iranians is better than not, particularly now. It benefits us in that we bring a balance in engaging Iran. All the Iranians know what we did then, and it still bothers them.


Ah, the WMD presentation at the United Nations! I knew it wouldn’t take long to come out. That’s right, how could I forget. All the principals in the Bush administration conspired and created their own intelligence to hoodwink the entire world, all on live television, at the U.N. no less! Did some of the intelligence eventually prove unreliable and worthless in some cases? You bet it did. But let’s not forget that the vast majority of the U.S. intelligence community agreed with the intelligence presented by the Bush administration.


We Americans still have to carry the fact that we misled the UN. What will the world think next time we have to go there?
Actually, no, the vast majority of the US intelligence community didn't agree. Yes, I do believe that some intelligence was created. People just didn't take a look at the facts of the case, particularly with regard to Iraq and Al-Qaeda. So, why not give the current administration time to examine the facts. The facts seemed to be a bit murky, don't you think? There are groups that seem to have an interest in keeping us engaged in behavior that we shouldn't be in, quite frankly.

Let’s also not forget that every major and reputable intelligence agency around the world agreed with our assessments of Iraq’s WMD.

Again, no, read prior answer. By the way, check the Plame incident during the former administration.

General Marshall was a great American and an appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. The reference to him speaks directly to the heart of this particular thread, in that the vast majority of the poster do not believe President Obama deserved to be honored.

I guess we can agree on something.


Solving problems by force hasn't really worked well. After spending about a trillion dollars in Iraq, we're finally leaving. Let's give our President a chance to carry out his agenda. I congratulate him on his award.

[Steadygain]

I don't have a lot of time, but I'll respond.

And THIS was one of YOUR BEST !! :D

So...on the Iran and Korean issues, nothing to offer?

Honduran President Zelaya was legally removed from office after he attempted a coup earlier this summer.

Wow, I never knew of any sitting President to have a coup by plebescite. That's really unique. Then, the Honduran military removed him . Otherwise, democracy would break out, no doubt.
I don't think we can avoid the similarities to the former Soviet Union. Nor, obviously, can you.
On Iraq: Read the reports coming from our own Congress, you don't have to listen to me. Nor should you.

Good Points -- Damn good points !!

I’m interesting in why you think talking about the 1953 coup is such a good thing. How does that benefit the U.S.?

Whether you're interesting or not, talking to the Iranians is better than not, particularly now. It benefits us in that we bring a balance in engaging Iran. All the Iranians know what we did then, and it still bothers them.

AMEN Brother --- Seriously THIS IS GOOD !!


Ah, the WMD presentation at the United Nations! I knew it wouldn’t take long to come out. That’s right, how could I forget. All the principals in the Bush administration conspired and created their own intelligence to hoodwink the entire world, all on live television, at the U.N. no less! Did some of the intelligence eventually prove unreliable and worthless in some cases? You bet it did. But let’s not forget that the vast majority of the U.S. intelligence community agreed with the intelligence presented by the Bush administration.


We Americans (don't include me in that BS but I hear what you're saying)still have to carry the fact that we misled the UN. What will the world think next time we have to go there?

They will think how the hell can any Nation over $11 Trillion in Debt afford another war :confused:
Actually, no, the vast majority of the US intelligence community didn't agree. Yes, I do believe that some intelligence was created. People just didn't take a look at the facts of the case, particularly with regard to Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
Right On !! Wow -- this is very good :)
So, why not give the current administration time to examine the facts. The facts seemed to be a bit murky, don't you think? There are groups that seem to have an interest in keeping us engaged in behavior that we shouldn't be in, quite frankly.

Let’s also not forget that every major and reputable intelligence agency around the world agreed with our assessments of Iraq’s WMD.

Again, no, read prior answer. By the way, check the Plame incident during the former administration.

General Marshall was a great American and an appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. The reference to him speaks directly to the heart of this particular thread, in that the vast majority of the poster do not believe President Obama deserved to be honored.

I guess we can agree on something.


Solving problems by force hasn't really worked well. After spending about a trillion dollars in Iraq, we're finally leaving. Let's give our President a chance to carry out his agenda. I congratulate him on his award.

WOOO Phil !!!

I think this one was EXCELLENT !!!!

Way to Go --- very well put !!! and I sincerely mean that

Steady

[coolhand]

War Is Peace. Ignorance Is Strength
by John Pilger

Barack Obama, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, is planning another war to add to his impressive record. In Afghanistan, his agents routinely extinguish wedding parties, farmers and construction workers with weapons such as the innovative Hellfire missile, which sucks the air out of your lungs. According to the UN, 338,000 Afghan infants are dying under the Obama-led alliance, which permits only $29 per head annually to be spent on medical care.

Within weeks of his inauguration, Obama started a new war in Pakistan, causing more than a million people to flee their homes. In threatening Iran – which his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said she was prepared to "obliterate" – Obama lied that the Iranians were covering up a "secret nuclear facility," knowing that it had already been reported to the International Atomic Energy Authority. In colluding with the only nuclear-armed power in the Middle East, he bribed the Palestinian Authority to suppress a UN judgment that Israel had committed crimes against humanity in its assault on Gaza – crimes made possible with US weapons whose shipment Obama secretly approved before his inauguration.

At home, the man of peace has approved a military budget exceeding that of any year since the end of the Second World War while presiding over a new kind of domestic repression. During the recent G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, hosted by Obama, militarized police attacked peaceful protesters with something called the Long-Range Acoustic Device, not seen before on US streets. Mounted in the turret of a small tank, it blasted a piercing noise as tear gas and pepper gas were fired indiscriminately. It is part of a new arsenal of "crowd-control munitions" supplied by military contractors such as Raytheon. In Obama’s Pentagon-controlled "national security state," the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, which he promised to close, remains open, and "rendition," secret assassinations and torture continue.

The Nobel Peace Prize–winner’s latest war is largely secret. On 15 July, Washington finalized a deal with Colombia that gives the US seven giant military bases. "The idea," reported the Associated Press, "is to make Colombia a regional hub for Pentagon operations . . . nearly half the continent can be covered by a C-17 [military transport] without refueling," which "helps achieve the regional engagement strategy."

Translated, this means Obama is planning a "rollback" of the independence and democracy that the people of Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Paraguay have achieved against the odds, along with a historic regional cooperation that rejects the notion of a US "sphere of influence." The Colombian regime, which backs death squads and has the continent’s worst human rights record, has received US military support second in scale only to Israel. Britain provides military training. Guided by US military satellites, Colombian paramilitaries now infiltrate Venezuela with the goal of overthrowing the democratic government of Hugo Chávez, which George W Bush failed to do in 2002.

Obama’s war on peace and democracy in Latin America follows a style he has demonstrated since the coup against the democratic president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, in June. Zelaya had increased the minimum wage, granted subsidies to small farmers, cut back interest rates and reduced poverty. He planned to break a US pharmaceutical monopoly and manufacture cheap generic drugs. Although Obama has called for Zelaya’s reinstatement, he refuses to condemn the coup-makers and to recall the US ambassador or the US troops who train the Honduran forces determined to crush a popular resistance. Zelaya has been repeatedly refused a meeting with Obama, who has approved an IMF loan of $164m to the illegal regime. The message is clear and familiar: thugs can act with impunity on behalf of the US.

Obama, the smooth operator from Chicago via Harvard, was enlisted to restore what he calls "leadership" throughout the world. The Nobel Prize committee’s decision is the kind of cloying reverse racism that has beatified the man for no reason other than he is a member of a minority and attractive to liberal sensibilities, if not to the Afghan children he kills. This is the Call of Obama. It is not unlike a dog whistle: inaudible to most, irresistible to the besotted and boneheaded. "When Obama walks into a room," gushed George Clooney, "you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere."

The great voice of black liberation Frantz Fanon understood this. In The Wretched of the Earth, he described the "intermediary [whose] mission has nothing to do with transforming the nation: it consists, prosaically, of being the transmission line between the nation and a capitalism, rampant though camouflaged." Because political debate has become so debased in our media monoculture – Blair or Brown; Brown or Cameron – race, gender and class can be used as seductive tools of propaganda and diversion. In Obama’s case, what matters, as Fanon pointed out in an earlier era, is not the intermediary’s "historic" elevation, but the class he serves. After all, Bush’s inner circle was probably the most multiracial in presidential history. There was Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, all dutifully serving an extreme and dangerous power.

Britain has seen its own Obama-like mysticism. The day after Blair was elected in 1997, the Observer predicted that he would create "new worldwide rules on human rights" while the Guardian rejoiced at the "breathless pace [as] the floodgates of change burst open." When Obama was elected last November, Denis MacShane MP, a devotee of Blair’s bloodbaths, unwittingly warned us: "I shut my eyes when I listen to this guy and it could be Tony. He is doing the same thing that we did in 1997."

October 16, 2009

Courtesy

www.lewrockwell.com

[Steadygain]

War Is Peace. Ignorance Is Strength
by John Pilger

Barack Obama, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, is planning another war to add to his impressive record. In Afghanistan, his agents routinely extinguish wedding parties, farmers and construction workers with weapons such as the innovative Hellfire missile, which sucks the air out of your lungs. According to the UN, 338,000 Afghan infants are dying under the Obama-led alliance, which permits only $29 per head annually to be spent on medical care.


Well it's really too bad that I do not have the opportunity to directly address John Pilger...:mad:

But allow me to start by saying Barrack Obama winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was a decision wholly - and completey - removed from anyone connected to this MB
1.(from any person who by virtue of being a Rep --- honestly believes that nothing good can possibly come from a Dem;
2. from any person who by virtue of their Race honestly believes a Black ... or whatever... can not possibly serve as a worthy leader....
3. from anyone who by virtue of their Nationality honestly believes that because the President of the United States may have been born on this spot of the EARTH -- that in itself fully disqualifies him from being worthy...)

If we as a collective group OBJECTIVELY and Honestly look at what happened throughout the WORLD -- The Entire PLANET

Obama was widely 'Supported' by all the Nations throughout the World -- and in fact most of the Nations supported him over the USA.

When he rightfully got elected as the NEW President of the USA the peoples around the entire PLANET -- Celebrated his Victory and the HOPE of better Relationships and Better Understanding....

He offered the HOPE of something FAR SUPERIOR than what the world had known so far --- in it's relation to the USA.

