'Obama Believers', the theological aspects of the Obama campaign....

[John317]

good old harry! I liked him. Admired his humility and ordinariness....

When he left office, he had the lowest rating in popularity of any president, ever. Yet today he is always rated by historians among the top 10 presidents. You're right he loved being a common man. The day after leaving the White House, he was out picking up the newspaper on his front lawn and walking down the street and saying hi to common folk just like an ordinary neighbor. He got on a bus and everyone embarrassed him by standing up. He told everyone to sit down and stop making him feel silly.

I'm reading some books about him, including two that are really interviews of him. He was a lot different than most people think. Most people, for instance, would not think of him as being particularly interested in the Bible or Christianity, but he certainly was. He read the Bible all the time and knew it quite well. He spoke sometimes in church. (When he spoke there, he didn't use cuss words, either.)

[Taylor]

Hi Taylor. Neither you or I got one of them Tee shirts. I don't reckon it's worth getting all worked up about, unless the woman holding it is a racist.

I am not worked up at you or anyone on this forum. I am just amazed that such attitudes portraying people as "monkeys" persist in America as I definately see it as racist and I am not african american so I can only imagine how it might make them feel. I think every american should stand for equality as that is what makes our country great.

[Dr. Shane]

I think we have two good candidates for President and so far both are taking the high road. I agree that Obama played the race card and that he needs to avoid doing that again. However I also understand why Obama might be a bit paranoid regarding the race issue.

I think both candidates have their advantages and disadvantages. Obama will do good things that McCain won't but he will also do some bad things that McCain wouldn't. The same can be said about McCain. For the person that isn't already pledged to voting either Democrat or Republican and wants to honestly evaluate both candidates, there is a lot to consider.

I do not buy into this idea that one of these guys is a villain and the other is a hero. I am sure both are good guys.

[D. Allan]

How about if we put together a test that would give us reliable facts about a candidates judgment, maturity, intelligence, stability and common sense? What would be ideal is if such a test would be able to give us all Abraham Lincolns, Thomas Jeffersons or George Washingtons.

Or Obamas? Does that sound right?

That is what we are hoping for, that Obama will turn out to be a member of that class, but we've been fooled before!

We don't have any villians running (but who knows?) what we want is the 'best' one for protecting the future of the U.S.A. and of the entire earth. A lot of work needs to be done first in our own country.

It would be good for us to have a black president - if he does a good job. If after 4 or 8 yrs. eveyone hates him - would it be a huge detriment to black-white relations? - or have we passed beyond such prejudices? Merely hypothetical! Anyway, I think if elected he will do a great job, and make us love America more than ever.

/dAb

[Taylor]

I think we have two good candidates for President and so far both are taking the high road. I agree that Obama played the race card and that he needs to avoid doing that again. However I also understand why Obama might be a bit paranoid regarding the race issue.

I think both candidates have their advantages and disadvantages. Obama will do good things that McCain won't but he will also do some bad things that McCain wouldn't. The same can be said about McCain. For the person that isn't already pledged to voting either Democrat or Republican and wants to honestly evaluate both candidates, there is a lot to consider.

I do not buy into this idea that one of these guys is a villain and the other is a hero. I am sure both are good guys.

I agree.

[John317]

I can go for that. If elected, I will wish him all the very best.

[Tom Wetmore]

You should contact the woman in the picture and tell her she is a racist...

I assume you think that is an ironically clever idea since she is black?!?!

Do you know her name? Do you know where she is from? Do you know the context of the picture? Do you know why she was holding the T-shirt?

Here is the caption that goes with the photo:

Quote:

Pam Lindley, Marietta, Ga., paces the sidewalk in front of Mulligans Food and Spirits on in Marietta, Ga., on Tuesday afternoon May 13, 2008, holding a T-shirt, to which she objects, that the tavern is selling. The shirt has the likeness of the cartoon monkey Curious George holding a banana over the phrase "Obama in '08." (AP photo by Thinh D. Nguyen / May 13, 2008)

In case you care to be further informed, here is a Chicago Tribune article that used the photo: Curious George...

