US News
Obama slams Bush for false attack with appeasement remarks
May 15, 2008, 16:39 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Increased risk of terrorist attacks, security chief says
- Obama pledges to review Guantanamo cases
- US presidential candidates to honour 9/11 victims
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- 2. Whitney Houston to be buried Saturday in small family funeral
- 3. Obama, Democrats get Republican raspberries for Valentine's Day
- 4. Obama calls for quick passage of payroll tax holiday extension
- 5. Report: Director Oliver Stone's son converts to Islam
Older Talkback
page: 1
The Los Angeles Times, in an article dated April 27, 2008 reveals
that Obama received a $8,000 a month retainer from Robert Blackwell
for his technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange,
for a total of $112,000. The following exerpts are from the LA times
article:
“A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.”
“With support from Obama, other state officials and an Obama aide who went to work part time for Killerspin, the company eventually obtained $320,000 in state grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments.”
“But Obama portrays himself as a lawmaker dedicated to transparency and sensitive to even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
“Killerspin’s owner, Blackwell, was a political supporter and friend as well. Both men lived on Chicago’s South Side. Blackwell, a savvy and successful entrepreneur, was one of the first donors to Obama’s early campaigns, including the state senator’s failed bid for a congressional seat in 2000. In the presidential race he is credited on Obama’s website with committing to raise $100,000 to $200,000 for Obama’s campaign.”
Obama and his supporters have downplayed the legal retainer and grant
request. The MSM is barely touching this story. Even the LA Times,
that broke this story, downplays the significance of Dan Shomon and
refers to him as an Obama aide. Dan Shomon was much more than just
an Obama aide. Consider the following facts about Shomon and his
relation with Obama and other politicians and businessmen.
Don't pay any attention to him, he doesn't understand what he's saying - his speech writer does it for him.
Appeaser is the exact word to describe obama's mentality toward islamist terrorism and the monsters who sponsor it.
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last”. Winston Churchill
Bush can't think of any solution that doesn't include increased funding for his buddies at Haliburton, Blackwater, General Dynamics, Martin Marietta et al...
Quote from story:
'George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists
Are you kidding--he held the party to announce his running at the home of a Weatherman --A Terrorest--who bombed US gov buildings , banks,Military bases attempts etc.
People --WAKE UP AND REALIZE WHO YOUR DEALING WITH IN THIS MAN
The U.S. Congress closed down the Bushies business in the 1940's for breaking the 'Trading With The Enemy' Act. Bush's grandfather, Prescott, is on the record saying Adolph Hitler was one of the greatest men ever born and Jews were... not.
Name all the Jews in Bush's cabinet?
There are none. He hates 'em!
Crybaby Says What?
What’s that high-pitched, furious whining sound I keep hearing?
Oh, I see. It’s just Barack Obama complaining again. This time he’s throwing a tantrum about a boilerplate anti-terrorism statement by President Bush that doesn’t even mention him by name.
ABC News’ Ed O’Keefe Reports: The Obama campaign is taking issue with a comment President Bush made while speaking to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s statehood.
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” the President said to the country’s legislative body, “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: “It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”
ABC News’ White House troops point out that the President has made similar statements in the past and Bush did not specifically cite Obama by name, though he did reference Sen. William Borah’s immortal reaction upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland and begun World War II, something he has not highlighted in the past.
“(The President) has said similar things before,” a White House official told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz. “But it is in reference to a number of people, think Carter, others who have engaged in this or suggested it.”
White House spokesperson Dana Perino was asked if Bush’s line was a slam against Obama and she insisted, “It is not.”
“I understand that when you are running for office sometimes you think the world revolves around you. That is not always true and it is not true in this case,” Perino added.
------------------------------------------------
Why on earth would Obama think that someone was equating him with terrorists?
Oh yeah, the Weather Underground.
The ENDORSEMENT from Hamas.
Giving money and accepting it from Rashid Khalidi, a palestinian shill for Hamas...
Cozying up with Farakahn and wright who went to pay homage to Libya's terrorist supporting dictator Momar Kadafi.
Google: 'Adolph Hitler' +'one of the greatest men ever born...
Zero results...
Why lie? Especially when Bush isn't even running?
What's false about it?
That does not make Mr. Bush wrong, either.
...Obama was on TV last night saying we don't have enough arabic interpreters in Afghanistan....???