Keeping all these things in mind --- acknowledging the facts as represented throughout the world (and by election results)

HE FULLY DESERVED 'THE 2009 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE'

So let's seperate that from everything else and stick with only that in this post.

[coolhand]

Well it's really too bad that I do not have the opportunity to directly address John Pilger...:mad:

But allow me to start by saying Barrack Obama winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was a decision wholly - and completey - removed from anyone connected to this MB
1.(from any person who by virtue of being a Rep --- honestly believes that nothing good can possibly come from a Dem;
2. from any person who by virtue of their Race honestly believes a Black ... or whatever... can not possibly serve as a worthy leader....
3. from anyone who by virtue of their Nationality honestly believes that because the President of the United States may have been born on this spot of the EARTH -- that in itself fully disqualifies him from being worthy...)

If we as a collective group OBJECTIVELY and Honestly look at what happened throughout the WORLD -- The Entire PLANET

Obama was widely 'Supported' by all the Nations throughout the World -- and in fact most of the Nations supported him over the USA.

When he rightfully got elected as the NEW President of the USA the peoples around the entire PLANET -- Celebrated his Victory and the HOPE of better Relationships and Better Understanding....

He offered the HOPE of something FAR SUPERIOR than what the world had known so far --- in it's relation to the USA.

Keeping all these things in mind --- acknowledging the facts as represented throughout the world (and by election results)

HE FULLY DESERVED 'THE 2009 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE'

So let's seperate that from everything else and stick with only that in this post.

Let me just say that I do not necessarily agree with the writer's interpretation of events. I do think it's a lesson in how anyone, and I mean anyone, can twist global events into their own worldview. I find it interesting that while Mr. Pilger wants nothing to do with our involvement overseas, his view is that the Pres is supporting it, while many others (especially liberals) see something else entirely. In this case the writer is agrees with libs that the war is wrong, but in contrast to the left, does not see bho has the answer to our problems.

[Steadygain]

Let me just say that I do not necessarily agree with the writer's interpretation of events. I do think it's a lesson in how anyone, and I mean anyone, can twist global events into their own worldview. I find it interesting that while Mr. Pilger wants nothing to do with our involvement overseas, his view is that the Pres is supporting it, while many others (especially liberals) see something else entirely. In this case the writer is agrees with libs that the war is wrong, but in contrast to the left, does not see bho has the answer to our problems.

Thanks CH !!

Honestly I appreciate your direct input :)

But the whole intention of this individual --- and his endless and wonderful extensive protrayal of ... many notable facts...

his whole endeavor was to TRASH -- his 'Nobel Peace Prize' and that is entirely seperate from the other stuff..

which BTW ... I'll get to later

[Frixxxx]

Look, I wholeheartedly approve of awarding this prize....but I think the interpretation of what encompasses the award is what the ultimate concern is when this one was awarded.

Being elected to be the POTUS is a feat in itself. I respect that. Being a child of a Kenyan and an American and being raised by his grandmother, admirable. Utilizing his skills and talents to get educated farther than most in prestigious schools outstanding. Returning to do work in a social arena and build communities in Chicago ~ outstanding. Become a Senator and then the POTUS ~ makes me speechless.

BUT, I can not fathom after 9 days in office and "inheriting" a global conflict can a person be honestly be a viable candidate for this award which states, according to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is to go to whoever "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"

I believe, in my heart of hearts, that our president has not met the requirements of this belief. I believe that there are other people in the world more deserving. This is not a democrat/republican issue. This is not and American/British/French/Columbian issue. This is not a Christian/Islam/Buddhist issue.

I believe that all people have the power to bring a peace in their lives that will ultimately affect those around them. When that stirs the community which in turn stirs a nation then propagates throughout the world that is the creator of the best change of all: Ultimate Peace!

I hope (and pray) that our leaders, including President Obama can change the world. I want that, I need to believe that I can hope in a world where bleakness is paramount that the smartest and most dedicated will promote global peace without trampling the rights and pursuits of a regular citizen.

I am a regular citizen of the world, and I want my right to agree/disagree. But remember I do it with respect.

[Steadygain]

Look, I wholeheartedly approve of awarding this prize....but I think the interpretation of what encompasses the award is what the ultimate concern is when this one was awarded.

Frixxx - I totally agree with that. Man I had nothing to do with him getting the award --- but if it's based on how the World at Large saw and believed in Obama -- as more of a LEADER who will promote intelligence over stupidity --- negoiations over mindless killing --- PEACE over WAR ----

He very much fit that 'Picture' at the time he was considered.

BUT, I can not fathom after 9 days in office and "inheriting" a global conflict can a person be honestly be a viable candidate for this award which states, according to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is to go to whoever "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"

Well here I will differ -- In that it was Far and Above virtually everything else that OBAMA stood out as 'THE ONE' who thought the whole Iraq War was a 'huge mistake' -- that Brutal Aggression is not the Answer --- that if ANY CANDIDATE ~~ at least gave the presentation of striving for Peaceful and Harmonous Relationships with all Nations ---- it was Obama.

PLEASE KNOW -- from my perspective -- essentially everything is POLITICAL BS -- designed and protrayed to 'get elected'

I believe, in my heart of hearts, that our president has not met the requirements of this belief.

And I have absolutely no problem with that --- none at all

But he did win --- so our endeavor should not be to trash him and go on and on about how 'undeserving he is'

I believe that there are other people in the world more deserving.

I whole heartedly agree !!! Wasn't my call.

This is not a democrat/republican issue. This is not and American/British/French/Columbian issue. This is not a Christian/Islam/Buddhist issue.

Priase GOD man !! I'm thrilled you feel that way -- because so many of the posts come down to that very thing....

I believe that all people have the power to bring a peace in their lives that will ultimately affect those around them. When that stirs the community which in turn stirs a nation then propagates throughout the world that is the creator of the best change of all: Ultimate Peace!

You got it man -- and that quote is the POST of the WEEK !!

The only way 'we' can do it -- is taking the role ourself and doing our part to be at peace and live in peace with one another

I hope (and pray) that our leaders, including President Obama can change the world. I want that

Me too Frixxx -- oh my gosh --- you just don't know.

But our Civilization is hugely 'Fractured' and people regard one another as totally insignificant if it takes from their 'security' and 'comfort' ....

The Politicians -- as hugely corrupt as they are -- are forced to rule and live in a Civilization that is in absolutely horrible shape.

, I need to believe that I can hope in a world where bleakness is paramount that the smartest and most dedicated will promote global peace without trampling the rights and pursuits of a regular citizen.

Will include this part too --- in POW ----

Frixxxx -- your heart and life are RIGHT ON COURSE --- but the very best you can do is live your own life accordingly ... and make whatever impact you can on those you live with...

Global Peace is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE with our current conditions; with the way the USA and other Nations interact..

I am a regular citizen of the world, and I want my right to agree/disagree. But remember I do it with respect.

Well you don't disagree with me at all -- my gosh -- if anything there is probably no one alive that stands more solidly with me.

RIGHT ON MAN --- Share your views ....

[Steadygain]

War Is Peace. Ignorance Is Strength
by John Pilger

In Afghanistan,

WAR is WAR --- and people get hurt ... that's what it's all about

his agents routinely

His agents are the men and women who have sworn their alligence to the USA and see him as the Commander in Chief.

I don't give a rat's ass who gets hurt or what has to happen ... if 'we' are told to accomplish something -- then short of my own death it will be accomplished. NEVER HAVE I EVER REGRETED ACCOMPLISHING A MISSION --- NEVER

ALWAYS - AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION -- BELIEVED THEY CALLED ON ME BECAUSE THEY KNEW I WOULD DO WHATEVER IT TAKES..PERIOD

secret assassinations and torture continue.

Tough luck f***er and like I say -- I wish I could deal directly with this guy.

Many assassinations have to take place in Secret -- I have absolutly NO PROBLEM with that as long as it's in the line of Duty. As long as the ORDERS come from above....

....never is it my place to question whether the guys at the TOP thought things through... is this 'appropriate' --- this was the Mission and that's all that mattered.


To me the DETAILS make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE --

The Agents either do their job --- live up to their sworn and sacret duty or they are totally and completely worthless and a total disgrace.

[coolhand]

To me the DETAILS make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE --

The Agents either do their job --- live up to their sworn and sacret duty or they are totally and completely worthless and a total disgrace.

That's why I said I don't necessarily agree with all his views. It goes to show how people are all over the map on their views. And they all think they're right. (Or left)

[coolhand]

But I'm not really sure what to believe about this guy. He's a war journalist and has seen a lot of horror up close and personal. I don't competely get the idea that he's anti-military per se, as he did write about the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge, so he understands what absolute power can do unchecked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger

[Steadygain]

But I'm not really sure what to believe about this guy. He's a war journalist and has seen a lot of horror up close and personal. I don't competely get the idea that he's anti-military per se, as he did write about the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge, so he understands what absolute power can do unchecked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger


Thanks CH :)

I know you didn't mean anything --- but he touched some pretty raw nerves..... whatever... I'm sure quite a few have to know first hand what I'm talking about.

I guess from my own personal perspective 'A true committed Soldier is the highest honor imaginable'

The Play ~~~ including many distinct operations ~~ may have been total BS from an 'outsiders view' -- and in fact 'we' - 'the ones directly involved' may in retrospect may look back with regrets....

but when you're in action ... and you're doing everything possible to serve your Country with Honor and Integrity... the only way you can fail is by not doing everything possible to accomplish the mission.

From my perspective -- if this guy (or anyone else) myself included wants to show the ultra insanity of WAR - then I have no problem with that.

But to make the Agents (committed Soldiers) devoting their lives to the highest degree -- to make them 'Look Bad' .... :mad::mad:

[coolhand]

Thanks CH :)

I know you didn't mean anything --- but he touched some pretty raw nerves..... whatever... I'm sure quite a few have to know first hand what I'm talking about.

I guess from my own personal perspective 'A true committed Soldier is the highest honor imaginable'

The Play ~~~ including many distinct operations ~~ may have been total BS from an 'outsiders view' -- and in fact 'we' - 'the ones directly involved' may in retrospect may look back with regrets....

but when you're in action ... and you're doing everything possible to serve your Country with Honor and Integrity... the only way you can fail is by not doing everything possible to accomplish the mission.

From my perspective -- if this guy (or anyone else) myself included wants to show the ultra insanity of WAR - then I have no problem with that.