Tom

[phkrause]

Isn't it interesting that without all the info how we can think up all kinds of different ideas or reasons for anything and everything. I guess the picture of the woman holding up the t-shirt is a prime example. At first I would have thought or should I say, it looked that she was making fun of Obama. But than you posted the actual picture with caption and it changes the precetion of the picture. Thanks for the post and link to the article.

pkrause

[jasd]

QR frame:

Inasmuch as the major media has, for these past years, established the parameters of Simianesque vis-à-vis Dubya, one can only draw the inference that the Curious George cartoon depiction alludes to the I-quotient (or should I, rather, say, the Uh-quotient) of the candidate – instead of a misconstruance of a more sensitive nature.

Sheesh, does the whining never stop? Whatever happened to ‘you can do anything, but don't step on my blue suede shoes’?

If the shirt costs no more than a buck and a half and is size XXL – send me a dozen – dink, the silk screen!

Life’s too short.

Too rough? Too rude? Too crude? Oy.

[D. Allan]

Life's too short to drink plonk

Life's too short to be rude

While passing don't honk ----- honk

A life time's too long to be crude.

/dAb (a reformed simian - (i hope)) (in manners possibly....it's nada tobe dude 'bout my Uhhh-qohchient)

[jasd]

That's good. I like it.

[carolaa]

Quote:

Bush's goal was to get into Iraq from his very first day in office, months before 9/11. He and Cheney lied, deceived, manipulated evidence, etc. to make it happen.

This kind of mantra tells me a person is not well informed probably due to getting their news from too few of sources.

It was Al Gore Jr. that lead Bill Clinton's charge for war against Iraq which resulted in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Bill Clinton stated, at the time, that Saddam would be mistaken if he believed the US would not invade unless they had UN approval.

Removing Saddam from power in Iraq was US policy long before 9/11 and long before Bush was elected President. We can see how the Bush-hating crowd can twist the facts. Did Bush want to get rid of Saddam Hussein before 9/11? Yes! Yes! & Yes! It was government policy.

Now since Al Gore Jr. was part of the Clinton Administration and was the principle spokesman that pushed through Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 it only makes sense conclude that had he been elected President he would have removed Saddam given the same information Bush had. President Putin of Russia called Bush and told Bush Saddam was planning to attack the US on US soil using terrorists. Does anyone believe Gore would have just ignored that?

I don't see much difference between what I said and what you said - except for the lying, deceiving, manipulating part. And no, I don't think Gore would have done that. Could be wrong, but I don't think so. If Gore would have taken Putin's word for it, at least he would have been honest with the American people and Congress about it.

Bush was planning to go after Saddam before 9/11 and he used 9/11 as an excuse to go in. He and Cheney lied, deceived, and manipulated facts to do so. He never once said that we're going after Saddam because it's our policy. Why didn't he do that? It would have been a simple matter, I would think. What was the point of all the lies connecting 9/11 with Saddam?

[Dr. Shane]

I have seen no evidence of lies and manipulation done by the Bush Administration. That is just a mantra of the anti-Bush crowd. Most of them are unwilling to listen to reason. The congressmen and senators sitting on their respective intelligence committees had all the same information that the Bush Administration did. It would have been impossible for the Administration to lie to Congress without those serving on these committees to know about it. So if, (follow this closely) Bush lied to Congress, ALL THE CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS ON THEIR RESPECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES WERE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY. And remember, Senators John Kerry and Hilary Clinton were on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Quote:

Bush was planning to go after Saddam before 9/11 and he used 9/11 as an excuse to go in... He never once said that we're going after Saddam because it's our policy.

The Authorization to Use Force against Iraq listed several reasons for the action. Among those reasons it specifically stated "Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235)"

If we don't get our news from various sources we are going to be jumping on all kinds of idealogical band wagons. The Bush-lied-band-wagon is simply not true. We had an intelligence failure. The Administration and Congress both had bad intelligence.

[Dr. Shane]

How did Bush "tie" Iraq to 9/11? Let's take a look at the Authorization To Use Force Against Iraq.

Quote:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Point #1: al Qaida members are known to be in Iraq. THIS WAS TRUE. ABU AL-ZARQAWI FLED AFGHANISTAN AND WAS IN IRAQ. NO LIE.

Point #2: Iraq aided and harbored other international terrorists. THIS WAS TRUE. IRAQ AIDED AND HARBORED MEMBERS OF HAMAS. NO LIE.

Point #3: 9/11 underscored the threat of WMDs in the hands of terrorists. THIS WAS TRUE. 9/11 EMPHASIZED THE THREAT OF TERROSITS. NO LIE.