I guess no one told him they do not really have any arabic speaking peoples there....?
A GW moment from mister silver tongue....
Why don't you Google yourself? Google is not the fount of all information. Try reading a book, instead of being a lazy S.O.B. and keyboarding, finding nothing and then calling somebody a liar. It makes you out to be just another lame idiot.
'Why don't you Google yourself? '
Obviously I did you complete moron.
Abridged:
A few weeks ago, Ahmed Yousef, a top political adviser for terrorist group Hamas, said in an interview on WABC radio in New York that the group supports Obama. “We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef explained. Hamas, which seized control of the Palestinian Gaza last June, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.
The Obama campaign has claimed to be “flattered” by the fact that the Hamas endorsement compared their candidate to Kennedy. Obama himself told the Atlantic magazine that he understands why Hamas would support him. “It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, ‘This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush.’” Obama concluded that the perception is “legitimate” as long as they understand he will be “unyielding” in his support for Israel.
So what have Barack’s Hamas friends been up to lately? Well, on the very day President Bush arrived in Israel to mark the nation’s 60th anniversary and to renew his push for a Palestinian state as part of elusive Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Barack’s buddies fired a rocket into an Israeli shopping mall. The mall was devastated, and 14 innocent civilians were seriously injured.
The Hamas endorsement of Obama is even more interesting when viewed against the backdrop of the group’s aggressive promotion of violence among young Palestinians in Gaza and in the context of a recent Al-Jazeera story about how young Palestinians in Gaza have banded together to call American voters at random asking them to vote for Obama. Rockets by night, Obama phone banks by day?...
pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-isnt-obama-bothered-by-terrorist-support
He is right about bush's grandparents
httpwww.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
You Googled yourself? My what an egotistical little parasite you are. I bet you found nothing. Which is exactly what you are, a zero.
You sir are posting things we can read on our own. Why do you hate Obama so much, your guys have not done such a good job. You support a man that has flipped-flopped on numerous items, the latest is how long we are going to be in Iraq?
I guess you are blinded by the fact that you believe in country more than common sense?
I want to know why would anyone put anything into anything GWB says. He has shown that he is ignorant to facts, does not know how to run a company let along a country, gave up golf for the troops?, and has yet to lead anyone anywhere.
He is so easy to ignore, but I guess he will give us something to hate until the end.
Barack Obama casts a big tent to enlist support from a wide range of supporters. He appeals to so many people because people are able to see in him what they want to see. Will this inclusive stance allow Mr. Obama to achieve success on the issues that progressive Americans care about? There are two concerns. First, Mr Obama has a tendency to bend rather than stick to principles (and get tagged with a label). After a nuclear waste leak in Illinois, he introduced tough legislation to regulate the industry, but then he accepted campaign contributions from the power plant owner, Excelon and allowed the legislation to be diluted to the point that it never passed. He also compromised on NAFTA, joining Bush to support the entry of Peru without human rights and labor protections.
The 'blank canvas' strategy also allows the opposition to define Mr. Obama the way they want to just as it allows his supporters to see their own desires in him. Today's Bush speech is just a hint at the kind of attack Mr. Obama would face as a general election candidate. Does Mr. Obama advocate appeasement? He has said that he would like to meet personally with Cesar Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he has never defined what it is he would say to them. The result is that Bush's hints at appeasement are immediately interpreted as an allusion to Obama. By contrast, Hillary Clinton's views on almost every issue have been known for years making it impossible to attack her through vague allusions.
Oregonian's have an important choice to make. Will they support Mr. Obama as the pundits are all predicting, or will they step back and say 'Wait a minute.' If Mr. Obama is the Democratic candidate, there is a real risk that he will lead the party to a defeat of historic proportions akin to to McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis, the other Democratic candidates who won Iowa but failed to win New Hampshire. Running against war hero McCain, Obama will not carry Florida, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia or Missouri and there is a good chance that he will lose Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Jersey as well. Oregenonians who truly want to advance a progressive agenda and end 8 years of Republican administration need to vote for Hillary Clinton, a woman who will win and who will not take no for an answer on issues of the environment, fair trade and equal rights.
(The argument goes that Bush only owned ONE share of UBC - but that ONE share was valued at $1,500,000 at the time)
www.counterpunch.org/donnelly09072006.html
Even though Hitler had declared war on the US, it was still legal for UBC to conduct finances for the Nazis. But, after Pearl Harbor that outrage finally changed. After another ten months of Bush/Harriman/UBC work for the Nazis; in November 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, all of the Harriman business interests were seized by the government, including UBC.