But to make the Agents (committed Soldiers) devoting their lives to the highest degree -- to make them 'Look Bad' .... :mad::mad:

Yes, I agree 100% with you SG. Aside from my being retired military, one of my Uncles was a Tunnel Rat in Nam. He's currently the Commander of Chapter #1 of the Military Order of Purple Heart. I've heard his stories and he shared a lot of news articles and photographs with me. I also had a very close neighbor when I lived in San Diego who was a POW in a Japanese camp. I understand very well how you feel. I'm with you my friend. :)

[coolhand]

Thanks CH :)

I know you didn't mean anything --- but he touched some pretty raw nerves..... whatever... I'm sure quite a few have to know first hand what I'm talking about.

I guess from my own personal perspective 'A true committed Soldier is the highest honor imaginable'

The Play ~~~ including many distinct operations ~~ may have been total BS from an 'outsiders view' -- and in fact 'we' - 'the ones directly involved' may in retrospect may look back with regrets....

but when you're in action ... and you're doing everything possible to serve your Country with Honor and Integrity... the only way you can fail is by not doing everything possible to accomplish the mission.

From my perspective -- if this guy (or anyone else) myself included wants to show the ultra insanity of WAR - then I have no problem with that.

But to make the Agents (committed Soldiers) devoting their lives to the highest degree -- to make them 'Look Bad' .... :mad::mad:

I know this is getting off topic, but many of you will be interested in this. This is my Uncle's biography. Enjoy the read and Semper Fi!

http://www.ctveterans.org/moph1/pagesbio/Chap1RichardTonucciBio.html

[Steadygain]

I know this is getting off topic, but many of you will be interested in this. This is my Uncle's biography. Enjoy the read and Semper Fi!

http://www.ctveterans.org/moph1/pagesbio/Chap1RichardTonucciBio.html


Wow that's BEAUTIFUL !!

Would gladly give my life for this guy -- he could call on me anytime

Nothing could describe what I'm talking about better than that !!

Much appreciated !!! Now I've got a ton of work to do....

this was a very distracting day :embarrest::o:cool::cool:

[OBGibby]

I know this is getting off topic, but many of you will be interested in this. This is my Uncle's biography. Enjoy the read and Semper Fi!

http://www.ctveterans.org/moph1/pagesbio/Chap1RichardTonucciBio.html


Coolhand - I did enjoy it. Semper Fidelis.

[OBGibby]

I don't have a lot of time, but I'll respond.

So...on the Iran and Korean issues, nothing to offer?

Honduran President Zelaya was legally removed from office after he attempted a coup earlier this summer.

Wow, I never knew of any sitting President to have a coup by plebescite. That's really unique. Then, the Honduran military removed him . Otherwise, democracy would break out, no doubt.
I don't think we can avoid the similarities to the former Soviet Union. Nor, obviously, can you.
On Iraq: Read the reports coming from our own Congress, you don't have to listen to me. Nor should you.

I’m interesting in why you think talking about the 1953 coup is such a good thing. How does that benefit the U.S.?

Whether you're interesting or not, talking to the Iranians is better than not, particularly now. It benefits us in that we bring a balance in engaging Iran. All the Iranians know what we did then, and it still bothers them.


Ah, the WMD presentation at the United Nations! I knew it wouldn’t take long to come out. That’s right, how could I forget. All the principals in the Bush administration conspired and created their own intelligence to hoodwink the entire world, all on live television, at the U.N. no less! Did some of the intelligence eventually prove unreliable and worthless in some cases? You bet it did. But let’s not forget that the vast majority of the U.S. intelligence community agreed with the intelligence presented by the Bush administration.


We Americans still have to carry the fact that we misled the UN. What will the world think next time we have to go there?
Actually, no, the vast majority of the US intelligence community didn't agree. Yes, I do believe that some intelligence was created. People just didn't take a look at the facts of the case, particularly with regard to Iraq and Al-Qaeda. So, why not give the current administration time to examine the facts. The facts seemed to be a bit murky, don't you think? There are groups that seem to have an interest in keeping us engaged in behavior that we shouldn't be in, quite frankly.

Let’s also not forget that every major and reputable intelligence agency around the world agreed with our assessments of Iraq’s WMD.

Again, no, read prior answer. By the way, check the Plame incident during the former administration.

General Marshall was a great American and an appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. The reference to him speaks directly to the heart of this particular thread, in that the vast majority of the poster do not believe President Obama deserved to be honored.

I guess we can agree on something.


Solving problems by force hasn't really worked well. After spending about a trillion dollars in Iraq, we're finally leaving. Let's give our President a chance to carry out his agenda. I congratulate him on his award.

So many opportunities, so little time...Nearly every one of your posts is deserving of a reply; yet, my patience wears thin, especially knowing that I'll never convince you of anything different than your own views. I respect that you have your own views. I just hope they are grounded more in reality and are not so dependent on tired and recycled leftist slogans that sound great on a bumper sticker, but don't hold up to closer inspection.


Phil, you know what’s really funny? In an earlier post you retorted that I needed to check the facts on Honduras. You've even mocked my description of the events (see quote above). You seem only to be interested in versions that conform to your point of view. If you care to come down from your lofty perch I would be more than happy to hear your version of events.

For those that are following along, but missed the important points, President Zelaya of Honduras attempted what’s known as a plebescite, more commonly known as a direct vote or referendum, wherein he presumably wanted to extend himself the opportunity to run for election again. Unfortunately for Zelaya, the Honduran constitution prohibits a such action (president setting up a direct vote and the president running for election again) and all of the organs of state in Honduras warned Zelaya not to do what he was attempting, to include their congress and their supreme court. Zelaya was undeterred; he discarded the warnings against his illegal actions and attempted to enlist the Honduran army in his quest to change the constitution by illegal means.

The Honduran government took legal recourse, as provided by their constitution, and removed Zelaya from power, as proscribed in their constitution. In other words, the situation in Honduras would be somewhat analogous to a American president proclaiming that there will be a national, direct vote on whether or not he can do “X, Y and Z,” in direct violation of the U.S. constitution. (There’s ample good reason why we don’t have the direct vote on national issues, lest the rabble be easily roused and our grand republic suffer a mortal blow)

Now, a great many minds thought Zelaya was growing too fond of Chavez and his ilk, and felt that Zelaya’s intentions were Marxist leaning and that Honduras risked going the way of Venezuela, and Cuba. But the rule of law is the rule of law. I find it particularly amusing that you, of all people - one who apparently openly derides the U.S. sticking its nose in other countries business - would applaud an administration that unabashedly does not support the Honduran rule of law; rather, it pines for the Zelaya to be reinstated president! Logic only the Left could embrace.

"Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more."

I would love to hear a reasoned explanation of why this administration feels so compelled to side with Zelaya. Who knows? Maybe I could learn a thing or two. (Wouldn't be the first time, but certainly the second!)

Your oft-repeated mischaracterizations of intelligence pre-Iraq war demand a response. Tune in this weekend - same bat time, same bat channel.

[phil]

Let's see. The military forces of the Honduras stormed the Presidential palace, put the President on a plane. If he'd broken the law, shouldn't there be some sort of trial?

Also, not a SINGLE country has recognized the current government of Honduras. Maybe the rest of the world's attorneys, and their Foreign Offices might know something about this. No one from OAS, the European Union, the UN or the US has recognized the legitimacy of this military coup.

Please clarify. What do you know more than the rest of the world?

When Richard Nixon abrogated the Constitution, I don't remember our military forces putting him on a plane for some other country. If I'm not mistaken, there was a due process of law. This just doesn't match.

I can hardly wait for the explanation of pre-war intelligence.





So many opportunities, so little time...Nearly every one of your posts is deserving of a reply; yet, my patience wears thin, especially knowing that I'll never convince you of anything different than your own views. I respect that you have your own views. I just hope they are grounded more in reality and are not so dependent on tired and recycled leftist slogans that sound great on a bumper sticker, but don't hold up to closer inspection.


Phil, you know what’s really funny? In an earlier post you retorted that I needed to check the facts on Honduras. You've even mocked my description of the events (see quote above). You seem only to be interested in versions that conform to your point of view. If you care to come down from your lofty perch I would be more than happy to hear your version of events.

For those that are following along, but missed the important points, President Zelaya of Honduras attempted what’s known as a plebescite, more commonly known as a direct vote or referendum, wherein he presumably wanted to extend himself the opportunity to run for election again. Unfortunately for Zelaya, the Honduran constitution prohibits a such action (president setting up a direct vote and the president running for election again) and all of the organs of state in Honduras warned Zelaya not to do what he was attempting, to include their congress and their supreme court. Zelaya was undeterred; he discarded the warnings against his illegal actions and attempted to enlist the Honduran army in his quest to change the constitution by illegal means.

The Honduran government took legal recourse, as provided by their constitution, and removed Zelaya from power, as proscribed in their constitution. In other words, the situation in Honduras would be somewhat analogous to a American president proclaiming that there will be a national, direct vote on whether or not he can do “X, Y and Z,” in direct violation of the U.S. constitution. (There’s ample good reason why we don’t have the direct vote on national issues, lest the rabble be easily roused and our grand republic suffer a mortal blow)

Now, a great many minds thought Zelaya was growing too fond of Chavez and his ilk, and felt that Zelaya’s intentions were Marxist leaning and that Honduras risked going the way of Venezuela, and Cuba. But the rule of law is the rule of law. I find it particularly amusing that you, of all people - one who apparently openly derides the U.S. sticking its nose in other countries business - would applaud an administration that unabashedly does not support the Honduran rule of law; rather, it pines for the Zelaya to be reinstated president! Logic only the Left could embrace.

"Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more."

I would love to hear a reasoned explanation of why this administration feels so compelled to side with Zelaya. Who knows? Maybe I could learn a thing or two. (Wouldn't be the first time, but certainly the second!)

Your oft-repeated mischaracterizations of intelligence pre-Iraq war demand a response. Tune in this weekend - same bat time, same bat channel.

[Steadygain]

Let's see.

Please clarify. What do you know more than the rest of the world?

I can hardly wait for the explanation of pre-war intelligence.

Phil, man you're too much of a 'trip' for me....:worried:


I think we're on totally different wavelengths.... different planets or something...

Anyway -- best of luck -- with whatever you're doing

But I'm done --

Have a good weekend !!