I don't see any lies there.

[carolaa]

How did Bush "tie" Iraq to 9/11? Let's take a look at the Authorization To Use Force Against Iraq.

Quote:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Point #1: al Qaida members are known to be in Iraq. THIS WAS TRUE. ABU AL-ZARQAWI FLED AFGHANISTAN AND WAS IN IRAQ. NO LIE.

Point #2: Iraq aided and harbored other international terrorists. THIS WAS TRUE. IRAQ AIDED AND HARBORED MEMBERS OF HAMAS. NO LIE.

Point #3: 9/11 underscored the threat of WMDs in the hands of terrorists. THIS WAS TRUE. 9/11 EMPHASIZED THE THREAT OF TERROSITS. NO LIE.

I don't see any lies there.

What I said was lies, deceit, and manipulation. So one person was in Iraq and that's a reason to attack? OK, perhaps not a lie, but a monstrous exaggeration, which is pretty close to a lie.

I thought Hamas was pretty much only in Palestine. How is that related to 9/11? Again, looks like a monstrous exaggeration to me.

Point 3 I can't even take seriously. I mean, duh. And it is tying WMDs to Iraq, which was a lie.

It was ALL twisted to give the public a false scenario and distract us from the real enemy.

I'm not sure where you think I should be getting my news from. I get most of my news from Yahoo and MSN, which get their news from several sources such as AP, Reuters, Christian Science Monitor, NPR, and more. And I do check other sources as well, as you know.

[Dr. Shane]

Actually no lies and no exaggeration in that act of Congress. Abu al Zarqawi wasn't in Iraq alone and Saddam wasn't going after him to turn him over to the US. Iraq was planning to attack the US using terrorists and WMDs just as President Putin had warned President Bush. We found the tapes after we invaded Iraq confirming it. But that is besides the point. Regardless if Saddam had WMDs or not the point is that most people believed he did - including Sentaros Kerry and Clinton.

Again, if there were lies and manipulation - Senators Kerry and Clinton were part of the conspiracy.

[Tom Wetmore]

You've got reduce your intake of that Red Kool-Aid Shane...

[Dr. Shane]

Actually it looks like the anti-Bush crowd is drinking the "red kool-aid". They just regurgitate what they hear ideologues saying without producing any evidence. That is not me. I went straight to the the acts passed by Congress. I read what was passed. I don't see any lies there. So it seems the anti-Bush folks are the ones drinking the kool-aid - AND THEY CAN'T ADMIT WHEN THEY ARE WRONG.

[Neil D]

How did Bush "tie" Iraq to 9/11? Let's take a look at the Authorization To Use Force Against Iraq.

[snip]

Point #1: al Qaida members are known to be in Iraq. THIS WAS TRUE. ABU AL-ZARQAWI FLED AFGHANISTAN AND WAS IN IRAQ. NO LIE.

Point #2: Iraq aided and harbored other international terrorists. THIS WAS TRUE. IRAQ AIDED AND HARBORED MEMBERS OF HAMAS. NO LIE.

Point #3: 9/11 underscored the threat of WMDs in the hands of terrorists. THIS WAS TRUE. 9/11 EMPHASIZED THE THREAT OF TERROSITS. NO LIE.

I don't see any lies there.

But I see a LOT of problems and a lot of spin here, Shane..

For example, Point one- a little problem with your time line is that ABU AL-ZARQAWI, when he fled afganistan, was a NOBODY. Sure, he ran a miltant camp train boys, but that got over ran rather quickly. He came into the radar only after he fled to Iraq and after we invaded it. granted, your statement isn't a lie...but it is a distortion of the facts.

Point 2- So what if Iraq aided and harbored memembers of Hamas...So does Saudia Arabia, but we haven't invaded that country yet either. In fact, there are international known men and women who are considered terrorist in many countries. Still, that is NO reason to INVADE Iraq.

Point 3=.....what is that point? So what? we know that there are terrorists all over the world. And yes, they do pose a problem. And we have a lot of options available to us. And an all out war is a very poor and messy option and leaves repercussions for many generations. It is a poor choice....