The assets were held by the government for the duration of the war and then quickly returned. Prescott Bush' interest in UBC consisted of One Share--worth $1,500,000 ($19 million in today's dollars) at the time UBC was disbanded in 1951. (The Harriman family garnered $4 billion!) It was the money used to start the Bush Family Texas oil empire.
Another Harriman subsidiary through Silesian Holding Co.; Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation saw the Harriman-Bush group owning one-third of a complex of steel making, coal-mining, and zinc-mining activities in Germany and Poland. The other two-thirds were owned by Wehrwirtschaftsführer (Military Economy Leader) Friedrich Flick. Silesian Holding Company's president was George Walker and its sole directors were Prescott Bush and Averill Harriman.
Silesian Steel used slave labor from Auschwitz (even before the concentration camp was built there) in its coal, iron and zinc mining operations. At Nuremberg, Flick was sentenced to seven years for Silesian's role in building up the Nazi war machine. Harriman, Bush and Walker were never charged.
June 14, 1940, nine months after the Nazis conquered Poland, the IG Farben Company opened an Auschwitz factory and slave labor camp in occupied Poland, to produce artificial rubber and gasoline from coal. This was done in a partnership with Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company (EXXON).
The millions made off the labor of hundreds of thousands of Nazi victims were inherited by William S. Farish III, grandson of William S. Farish, the head of the IG/Standard cartel. Farish III is George H.W. Bush's best friend and the person who took over Bush's assets and managed them in a blind trust after Bush was elected vice-president.
'You sir are posting things we can read on our own.'
Like you can read.
'You support a man that has flipped-flopped on numerous items, the latest is how long we are going to be in Iraq?'
So he set a timetable? Like I said, as if you could read.
'I guess you are blinded by the fact that you believe in country more than common sense?'
Do you ever tire of being wrong?
'I want to know why would anyone put anything into anything GWB says.'
George Bush didn't even mention Barack Obama. Barack Obama simply heard the word 'appeaser' and presumed he was talking about him.
History on Chamberlain and appeasement
How Bush Sr. failed to depose Saddam 1991
And Prescott Bush and the Nazis from 'counterpunch'
Thanks for non sequitur spam from an encyclopedia and a leftest tract from counterpunch. Ol man Kennedy actually DID do business with the Nazis, the only thing you have on Prescott bush is that he owned shares UBC, a publicly traded company that did not own but did business with ANOTHER company that did business with a THIRD company that did business in Germany before they declared war on the USA.
'Harriman, Bush and Walker were never charged. '
Neither were Kennedy, Roosevelt, Cordell Hull and Frances Perkins... All of whom owned pre-war shares in German companies.
Obama's Diplomatic Partner: 'The Hidden Imam Manages All the Affairs of the World'
Barack Obama wants to sit down and have tea and discuss the issues (using his amazing diplo-fu) with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It’s all about hope! and change! and waffles!
I hope they have plenty of extra syrup if/when they meet, because here’s the mini-Hitler himself, explaining that “the Hidden Imam manages all the affairs of the world.”
Diplomacy is the only answer, obviously.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 'Some people see only the external aspect of the enemy, and not its ulterior motives. The people who came to occupy Iraq – it seemed as if all they wanted was to take over the region and its oil. But when you peel off the outer layer, you see that their analysis is different. They have realized that something is about to happen in the region. The hand of God is about to emerge and eradicate the injustice in the world. They discuss this among themselves. Look how much attention they have given it. Some people believe the Hidden Imam is living his life somewhere, without any concern for the problems of humanity. If this were the case, there would be no existence at all. Everything would be in chaos. The Hidden Imam manages all the affairs of the world.'
Littlegreenfootballs.com via www.memritv.org/clip/en/1768.htm
This evil little man needs to be appeased? Glorified? Locked up and medicated is more like it.
'Like you can read.'
Infantile response, what are you 9 years old?
'So he set a timetable? Like I said, as if you could read.'
Like I said (speaking of not being able to read) he is flip-flopping. Where did I say anything about 'setting a timetable'? Need meds?
'Do you ever tire of being wrong?'
Maybe I would tire if I ever was. Don't know that feeling, but you should.