Steady

[grandma]

I know this is getting off topic, but many of you will be interested in this. This is my Uncle's biography. Enjoy the read and Semper Fi!

http://www.ctveterans.org/moph1/pagesbio/Chap1RichardTonucciBio.html
Thank you So Much for sharing this! I've read just bits about The Magnificent Bastards before - was something you had posted another time? thank you !!

[Steadygain]

I believe that all people have the power to bring a peace in their lives that will ultimately affect those around them. When that stirs the community which in turn stirs a nation then propagates throughout the world that is the creator of the best change of all: Ultimate Peace!

I hope (and pray) that our leaders, including President Obama can change the world. I want that, I need to believe that I can hope in a world where bleakness is paramount that the smartest and most dedicated will promote global peace without trampling the rights and pursuits of a regular citizen.

I am a regular citizen of the world, and I want my right to agree/disagree. But remember I do it with respect.

POST of the WEEK ---- PART I

Today's is the First Tie ever

[SkyPilot]

Steady, you are truly an individual who exhibits grace and mercy. I admire your patience as you endeavor to bring enlightened discourse, even when there is little or no willingness to reciprocate.
Peace dude! :)

[coolhand]

Thank you So Much for sharing this! I've read just bits about The Magnificent Bastards before - was something you had posted another time? thank you !!

I don't remember mentioning this before grandma. There's also a book about them, which also mentions my Uncle. Not sure if it's in print though.

[grandma]

Amazon.com. The cover is not familiar to me. ...that is gonna bug me for sure!
.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51jJtylK%2BjL._SL160_AA115_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Bastards-Joint-Army-Marine-Defense/dp/089141861X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255740887&sr=1-1)
The Magnificent Bastards: The Joint Army-Marine Defense of Dong Ha, 1968 (http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Bastards-Joint-Army-Marine-Defense/dp/089141861X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255740887&sr=1-1) by Keith Nolan (Mass Market Paperback - Nov 27, 2007)
Buy new (http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Bastards-Joint-Army-Marine-Defense/dp/089141861X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255740887&sr=1-1): $7.99
33 Used & new (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/089141861X/ref=sr_1_olp_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255740887&sr=1-1) from $1.95
Get it by Monday, Oct 19 if you order in the next 19 hours and choose one-day shipping.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/ratings/stars-4-5._V25749327_.gif (http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Bastards-Joint-Army-Marine-Defense/product-reviews/089141861X/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_img?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1) (10 (http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Bastards-Joint-Army-Marine-Defense/product-reviews/089141861X/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1))

Other Editions: Kindle Edition (http://www.amazon.com/The-Magnificent-Bastards-ebook/dp/B002RLBKK4/ref=sr_oe_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255740887&sr=1-1), Hardcover (http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Bastards-Joint-Army-Marine-Defense/dp/0891414851/ref=sr_oe_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255740887&sr=1-1), Mass Market Paperback (http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Bastards-Joint-Army-Marine-defense/dp/0440221625/ref=sr_oe_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255740887&sr=1-1)

[Show-me]

I know this is getting off topic, but many of you will be interested in this. This is my Uncle's biography. Enjoy the read and Semper Fi!

http://www.ctveterans.org/moph1/pagesbio/Chap1RichardTonucciBio.html

Freak'n OUTSTANDING!!! Semper Fi

[Buster]

I know this is getting off topic, but many of you will be interested in this. This is my Uncle's biography. Enjoy the read and Semper Fi!

http://www.ctveterans.org/moph1/pagesbio/Chap1RichardTonucciBio.html


Very Cool CH..I salute your uncle with the utmost respect..

too bad other Marines didn't take their duty with such honor and pride, even after decommissioning.

[CountryBoy]

I know this is getting off topic, but many of you will be interested in this. This is my Uncle's biography. Enjoy the read and Semper Fi!

http://www.ctveterans.org/moph1/pagesbio/Chap1RichardTonucciBio.html

CH,

Thanks for sharing. That is a story that makes me very proud to be an American. :D He is "Da Man" and he walked the walk to prove it.

CB

[OBGibby]

Let's see. The military forces of the Honduras stormed the Presidential palace, put the President on a plane. If he'd broken the law, shouldn't there be some sort of trial?

Also, not a SINGLE country has recognized the current government of Honduras. Maybe the rest of the world's attorneys, and their Foreign Offices might know something about this. No one from OAS, the European Union, the UN or the US has recognized the legitimacy of this military coup.

Please clarify. What do you know more than the rest of the world?

When Richard Nixon abrogated the Constitution, I don't remember our military forces putting him on a plane for some other country. If I'm not mistaken, there was a due process of law. This just doesn't match.

I can hardly wait for the explanation of pre-war intelligence.

I do not pretend to know the intricacies of diplomatic recognition; who keep tabs of who; or who has not extended “recognition” to another country. I do know that this administration has refused to extend recognition to the interim Honduran government, and has even gone so far as to threaten continued non-recognition if Zelaya is not returned to power after the scheduled presidential elections on November 29.

Honduran president attempts a naked power grab; the rule of law prevails. And our current administration decides to go against one of its own tenets of ‘leadership’ and meddles in Honduran affairs – to the detriment of the rule of law that our country should be encouraging. A sad commentary, indeed.

The facts speak for themselves, Phil. You questioned the veracity of my accounting of the events in Honduras, yet no alternate version has been presented on your part. What am I missing here? Feel free to add some credible insight of the events in Honduras at any time.

Maybe you, the administration, the United Nations and the European Union, like the prospect of more anti-American sentiment in our hemisphere. Maybe your crowd likes the thought of more authoritarian governments down south. If so, good for you. Just don’t cheapen the discussion by implying someone lied or someone is ill-informed when the facts do not meld with your view of how things should be.

Iraq - Tomorrow I'll focus my response on what I take to be your two main charges (based on your posts on TSP Talk): that the Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq as a means to manipulate the country into war, and that the Bush administration lied about a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. If there are any other charges you'd like me to address, feel free to let me know.

[phil]

It was a military coup. Period. You say I haven't given an alternative view? I did. I'll say it again. The military stormed the Presidential Palace and put him on a plane. As far as the Honduran constitution is concerned: the constitution has been modified about 20 times already. It shouldn't cause a military coup. Why didn't they arrest him? That's rule of law. What is not the rule of law is using military force against a President. Any President.

I do know that this administration has refused to extend recognition to the interim Honduran government.

Or any other administration around the world. Interim Honduran government? That's a bit of a stretch. The Congress in Honduras was told that the President had resigned. I guess he resigned after he was put on a plane by a military unit.

Maybe you, the administration, the United Nations and the European Union, like the prospect of more anti-American sentiment in our hemisphere.

No. That's why no one is recognizing the current government.


Just don’t cheapen the discussion by implying someone lied or someone is ill-informed when the facts do not meld with your view of how things should be.

Okay. I won't if you won't.

[phil]

Iraq - Tomorrow I'll focus my response on what I take to be your two main charges (based on your posts on TSP Talk): that the Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq as a means to manipulate the country into war, and that the Bush administration lied about a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. If there are any other charges you'd like me to address, feel free to let me know.

Actually, I think you have misappropriated what I said. Maybe you just ignored it. Examine the post. What you said was that the overwhelming evidence indicated that there were WMDs. I said that an alternative view was offered. Be careful.

You might want to examine the 9/11 report as a starting point.

[James48843]

back on topic..... good cartoons.


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/uc/20091012/largeimageta091011.gif

[Birchtree]

Honestly, who T F cares at this point. You have given me a wicked case of jock itch and I predict you will fade faster than you arrived. I've seen it happen over and over. Now, before you leave can you make any helpful comments regarding your investment style if you have one. TIA.

[phil]

Thanks for getting us back on topic, James.

We do get sidetracked from the issue. President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Period.
I like that much better than the other topics where we've gone, and the point is to remain on topic.

[coolhand]

back on topic..... good cartoons.


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/uc/20091012/largeimageta091011.gif


Good one! :laugh:

[tsptalk]

I know this is getting off topic, but many of you will be interested in this. This is my Uncle's biography. Enjoy the read and Semper Fi!
http://www.ctveterans.org/moph1/pagesbio/Chap1RichardTonucciBio.html

A big salute!

http://www.tsptalk.com/images/mb/101709a.gif

[Buffalo_Nickle]

What a True American Hero. Semper Fi ! RVN 68-69

[OBGibby]

It was a military coup. Period. You say I haven't given an alternative view? I did. I'll say it again. The military stormed the Presidential Palace and put him on a plane. As far as the Honduran constitution is concerned: the constitution has been modified about 20 times already. It shouldn't cause a military coup. Why didn't they arrest him? That's rule of law. What is not the rule of law is using military force against a President. Any President.



You say it was a military coup. I say the removal of Zelaya was legally carried out in accordance with Honduran law. As for the actual removal of Zelaya from the country, I never commented specifically in terms of making a judgement as to the legality of that action. It appears to be an illegal action to expatriate him. However, that is an issue totally separate from his removal from office. I can only surmise that the Honduran government kicked him out because he had the potential to incite violence.

In August 2009, the Law Library of Congress prepared a report on the removal of Zelaya. You might find their version does not square with your version of a "military coup." But then again, who cares? You've already decreed it was a military coup - "Period." Quick, somebody get me a stone tablet!

You can find the report here: http://schock.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf (http://schock.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf)

No more from me on the Honduran discussion.

[OBGibby]

...Actually, I think you have misappropriated what I said. Maybe you just ignored it. Examine the post. What you said was that the overwhelming evidence indicated that there were WMDs. I said that an alternative view was offered. Be careful.

You might want to examine the 9/11 report as a starting point.

“Actually,” this is what I said:

"...But let’s not forget that the vast majority of the U.S. intelligence community agreed with the intelligence presented by the Bush administration. Intelligence first developed and used by the previous administration. Let’s also not forget that every major and reputable intelligence agency around the world agreed with our assessments of Iraq’s WMD – the only differing points were not on the intelligence, but on the way to deal with Iraq (i.e., to invade or not to invade)..." (OBGibby Post #171 of “Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize”)

You, on the other hand, in Post #175 of “Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize,” stated:

"…Actually, no, the vast majority of the US intelligence community didn't agree. Yes, I do believe that some intelligence was created…"


Phil, maybe you should be the one to “be careful.”