And yes, the american people were lied to when it came to the Iraqi war. There were problems over there, that the Clinton administration was not able to clear up and yes, the Clintons used some poor choices and didn't have the balls to kill Sadaam when they had a chance. But Sadaam did a lot of concessions before the war, in order to stop the invasion. It was our leader's insistance that he had WMDs and that he destroy them,that got us into the war. He kept saying that he didn't have any. How do you prove a negative, Shane? He invited UN inspectors in, and let them into his palace when they demanded to see what was in there. The inspectors insisted to thier leaders....they don't have them...and we didn't listen...

[Dr. Shane]

For example, Point one ...your statement isn't a lie...but it is a distortion of the facts.

Point 2- So what if Iraq aided and harbored memembers of Hamas...

Point 3=.....what is that point? So what? we know that there are terrorists all over the world.

I quoted the document passed by Congress. No lies. That is my point. There simply isn't any evidence that the nation was lied to. We had bad intelligence. Congress believed it and over 30 other nations believed it. President Bush wasn't lying or manipulating anything. We had bad intelligence as did the rest of the world.

The question then is 'why did we have bad intelligence?' The answer is that we had an enemy seeking to mislead us and others. Saddam was saying one thing publicly and then sending out "dissenters" who were saying something else. He was bluffing and the world called his bluff. He lost.

[Neil D]

Not true.

There were hot spots in the world. Iraq was one of them. But what they did, did not merit an invasion. If so, the world would have, on principle, been incinerated long ago. Cooler heads prevailed during those times.

Perhaps you remember that there were over 1 million people who rallied against the IMPENDING war with Iraq. And many were IN THE US. Cooler heads were attempting to prevail. Not all in congress voted for the war, and those that did, are now pretty much out of office, with the exception of a current presidential cannidate.

What you posted was unadulterated spin of events to support your conservative republican reaction to an unjust and unfair war. Sure, we had bad intelligence, but we also had GOOD intelligence. And it should have prevailed, but it didn't. We had inspectors PLEADING with the US for the location, asking for the whereabouts of WMDS that we "KNEW" was there. Our leadership was set on war without justification. It was good business...

[Dr. Shane]

The is some SPIN going on here but it is not me that is spinning. In 1998 the Clinton Administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and George Tennant was the head of the CIA. In 2002 the Bush Administration signed the Auhorization to Use Force in Iraq and George Tennant was still the head of the CIA. The invasion of Iraq was a result of bad intelligence and George Tennant was the head of the CIA. That is not SPIN. The common thread is George Tennant. Why can't the anti-Bush crowd admit that George Tennant bares the blame for the mistake more than any other individual?

In an interview Hillary Clinton stated that before voting for the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq she consulted cabinet members from her husbands administration and they assured her that Saddam had WMDs and that he was a threat to the US.

There were people that opposed the war with Iraq but they were, for the most part, peace activists that would oppose any war for any reason. The majority of Congress favored the Iraqi invasion. That is not SPIN, it is an accurate account of history.

[Dr. Shane]

Upon leaving Iraq Hans Blix, the lead weapons inspector, said that if the US found WMDs it would be because they (the US) would have more access to the country. Before the invasion he said Iraq was not being forthcoming. Did the inspectors want more time? Yes, undeniably. Were they convinced Saddam didn't have WMDs? No, they were unsure if he had WMDs. That is not SPIN, it is an accurate account of history.

[Neil D]

Upon leaving Iraq Hans Blix, the lead weapons inspector, said that if the US found WMDs it would be because they (the US) would have more access to the country. Before the invasion he said Iraq was not being forthcoming. Did the inspectors want more time? Yes, undeniably. Were they convinced Saddam didn't have WMDs? No, they were unsure if he had WMDs. That is not SPIN, it is an accurate account of history.

I am not sure where you got that, but this is the quote that Hans Blix stated just a couple of months after the US invasion...

April 22 2003

The UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, condemns British and American handling of the hunt for any possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Blix attacks 'shaky' intelligence on weapons

And to quote Blix in this article-

Blix attacks 'shaky' intelligence on weapons Gary Younge in New York, Richard Norton-Taylor and Patrick Wintour The Guardian, Wednesday April 23 2003 Article history

The UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, yesterday condemned the prewar efforts of British and American intelligence to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and insisted that, without UN verification, their postwar inspections lacked credibility.

"We may not be the only ones in the world who have credibility, but I do think we have credibility for being objective and independent," he said.

Mr Blix, who is due to retire from his post in June, briefed the UN security council on his readiness to send inspection teams back to Iraq.