At the time of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq there were 15 agencies responsible for gathering intelligence for the U.S. All 15 contributed and had a voice in the NIE; differing views were included in the report, as they always are in an NIE. In other words, the NIE is the collective conclusion of U.S. intelligence. But don’t just take my word for it. From the National Intelligence Council, their own description of the NIE, which they are responsible for producing: NIEs are the DNI's most authoritative written judgments concerning national security issues. They contain the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community regarding the likely course of future events. The NIC's goal is to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information—regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to US policy.

Let’s review the main points of that 2002 NIE on Iraq:



We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq’s WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad’s vigorous denial and deception efforts…
Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production…
If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon with several months to a year. Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009…
Although we have little specific information on Iraq’s CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents – much of it added in the last year…
We judge that all key aspects – R&D, production, and weaponization – of Iraq’s offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.
We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.
Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.
Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. Within three to six months these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.
Britain, Germany, Israel, Russia, France, etc., all shared our view that Iraq had WMD or retained the capability to quickly reconstitute production. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin explained his concerns to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003: "Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant. Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and Yperite. In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability."

The German Ambassador to the United States, Wolfgang Ischinger, said on NBC’s “Today” of February 26, 2003, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they still have—that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.”


You implied that U.S. intelligence was not in agreement as to WMD and Iraq. I’d say the 2002 NIE is hard to argue with. I also maintain that the world’s reputable intelligence services were of the same opinion we were.

Let’s do a short trip back in time, shall we? To a time that many of us remember well, but conveniently those on the Left all too often want to forget. Let’s go back to October 7, 2002, when then-CIA Director George Tenet released an unclassified letter addressed to the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (at the time, Bob Graham, D-FL), wherein Tenet summarized the intelligence reporting on Iraq’s relationship with al Qaeda. Some quotes from Tenet’s letter:



Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back a decade.
Credible information indicates Iraq and al-Qa’ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa’ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated Iraq has provided training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al’Qa’ida, suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorism will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
The 9/11 Commission Report, which you are so fond of referencing, stated there was no “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda. An assertion that appears to imply that someone in the Bush administration had claimed such a relationship had existed, when in fact I do not believe that was the case at all. When did President Bush or his administration make the assertion that Iraq and al Qaeda had an “operational” relationship?

The typical straw man tactic employed by the Left is that the Bush administration “sold” the Iraq war based on the “lie” that Iraq aided al-Qaeda in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks is nothing more than a myth. However much the opponents of President Bush and/or the Iraq war would love to believe that myth has merit, it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

[Show-me]

That's not the way Hillary told it. :suspicious:

[phil]

Citations? Anyway, though I dislike taking up everyone's time, I will respond.

There are 2 separate items that I use for this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

is a PBS documentary on what was happening in the inner workings of the intelligence community. Many, many people are interviewed.

The second one is:
http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_701675814/Documents_on_Iraq_and_WMD.html

which contains the summary of the NIE, in the expanded form.


Of particular note:

In making the case for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the administration of President George W. Bush argued that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and consequently represented a threat to the United States. The evidence came partly from the Central Intelligence Agency’s National Intelligence Estimate, drafted in October 2002 and declassified in July 2003. The documents below begin with excerpts from the CIA’s assessment, followed by the October 2003 congressional testimony of David Kay, leader of the Iraq Survey Group, a U.S. weapons inspection team that searched for Iraq’s alleged WMD after the war. In January 2004 Kay resigned, saying “we were all wrong, probably” about the existence of WMD in Iraq.

However, please note that tiny IRM got it right. They disagreed with the assumptions made by everyone else.

Britain, Germany, Israel, Russia, France, etc., all shared our view that Iraq had WMD or retained the capability to quickly reconstitute production.

Then why didn't Germany, France and Russia join us in our Iraq invasion?

You implied that U.S. intelligence was not in agreement as to WMD and Iraq. I’d say the 2002 NIE is hard to argue with. I also maintain that the world’s reputable intelligence services were of the same opinion we were.

Read INR's dissent. It is most revealing. On the PBS series, it is clear that raw intelligence was being stovepiped from the DOD's intelligence branch directly to the administration. Some was being leaked, then showing up the next day in the New York Times. Much of this was unvetted. Germany gave us Curveball, the Brits gave us Chalabi. They were both making things up, it seems.

I didn't include your citations for the NIE's. Instead of cherrypicking, let's take a look at everything in the NIE, particularly the dissenting voice that we would all like to ignore. After all, that's how we got into this, by not looking at all the intelligence, and vetting it.

Another source would be George Tenet's At the Center of the Storm. He resigned for personal reasons. Additionally, a lot of the top people resigned at the CIA right after he left. They took responsibility. A majority of the problem occured because of the infighting between the CIA and DOD. In the end, DOD set up an office to stovepipe raw intelligence to the administration. Yes, clearly the CIA got it wrong. They admitted it, at least on WMD.

The 9/11 Commission Report, which you are so fond of referencing, stated there was no “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda. An assertion that appears to imply that someone in the Bush administration had claimed such a relationship had existed, when in fact I do not believe that was the case at all. When did President Bush or his administration make the assertion that Iraq and al Qaeda had an “operational” relationship?

Again, examine the PBS video. It is most revealing. Examine the video clips of what everyone is saying, and draw your own conclusions. The 9/11 report states that there were no operational ties between Iraq and OBL. Are you saying this was politically motivated? It was a bipartisan commission.

The typical straw man tactic employed by the Left is that the Bush administration “sold” the Iraq war based on the “lie” that Iraq aided al-Qaeda in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks is nothing more than a myth. However much the opponents of President Bush and/or the Iraq war would love to believe that myth has merit, it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Particularly damning here is the Plame incident, where she was outed by the administration, since her husband was looking into the yellowcake issue. There was an indictment in the case. This might have sent a chilling message to anyone trying to even remotely vet the intelligence, don't you think? It's as if the administration said that they were going to make a case, and anyone who even tried to vet their intelligence would be punished. Typical straw man? I don't think so. There are several citations for this, of course. It's also a felony case.

I had thought all of this had been resolved previously, several years ago. I guess not.

[phil]

It is a military coup. I'm glad you agree. Let's see, you say his removal from the country is NOT related to his removal, then weakly say that he was removed for his potential to cause violence. That's really weird.

When the military invades the presidential palace, bundles the president on a plane and sends him out of the country, I and probably many many others would call that a military coup.

What would you call it? Enforced vacation of a leader? Is this a part of the due process of law? Thanks for the citation, but it clearly says that the Honduran authorities broke the law when they put him on the plane.


You say it was a military coup. I say the removal of Zelaya was legally carried out in accordance with Honduran law. As for the actual removal of Zelaya from the country, I never commented specifically in terms of making a judgement as to the legality of that action. It appears to be an illegal action to expatriate him. However, that is an issue totally separate from his removal from office. I can only surmise that the Honduran government kicked him out because he had the potential to incite violence.

In August 2009, the Law Library of Congress prepared a report on the removal of Zelaya. You might find their version does not square with your version of a "military coup." But then again, who cares? You've already decreed it was a military coup - "Period." Quick, somebody get me a stone tablet!

You can find the report here: http://schock.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf (http://schock.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf)

No more from me on the Honduran discussion.

[OBGibby]

It is a military coup. I'm glad you agree. Let's see, you say his removal from the country is NOT related to his removal, then weakly say that he was removed for his potential to cause violence. That's really weird.

When the military invades the presidential palace, bundles the president on a plane and sends him out of the country, I and probably many many others would call that a military coup.

What would you call it? Enforced vacation of a leader? Is this a part of the due process of law? Thanks for the citation, but it clearly says that the Honduran authorities broke the law when they put him on the plane.

As much as it pains me to go back on my pledge to not discuss Honduras anymore, your blatant disregard of civil discourse compels me to respond.

Please show me where I "agreed" with your assessment that Zelaya was ousted as a result of a military coup. You can't, because I did nothing of the sort. Typical grousing from the Left. They can't win an argument on merit, so they go back and spread the disinformation. Repeat it often enough the rabble accepts it as the gospel. Nothing new - I should have expected it.

Perhaps you should read my comments more closely. I did not say the removal of Zelaya from office and his removal from Honduras were unrelated. I said Zelaya was legally removed from office; quite a different issue than his forced expatriation. However, once I did address the issue of his expatriation I did the honorable thing and recognized that his expatriation appeared illegal.

As for your characterization as "weak" of my assumption that Zelaya was forcibly exiled because of the potential for him to rouse his supporters towards violent ends - it was just that - an assumption. Plainly presented that way. It's unfortunate you can't seem to realize that.

Quite frankly, Phil, I don't give a rats ass if you or others would call Zelaya's removal from office a military coup. The fact of the matter is that Zelaya was legally removed from office by the Hondurans.

[phil]

I assume you meant here that you were agreeing.

Quick, somebody get me a stone tablet! Or was this simple sarcasm? Blatant disregard of civil discourse could cut both ways, couldn't it?

As I've mentioned before, repeatedly, putting the president on a plane after the military stormed the presidential palace probably shows that it was a coup. What else should I call it? Forcible presidential vacation?

Now, wikipedia calls it a "constitutional crises" but their own article is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras_coup

Try typing in "Honduras coup" on any search engine. It reveals several hundred results, with lots of information. Thanks for the citation in your previous post, by the way, but it shows that the actions of the interim government were illegal.

Forcible exile of a sitting head of state because there could be trouble doesn't pass the smell test in any setting.

Grousing from the Left? My friend, I see myself here as being on the extreme far right.

The facts of the case don't bear out the reality. I don't think that every country in the OAS could be wrong here. Not a single one has recognized the interim government as legal.

Finally, if you don't care what I think, that's fine by me. I just call 'em like I see them. If he was removed from office legally as you maintain, why hasn't any country around the world recognized the fact?


As much as it pains me to go back on my pledge to not discuss Honduras anymore, your blatant disregard of civil discourse compels me to respond.

Please show me where I "agreed" with your assessment that Zelaya was ousted as a result of a military coup. You can't, because I did nothing of the sort. Typical grousing from the Left. They can't win an argument on merit, so they go back and spread the disinformation. Repeat it often enough the rabble accepts it as the gospel. Nothing new - I should have expected it.

Perhaps you should read my comments more closely. I did not say the removal of Zelaya from office and his removal from Honduras were unrelated. I said Zelaya was legally removed from office; quite a different issue than his forced expatriation. However, once I did address the issue of his expatriation I did the honorable thing and recognized that his expatriation appeared illegal.

As for your characterization as "weak" of my assumption that Zelaya was forcibly exiled because of the potential for him to rouse his supporters towards violent ends - it was just that - an assumption. Plainly presented that way. It's unfortunate you can't seem to realize that.

Quite frankly, Phil, I don't give a rats ass if you or others would call Zelaya's removal from office a military coup. The fact of the matter is that Zelaya was legally removed from office by the Hondurans.

[OBGibby]

I assume you meant here that you were agreeing.

Quick, somebody get me a stone tablet! Or was this simple sarcasm? Blatant disregard of civil discourse could cut both ways, couldn't it?

As I've mentioned before, repeatedly, putting the president on a plane after the military stormed the presidential palace probably shows that it was a coup. What else should I call it? Forcible presidential vacation?

Now, wikipedia calls it a "constitutional crises" but their own article is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras_coup

Try typing in "Honduras coup" on any search engine. It reveals several hundred results, with lots of information. Thanks for the citation in your previous post, by the way, but it shows that the actions of the interim government were illegal.

Forcible exile of a sitting head of state because there could be trouble doesn't pass the smell test in any setting.

Grousing from the Left? My friend, I see myself here as being on the extreme far right.

The facts of the case don't bear out the reality. I don't think that every country in the OAS could be wrong here. Not a single one has recognized the interim government as legal.

Finally, if you don't care what I think, that's fine by me. I just call 'em like I see them. If he was removed from office legally as you maintain, why hasn't any country around the world recognized the fact?


First off, in my book civil discourse can include obvious sarcasm. If you are unable to discern what is and is not sarcasm, I can’t help you. Your outright distortions are what I called out. Either you intentionally distorted my comments or you didn’t even have the common courtesy to read what I wrote. (Just like your comment about the citation showing the actions of the interim government being illegal. The report you cite notes that the expatriation of Zelaya was illegal, not his actual removal from office.)

During this entire debate you’ve held to the notion that Zelaya was removed via a military coup. I have maintained he was legally removed. A military coup implies that the military, acting on their own accord, instigated and executed the coup. Not the case with Zelaya’s removal. The Honduran military acted on the legal orders of the Honduran Supreme Court and the other organs of the Honduran national government to remove Zelaya from office. This was not a military coup sprung from the hands of some disgruntled generals.

As I’ve stated before, I don’t pretend to know why other countries haven’t extended the Honduran interim government diplomatic recognition. Perhaps the world is waiting for the results of the scheduled election on November 29.

I would tend to agree with you that forcing the expatriation of an individual because he could foment violence is, on the face of it, troubling. However, I don’t pretend to have my pulse on the daily heartbeat of Honduras. Perhaps Zelaya’s exile was appropriate, perhaps not. But that has never been the crux of my debate with you.

I don’t know how to make this any simpler for you to understand, so I will stop trying. I could care less what your political leanings are or what you believe, but when you post things that are not based in reality, I’m going to continue to throw out the bullshit flag.

[phil]

Well, it appears we also have disagreements about what is, and is not, civil discourse. Me, I'm just not passionate about either side in this conflict. I hope I can say the same of you.

A good definition:Kenneth J. Gergen (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Kenneth_J._Gergen) describes civil discourse as "the language of dispassionate objectivity".

The simple truth is that if Zelaya were legally removed, then some nation would have recognized that as a fact. None has. You've said you don't understand why. Let's leave it at that. Let the legal people in other countries make that determination.

Here's the definition of a coup:

The sudden, forcible, and illegal removal of a government, usually by the military or some part thereof, often precipitated by more immediate grievances bearing directly on the military. The coup may be the prelude to some form of military rule, with a greater or lesser degree of civilian collaboration, perhaps requiring the collaboration of the civil service and members of the professional and middle classes, or involving the co-optation of sympathetic politicians and parties and of occupational groups, such as peasant and union leaders. While the focus of the coup is on the remedy of specific or immediate grievances, the outcome is unlikely to involve wide-ranging changes in the social order. More often a coup is seen as an effective means of pre-empting revolutionary change from below by imposing some measure of ‘reform’ from above. However, repeated military intervention has seldom contributed to a resolution of long-term social and economic problems.

This is the language of dispassionate objectivity. As far as definitions go, the Honduran coup fits perfectly. Is this clear enough?

[Show-me]

I have nothing intelligent to add but this.

6995

[Show-me]

I have really been waiting to use that one. heehee

[phil]

So much for dispassionate objectivity in the pursuit of rational discourse.

[OBGibby]

Well, it appears we also have disagreements about what is, and is not, civil discourse. Me, I'm just not passionate about either side in this conflict. I hope I can say the same of you.

A good definition:Kenneth J. Gergen (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Kenneth_J._Gergen) describes civil discourse as "the language of dispassionate objectivity".

The simple truth is that if Zelaya were legally removed, then some nation would have recognized that as a fact. None has. You've said you don't understand why. Let's leave it at that. Let the legal people in other countries make that determination.

Here's the definition of a coup:

The sudden, forcible, and illegal removal of a government, usually by the military or some part thereof, often precipitated by more immediate grievances bearing directly on the military. The coup may be the prelude to some form of military rule, with a greater or lesser degree of civilian collaboration, perhaps requiring the collaboration of the civil service and members of the professional and middle classes, or involving the co-optation of sympathetic politicians and parties and of occupational groups, such as peasant and union leaders. While the focus of the coup is on the remedy of specific or immediate grievances, the outcome is unlikely to involve wide-ranging changes in the social order. More often a coup is seen as an effective means of pre-empting revolutionary change from below by imposing some measure of ‘reform’ from above. However, repeated military intervention has seldom contributed to a resolution of long-term social and economic problems.

This is the language of dispassionate objectivity. As far as definitions go, the Honduran coup fits perfectly. Is this clear enough?

Still stoking the civil discourse embers? I guess I shouldn't wait for your explanation of your blatant distortion of my comments. I figured as much...Still beating that illegal removal drum, huh? You sure picked a lousy definition of a coup to support your reasoning. Oh, but I forgot. You still think that Zelaya's very removal from office (regardless of how he was removed) was illegal. Never mind that the Honduran constitution, Honduran Supreme Court, Honduran National Congress, all acted according to their own laws! Facts be damned! Good luck with that...

[phil]

So much for rational discourse. Here's something else for you.

Although many on the far right are crying out that Zelaya himself was trying to subvert the Honduran constitution-- which he wasn't -- it is certainly clear that Micheletti and his oligarchs could have followed a legal procedure had that been the case. The Honduran constitution allows for impeachment, as well as a precise legal structure in which an official can be officially charged and allowed to defend himself. Micheletti and General Romeo Vasquez, by contrast, with the support of the Honduran Supreme Court and most of Congress, completely subverted the rule of law and occupied the country militarily.

See. Rational discourse is much better.

I don't really see how I've distorted what you said. I just offer an alternative view on the matter. It's not my definition, but the definition from the political dictionary found on answers.com

Here's another definition from dictionary.com:

A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coup), does not involve a mass uprising. Rather, in the typical coup, a small group of politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, and proclaims itself in power

So it's not MY definition. Perhaps you should bring it up with them. Maybe we should just put a disclaimer on their definition "except Honduras in 2009". See OBGibby or something.


Still stoking the civil discourse embers? I guess I shouldn't wait for your explanation of your blatant distortion of my comments. I figured as much...Still beating that illegal removal drum, huh? You sure picked a lousy definition of a coup to support your reasoning. Oh, but I forgot. You still think that Zelaya's very removal from office (regardless of how he was removed) was illegal. Never mind that the Honduran constitution, Honduran Supreme Court, Honduran National Congress, all acted according to their own laws! Facts be damned! Good luck with that...

[OBGibby]

Citations? Anyway, though I dislike taking up everyone's time, I will respond.

There are 2 separate items that I use for this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

is a PBS documentary on what was happening in the inner workings of the intelligence community. Many, many people are interviewed.

The second one is:
http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_701675814/Documents_on_Iraq_and_WMD.html

which contains the summary of the NIE, in the expanded form.


Of particular note:

In making the case for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the administration of President George W. Bush argued that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and consequently represented a threat to the United States. The evidence came partly from the Central Intelligence Agency’s National Intelligence Estimate, drafted in October 2002 and declassified in July 2003. The documents below begin with excerpts from the CIA’s assessment, followed by the October 2003 congressional testimony of David Kay, leader of the Iraq Survey Group, a U.S. weapons inspection team that searched for Iraq’s alleged WMD after the war. In January 2004 Kay resigned, saying “we were all wrong, probably” about the existence of WMD in Iraq.

However, please note that tiny IRM got it right. They disagreed with the assumptions made by everyone else.

Britain, Germany, Israel, Russia, France, etc., all shared our view that Iraq had WMD or retained the capability to quickly reconstitute production.

Then why didn't Germany, France and Russia join us in our Iraq invasion?

You implied that U.S. intelligence was not in agreement as to WMD and Iraq. I’d say the 2002 NIE is hard to argue with. I also maintain that the world’s reputable intelligence services were of the same opinion we were.

Read INR's dissent. It is most revealing. On the PBS series, it is clear that raw intelligence was being stovepiped from the DOD's intelligence branch directly to the administration. Some was being leaked, then showing up the next day in the New York Times. Much of this was unvetted. Germany gave us Curveball, the Brits gave us Chalabi. They were both making things up, it seems.

I didn't include your citations for the NIE's. Instead of cherrypicking, let's take a look at everything in the NIE, particularly the dissenting voice that we would all like to ignore. After all, that's how we got into this, by not looking at all the intelligence, and vetting it.

Another source would be George Tenet's At the Center of the Storm. He resigned for personal reasons. Additionally, a lot of the top people resigned at the CIA right after he left. They took responsibility. A majority of the problem occured because of the infighting between the CIA and DOD. In the end, DOD set up an office to stovepipe raw intelligence to the administration. Yes, clearly the CIA got it wrong. They admitted it, at least on WMD.

The 9/11 Commission Report, which you are so fond of referencing, stated there was no “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda. An assertion that appears to imply that someone in the Bush administration had claimed such a relationship had existed, when in fact I do not believe that was the case at all. When did President Bush or his administration make the assertion that Iraq and al Qaeda had an “operational” relationship?