Earlier, in a BBC radio interview, he said the coalition had appeared to use "shaky" evidence, including forged documents, as a pretext for making war on Iraq.

Afterwards he said it was "conspicuous" that coalition forces had so far failed to find "anything relevant" in their search for proscribed weapons.

The White House, which accused Mr Blix of hindering its drive for international support for the war, is reluctant to see him return to Iraq and has already sent its own teams to search for illegal weapons. It is is recruiting former UN inspectors from the US, Britain and Australia to verify any discoveries.

Articles BEFORE the war started include these-

March 17 2003

With China, France and Russia opposed to an attack, the US and UK abandon hope of gaining security council support for a second resolution authorising war on Iraq. They withdraw the resolution, blaming the French veto threat.

The leader of the Commons, Robin Cook, resigns in protest at the government's decision to back a war without 'international authority nor domestic support'.

A full month before war, this came out from Hans Blix-

February 14 2003

Hans Blix gives his latest report on Iraqi compliance with resolution 1441 to the UN security council, surprising the members with a more upbeat assessment of the pace of Iraq's disarmament than had been expected. The report, which lists examples of Iraqi compliance with the inspectors, thus failing to provide any clear casus belli, throws into confusion British and American plans to draft a new resolution mandating military action. It severely embarrasses Colin Powell by questioning the US intelligence on Iraqi munitions that he presented to the council earlier in the month.

A case for war? Yes, say US and Britain. No, say the majority

And 6 weeks before the war, this appeared in the newspapers-

Downing St admits blunder on Iraq dossierPlagiarism row casts shadow over No 10's case against SaddamMichael White, Ewen MacAskill and Richard Norton-Taylor The Guardian, Saturday February 8 2003 Article historyDowning Street yesterday apologised for its failure to acknowledge that much of its latest dossier on Iraq was lifted from academic sources, as the affair threatened to further undermine confidence in the government's case for disarming Saddam Hussein.

MPs and anti-war groups were quick to protest that other features of Whitehall's information campaign are suspect at a time when MI6 and other intelligence agencies are privately complaining at the way No 10 has been over-egging intelligence material on Iraq.

It emerged yesterday that the dossier issued last week - later found to include a plagiarised section written by an American PhD student - was compiled by mid-level officials in Alastair Campbell's Downing Street communications department with only cursory approval from intelligence or even Foreign Office sources.

Though it now appears to have been a journalistic cut and paste job rather than high-grade intelligence analysis, the dossier ended up being cited approvingly on worldwide TV by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, when he addressed the UN security council on Wednesday.

Downing Street yesterday toughed it out, insisting that what mattered was that the facts contained in the document were "solid" and helped make the case Tony Blair rammed home on BBC Newsnight. But the middle section of the dossier, which describes the feared Iraqi intelligence network, was taken, much of it verbatim, from the research of Dr Ibrahim al-Marashi without his knowledge or permission.

"In retrospect we should have acknowledged [this]. The fact that we used some of his work does not throw into question the accuracy of the document as a whole, as he himself acknowledged on Newsnight last night, where he said that in his opinion the document overall was accurate," the No 10 spokesman conceded. "We all have lessons to learn," he added. The four officials originally named on the website version of the 19-page dossier include Alison Blackshaw, Mr Campbell's senior assistant, and Murtaza Khan, described as a news editor on the busy Downing Street website.

Spin, you say? it appears from these newspaper accounts that some people have selective memories and some picked and chose which intelligence reports were valid and which were not.

[Dr. Shane]

No selective memory on my part. Hans Blix was always against the war. No doubt about that. Russia and France were being bribed by Saddam and China was doing profitable business with him so it is no surprise that they were against the war. My point was this: Hans Blix was never convinced that Saddam didn't have WMDs. Even though the UN had over seven years of active inspections in Iraq, he still wanted more time.

After the invasion we found over 500 pre-1991 WMDs which Hans Blix was suppose to have verified had been destroyed. We also discovered the oil-for-food scandal and Saddam's plan to resume his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted - including his nuclear program.

The fact is if we hadn't invaded...

• Sanctions would have likely been lifted
• Saddam would have resumed his WMD program
• Both Iraq and Iran may have become nuclear powers

Hindsight is 20/20. If we had known then what we had known now we could have handled things differently. But that is a big "if". Congress did the responsible thing and there were no lies and deception. There was bad intelligence and that was in large part caused by Saddam Hussein himself.