Again, examine the PBS video. It is most revealing. Examine the video clips of what everyone is saying, and draw your own conclusions. The 9/11 report states that there were no operational ties between Iraq and OBL. Are you saying this was politically motivated? It was a bipartisan commission.

The typical straw man tactic employed by the Left is that the Bush administration “sold” the Iraq war based on the “lie” that Iraq aided al-Qaeda in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks is nothing more than a myth. However much the opponents of President Bush and/or the Iraq war would love to believe that myth has merit, it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Particularly damning here is the Plame incident, where she was outed by the administration, since her husband was looking into the yellowcake issue. There was an indictment in the case. This might have sent a chilling message to anyone trying to even remotely vet the intelligence, don't you think? It's as if the administration said that they were going to make a case, and anyone who even tried to vet their intelligence would be punished. Typical straw man? I don't think so. There are several citations for this, of course. It's also a felony case.

I had thought all of this had been resolved previously, several years ago. I guess not.

Phil,
I’ve watched all of the Frontline shows, and have several from season’s 26, 27 and 28 on my iPod. I really hope you haven’t based your entire foundation of knowledge on this subject based upon a Frontline episode.

You can access the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (unclassified key judgments) from the Director of National Intelligence’s official government website: http://www.dni.gov/nic/special_keyjudgements.html

Feel free to peruse it at your leisure. I'm sure you'll find the "dissent" from the State Department's Intelligence and Research (INR) to be a little less than what you were hoping for. Funny thing is, you've presented this notion that INR (and possibly others) were all crying foul about the intelligence. The facts just don't support that conclusion. For example, while INR did dissent about Iraq's nuclear goals, INR did state "Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities.” Oh, and that big dissent from INR about chem/bio you might have been wishing for, it didn't happen either. INR agreed with the rest of the NIE’s assessment of Iraq’s biological and chemical programs.

“Then why didn't Germany, France and Russia join us in our Iraq invasion?” Well, let’s examine that one, shall we. The last time I heard, Germany is basically prohibited by their constitution from using military force unless it’s a matter of self-defense. You’ll notice that even though they are members of NATO, they rarely take part in combat operations. Why didn’t France and Russia join in? You’ll have to ask them, Phil. But most folks, I would hazard a guess, know damn well why they didn’t.

Ah, yes. The old “stove piping” of intelligence, straight from the Pentagon to the White House. Classic stuff that has a half-live of 1,000 years apparently. You may want to read “War and Decision” by Douglas J. Feith, the man at the center of that controversy that seems to come up from time to time. Feith’s book is easily the best documented work on Iraq yet.

“The 9/11 report states that there were no operational ties between Iraq and OBL. Are you saying this was politically motivated?” To answer your question – no, I was not. I was simply wondering why the 9/11 Commission Report saw fit to add within their report that Iraq and al Qaeda held no “collaborative operational relationship,” apparently implying as if someone within the Bush administration had claimed such.


The Plame Affair – nothing warms the hearts of the “we were lied to” crowd like Joe Wilson’s crusade! For pete’s sake, you throw so much malarkey around it’s hard to keep up.

I, too, have read George Tenet’s book (along with dozens of other books on Iraq, al Qaeda, Afghanistan, terrorism, etc). Apart from some factually inaccurate accounts (though the self-serving intentions are to be expected in an autobiography), it was entertaining.

See my next post regarding Tenet's letter to Senator Graham on the links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

[OBGibby]

Here’s his letter to Senator Graham regarding the links between Iraq and al Qaeda. You can find in the Congressional Record, 107th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. 148, No. 13 (October 9, 2002), p. S10154.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, late last night in a colloquy between myself and the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from Oregon read into the RECORD portions of a letter addressed to Senator
GRAHAM, chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, signed by
George Tenet. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the RECORD today, followed by a statement issued by Mr. Tenet bearing on his interpretation and intent in writing that letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Washington, DC, October 7, 2002.
Hon. BOB GRAHAM,
Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your letter of 4 October 2002, we have made unclassified material available to further the Senate’s forthcoming open debate on a Joint Resolution concerning Iraq.
As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance between your need for unfettered debate and our need to protect sources and
methods. We have also been mindful of a shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our intelligence capabilities and
shortcoming, or with insight into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The salience of such concerns is only heightened by the possibility for hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.
These are some of the reasons why we did not include our classified judgments on Saddam’s decisionmaking regarding the use
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in our recent unclassified paper on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. Viewing your request
with those concerns in mind, however, we can declassify the following from the paragraphs you requested. Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States. Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism
might involve conventional means, as with Iraq’s unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or CBW. Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact
vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify the following dialogue.

Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn’t feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?
Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack—let me put a time
frame on it—in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.
Senator LEVIN: Now if he did initiate an attack
you’ve . . . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . .But what about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what’s the likelihood in response to our attack
that he would use chemical or biological weapons?
Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.
In the above dialogue, the witness’s qualifications—‘‘
in the foreseeable future, given
the conditions we understand now’’—were intended
to underscore that the likelihood of
Saddam using WMD for blackmail, deterrence,
or otherwise grows as his arsenal
builds. Moreover, if Saddam used WMD, it
would disprove his repeated denials that he
has such weapons.
Regarding Senator Bayh’s question of Iraqi
links to al-Qa’ida, Senators could draw from
the following points for unclassified discussions:
Our understanding of the relationship between
Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is
based on sources of varying reliability. Some
of the information we have received comes
from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts
between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back
a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq
and al-Qa’ida have discussed safe haven and
reciprocal non-aggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we
have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of
al-Qa’ida members, including some that have
been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida
leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could
help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting
also stated that Iraq has provided
training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of
poisons and gases and making conventional
bombs.
Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians,
coupled with growing indications
of a relationship with al-Qa’ida, suggest that
Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase,
even absent US military action.
Sincerely,
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN
(For George J. Tenet, Director).
STATEMENT BY DCI GEORGE TENET, October 8,
2002
There is no inconsistency between our view
of Saddam’s growing threat and the view as
expressed by the President in his speech. Although
we think the chances of Saddam initiating
a WMD attack at this moment are
low—in part because it would constitute an
admission that he possesses WMD—there is
no question that the likelihood of Saddam
using WMD against the United States or our
allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence,
or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues
to build. His past use of WMD against
civilian and military targets shows that he
produces those weapons to use not just to
deter.

[phil]

I see. My previous post still stands, however.

[phil]

The Plame Affair – nothing warms the hearts of the “we were lied to” crowd like Joe Wilson’s crusade! For pete’s sake, you throw so much malarkey around it’s hard to keep up.

So....what's the answer here? The answer is that Libby was indicted. Malarkey? Was Libby convicted by some kangaroo court? Look at the facts.

I’ve watched all of the Frontline shows, and have several from season’s 26, 27 and 28 on my iPod. I really hope you haven’t based your entire foundation of knowledge on this subject based upon a Frontline episode.

Then you can see from the conversations that these people in the intelligence community were just plain wrong about WMD. They resigned. They took responsibility. They interviewed everyone, and their comments are clear. Frontline did a great job of talking to everyone involved.....except Tenet and the VP. They both declined. Nope, I don't base it entirely on the PBS documentary. There's a lot more out there, but having the principals in the community, side by side with public statements, is priceless.

You can access the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (unclassified key judgments) from the Director of National Intelligence’s official government website: http://www.dni.gov/nic/special_keyjudgements.html

It clearly shows the dissent from INR about Iraq having nuclear capability. That much is valid. There was no evidence of nukes......because there were no nukes. An intelligence failure caused by bureaucratic infighting between DOD and the CIA. Total cost: about a trillion dollars. Stovepiping intelligence directly to the administration, without any vetting of what they were getting......and openly discussing this raw intelligence with the media. I think that Tenet probably regrets not resigning then. In any case, we attacked Iraq because the administration wanted to attack. That was fairly clear to many people.

Maybe a better answer was to continue to act diplomatically and other things outside direct invasion. It would've saved the taxpayers a lot of money. The Iraqis would've saved money on the flowers that they were going to greet our troops with. Maybe the intelligence community could have done a better job, rather than start an ill-conceived foreign adventure.

“Then why didn't Germany, France and Russia join us in our Iraq invasion?” Well, let’s examine that one, shall we. The last time I heard, Germany is basically prohibited by their constitution from using military force unless it’s a matter of self-defense.

Really? Then why did Germany and France send troops to Afghanistan? Please do examine this one.

Ah, yes. The old “stove piping” of intelligence, straight from the Pentagon to the White House. Classic stuff that has a half-live of 1,000 years apparently. You may want to read “War and Decision” by Douglas J. Feith, the man at the center of that controversy that seems to come up from time to time. Feith’s book is easily the best documented work on Iraq yet.

Feith was a political appointee who came with pre-conceived notions about Iraq, particularly from the INC. In the end, Rumsfeld and Feith finally gave way to Gates and the realists. I'm aware of his book, but I place little credence in it. After spending over 500 billion dollars in Iraq, and being no closer to winning, I have good reason. Additionally, he tried to install Chalabi. That was another failure of epic proportions. For some reason, I get the impression that this was the war that the Pentagon wanted to fight, not the war that was necessary to fight. In the end, Iraq was coming apart under their administration. That's why Gates (former CIA) came to take over. Iraq was a failure. It took about 4 years and multiple failures in Iraq to come to that conclusion. I still don't know why. To understand more fully about why the Iraqi adventure was wrong, I would refer you to SecDef Cheney after the first gulf war. He gave a perfectly good explanation as to why we weren't trying to take out SH. It made a lot of sense then, and more sense now. Maybe "listen to your own advice" is the best advice.

“The 9/11 report states that there were no operational ties between Iraq and OBL. Are you saying this was politically motivated?” To answer your question – no, I was not. I was simply wondering why the 9/11 Commission Report saw fit to add within their report that Iraq and al Qaeda held no “collaborative operational relationship,” apparently implying as if someone within the Bush administration had claimed such.

Did you even look at the video clips from the pre-Iraq war period? The President and VP were bringing in to public discussion "facts" that were not true at all. They weren't vetted. If anyone tried to show otherwise (Plame), they were attacked. That sent a chilling message, didn't it? The commission was bipartisan. Leak the false information to the press, then quote the information you've leaked as "proof" just doesn't cut it when the information you're getting is from every source in the world. Some of this was coming directly from OSP, an intelligence agency created to compete with the other agencies. A trillion dollar disaster ensued.


I, too, have read George Tenet’s book (along with dozens of other books on Iraq, al Qaeda, Afghanistan, terrorism, etc). Apart from some factually inaccurate accounts (though the self-serving intentions are to be expected in an autobiography), it was entertaining.

See my next post regarding Tenet's letter to Senator Graham on the links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Again, Tenet and the intelligence people took responsibility. They resigned in 2004. This probably paved the way for Rumsfeld's exit. He left about 2 1/2 years after Tenet. Way too late. He was replaced by Gates. What does this tell us?

[phil]

INR didn't get it completely right, but their dissent was closer to the truth than anyone else.

Why? Because these people have usually spent a great deal of time living in the regions. They are people who also don't have a political axe to grind, and just look at the facts.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.rood.html

is a story about the INR. They are the smallest, tiniest intelligence office in all of the different branches of government, but they don't bend to any political whim from either side. Even Secretary Powell went with the other agencies, much to his chagrin......now.

They're also a favorite target of the neocons, for obvious reasons. They just won't play ball. Even if it means more money.
Dispassionate discourse.

[Show-me]

I thought I heard France, Germany, and Russia had huge business ties to Iraq and Irag owed them all big bucks. They did not got to war in order to preserve their business deals.

[Birchtree]

I see a suicide bomber killed 5 senior Revolutionary Guard Corps officers of Iran. I've been waiting for something like this to transpire and I hope to see more casualies from the Iranians side. These creeps are responsible for many American soldier deaths with their IEDs.

[Buster]

So who do you think will win the Super Bowl this year?

My money is on the Colts.:)

[Viva_La_Migra]

So who do you think will win the Super Bowl this year?

My money is on the Colts.:)
I'd like it to be the Chargers, but the Saints look damn good this year!

[tsptalk]

So who do you think will win the Super Bowl this year?

My money is on the Colts.:)
You can't rule out Obama. :D

[Viva_La_Migra]

You can't rule out Obama. :D
Good one! I wonder if he'll call himself when he wins the World Series.:D

[tsptalk]

The World Series is on Fox, so he probably won't show up for that one. :)

[grandma]

You can't rule out Obama. :D
Maybe they could ask him to do the `first quarterback pass' (like the first throw-out in baseball) and have his Czars as his defense -
I wonder how that would play out? We already know he's competing for The Heisman...

[Steadygain]

Very Cool CH..I salute your uncle with the utmost respect..

too bad other Marines didn't take their duty with such honor and pride, even after decommissioning.

Buster -- I've pretty much known them all -- all Major Branches

As a Whole -- the USMC are by far the most outstanding !!

The FIRST to GO ---- the LAST to LEAVE

There are always a few that 'didn't stack up' but on the whole the other Marines did take their duty with a very similar honor and pride. THAT - MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE - IS WHAT MAKES THEM MARINES.

[Viva_La_Migra]

the world series is on fox, so he probably won't show up for that one. :)
now that's funny!

[Viva_La_Migra]

back on topic..... good cartoons.


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/uc/20091012/largeimageta091011.gif

I must admit, that's a funny one. Maybe soon they'll show a cartoon of the NBC peacock on an auction block and the money going to Rush to pay for the slander lawsuit. One can only hope...

[Frixxxx]

I must admit, that's a funny one. Maybe soon they'll show a cartoon of the NBC peacock on an auction block and the money going to Rush to pay for the slander lawsuit. One can only hope...
Two slanders do not make a libel!!!!!:cool:

[Buster]

I must admit, that's a funny one. Maybe soon they'll show a cartoon of the NBC peacock on an auction block and the money going to Rush to pay for the slander lawsuit. One can only hope...

Actually, you can thank Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson for propagating the lie about Rush....Then the NFL with jerk knee reaction to any bad image that may result from the fallout....regardless of the truth.

[Viva_La_Migra]

Actually, you can thank Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson for propagating the lie about Rush....Then the NFL with jerk knee reaction to any bad image that may result from the fallout....regardless of the truth.
Thanks Al and Jessie!

[Viva_La_Migra]

Two slanders do not make a libel!!!!!:cool:
True, but they could be LIABLE for the slander!:cool:

[CountryBoy]

Sorry to change the subject from the bigotted shake down artists, but I'm thinking that bHo was given the Nobel prize because of the upcoming vote in Copenhagen this December to discuss a new Kyoto Treaty. Maybe they used that to buy our vote. It makes since, thats the way Chicago politics are done.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8313672.stm

"The United Nations (UN) summit will aim to establish a deal to replace the 1997 Kyoto treaty as its targets for reducing emissions only apply to a small number of countries and expire in 2012."

I wouldn't bet on us voting no on this scambola. The fix is in and it only cost the UN $1 million and a plaque to cripple our economy if we sign on to this. China, India and Russia have all said they won't because they don't want to cripple their economies and without them reducing "global warming gases" :rolleyes:, the treaty is worthless.

What better way than this to cripple us and produce a crisis they (Rahim and his fellow thugs) can take advantage of.

Something to chew on.

CB

[Frixxxx]

What better way than this to cripple us and produce a crisis they (Rahim and his fellow thugs) can take advantage of.

Something to chew on.

CB
He'll go, but he'll just say,"Whatever you guys wanna do is fine by me!!!":(

[Steadygain]

CB,
Unfortunately we're kind of taking apples and oranges.. :rolleyes:

With Climate Control --- Sticking with strictly the Top Scientists around the world that know the most about 'Climate Control' and the inevitable changes to our Planet.

The Very BEST CASE senario -- even if we could 'globally' stop where we are right now and add no more damage --- it that things ARE going to get a whole lot worse and IT IS TOO LATE to change what is happening.

LESSON to the HUMAN RACE --- The Planet will only take so much -- you can do everything possible to destroy the Planet and it's atmosphere and eventually the PLANET will respond in a very destructive manner.

As for the other --- POLITICAL -- Human Race --- The ones in charge can only take the General Population so far in Debt -- with self seeking policies that ruin the Population at Large before it's too late to change what has happened.

We (as much as I hate to say this) are likely at a point in history where things will get way worse as time goes on.

Sorry CB -- Cause you've done everything to sound the alarms but we simply can not stop what is already in process....

[CountryBoy]

He'll go, but he'll just say,"Whatever you guys wanna do is fine by me!!!":(

Sad but true, he has now grasp on how the ecomonmy runs and the energy it takes to run it.

CB

[CountryBoy]

CB,
Unfortunately we're kind of taking apples and oranges.. :rolleyes:

With Climate Control --- Sticking with strictly the Top Scientists around the world that know the most about 'Climate Control' and the inevitable changes to our Planet.

The Very BEST CASE senario -- even if we could 'globally' stop where we are right now and add no more damage --- it that things ARE going to get a whole lot worse and IT IS TOO LATE to change what is happening.

LESSON to the HUMAN RACE --- The Planet will only take so much -- you can do everything possible to destroy the Planet and it's atmosphere and eventually the PLANET will respond in a very destructive manner.

As for the other --- POLITICAL -- Human Race --- The ones in charge can only take the General Population so far in Debt -- with self seeking policies that ruin the Population at Large before it's too late to change what has happened.

We (as much as I hate to say this) are likely at a point in history where things will get way worse as time goes on.

Sorry CB -- Cause you've done everything to sound the alarms but we simply can not stop what is already in process....

Steady,

Apples and oranges? I'm talking about these so called "Society of Scientists" that were calling for a new ice age in the 70's and gee... I don't know how far off were these same "so called experts" in hitting their prediction of hurricanes this year? They can't predict the weather a week in advance, much less decades.

Sun Spot activity is a better prediction on what our weather is going to be. I'm all for cleaning up the particulates we put into the air, but man has an awful big ego if they think they can change the weather patterns.

All this is going to do is line Algore's pockets, since he is very heavily invested in these green stocks, yet the damn hypocrite has one of the biggest so called "carbon footprints" in the world. The big greenie weinies in the world pushing this scam are the biggest abusers. Just check out the google owners and their private 747 they fly themselves around.

From ice age to meltdown in 40 years:blink:, this doesn't pass the smell test at all.

CB

[Steadygain]

Steady,

They can't predict the weather a week in advance, much less decades. :nuts:

CB last Friday I got a little frayed from a some stuff - kind of rubbed a lot of nerves raw - so that's simply lingering and came out with this post.

I've studied the Planet in many ways -- personally and on a very deep level -- so I'm speaking from personal research. I know the extent we are destroying the Rain Forrests, the Red Woods, and so many other things. I know how incredibly fast we are destroying the Ocean and the atmosphere... how quickly many species are extinct and becoming extinct.

I know that good 'ole George' -- our last (bless his heart) - how he personally did his best to 'seal' the 'real facts' and make it illegal to make the truth known -- to bring it to the public.

I know it's shocking that a President could use his power in such a manner -- but he's a Politician before anything else.

Sun Spot activity is a better prediction on what our weather is going to be. I'm all for cleaning up the particulates we put into the air, but man has an awful big ego if they think they can change the weather patterns.

Solar Flares are every bit a concern for our civilization. CB, I am not even remoting implying that 'Man' can overcome Nature. I am saying that the Health of our Planet -- and NATURE as we know it -- is largely based on the Health of our Planet and the 'Deligate Systems' by which our Planet has functioned over the ages. The Ocean and Atmosphere are critical conponents -- as is the Land. WV is shaving down the Mountains and filling the Valleys ... and that's just one of millions of things that are causing 'irreparable damage'.

All this is going to do is line Algore's pockets

CB

:D:D;) -- If it were up to me --- we wouldn't even be allowed to put his name on the MB. I have absolultely nothing to do with him and in no way and I lining his pockets.

He is simply a Politican - A Piece of Garbage -- that has waited until the Earth has reached a 'Critical Point' and then uses that to 'make a name for himself'.

Just like Sarah holding her baby and saying 'I won't let the President kill you'

Never will you see me Plugging for any of them -- not until something huge happens and all of a sudden we start seeing guys like you stepping up.

Anyway -- time will tell CB --- If the INFO I've read about is right:

In regards to the Condition of Planet Earth
In regards to the OIL SUPPLY - and it's current useage and the inevitable future requirements....
In regards to the Energy Demands of the Global Population
In regards to the 'Water Supply' ....

We are undoubtedly living in the very last of 'The Good Days'