(Since he cannot deal with reading all of that information, here's a synopsis small enough for his mind to grasp - watch him complain about the source, or some other excuse)
www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11539
The September 11 attacks created an entirely new strategic context for engagement with Iran. The evening of 9-11, Flynt Leverett, a career CIA analyst who was then at the State Department as a counter-terrorism expert, and a small group of officials met with Powell. It was the beginning of work on a diplomatic strategy in support of the U.S. effort to destroy the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the al-Qaeda network it had harbored. The main aim was to gain the cooperation of states that were considered sponsors of terrorism.
'The United States was about to mount a global war on terrorism with complete legitimacy from the United Nations,' recalls Leverett, 'and these states didn't want to get on the downside of it.' Within weeks, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Sudan all approached the United States through various channels to offer their help in the fight against al-Qaeda. 'The Iranians said we don't like al-Qaeda any better than you, and we have assets in Afghanistan that could be useful', Leverett recalls.
It was the beginning of a period of extraordinary strategic cooperation between Iran and the United States. As America began preparing for the military operation in Afghanistan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ryan Crocker held a series of secret meetings with Iranian officials in Geneva. In those meetings, Iran offered search-and-rescue help, humanitarian assistance, and even advice on which targets to bomb in Afghanistan, according to one former administration official. The Iranians, who had been working for years with the main anti-Taliban coalition, the Northern Alliance, also advised the Americans about how to negotiate the major ethnic and political fault lines in the country.
(In this link, the Times offers a link to their redacted story, but also many links to the original details from other sources. Flynt Leverett co-authored the linked article below.)
www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22precede.html
'Linked within is the redacted version of a draft Op-Ed article we wrote for The Times, as blacked out by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Publication Review Board after the White House intervened in the normal prepublication review process and demanded substantial deletions. Agency officials told us that they had concluded on their own that the original draft included no classified material, but that they had to bow to the White House.
Indeed, the deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material. These passages go into aspects of American-Iranian relations during the Bush administration’s first term that have been publicly discussed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; a former State Department policy planning director, Richard Haass; and a former special envoy to Afghanistan, James Dobbins.'
'Like I said (speaking of not being able to read) he is flip-flopping. Where did I say anything about 'setting a timetable'? '
If he is not setting a timetable he is not flippflopping.
explain to me why ANYONE would bother to type these long comments which no one in their right mind would bother to read or have already read elsewhere? My god, don't they have a life?
What Obama actually said is HERE, HERE IS THE VIDEO:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w_k
No nuance, no wiggle room, just flat out agreeing to meet with Ahmadinejad or whatever other grubby little terrorist monster wants to destroy us for 'negotiations'. Be it Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela... This naive child will 'negotiate' with them without 'preconditions'.
IT EVEN SAYS IT ON HIS WEBSITE:
'Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.'
He has also said he would negotiate with Hezbollah. (Again, without preconditions) Hezbollah is the terrorist organization sponsored by Iran that has killed more Americans before 9/11 then any other terrorist organization.
Even in the snippet that you chose:
Moderator:'You had said in a previous CNN debate that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, among others....'
SEN. 'OBAMA: That's correct'....
'
He also recalled President Ronald Reagan excoriating Soviet leaders publicly while negotiating with them privately '
Gorbachev didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the map every other week or believe the world was being run by the hidden fricking imam.
Obama is a dangerous appeaser who will legitimize these terrorist thugs and REWARD their inhuman behavior bu giving them what they want: Legitimacy on the world stage. He is a dangerous neophyte that will invite more terrorism on the USA.
RE: explain to me why ANYONE would bother to type these long comments which no one in their right mind would bother to read or have already read elsewhere? My god, don't they have a life?
==================
If you know how to source the material, getting a post up here takes less than 2 minutes, content and all. The original stuff gets written just about as quickly.
If the American people would learn to READ and LEARN, and not be deceived by the bullcrappers, they'd have impeached Bush years ago.
The same reason Carter stopped, the same reason Reagan didn't, the same reason Bush sr didn't, the same reason Clinton didn't.... They are the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world and they have killed more Americans with terrorism before 9/11 then anyone else has.
Since 1979,Iranians or Iranian funded and controlled terrorist groups have; invaded the US embassy and held our diplomatic staff for 444 days, took American journalists and a British minister hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley, bombed the US embassy in Lebanon killing 17 Americans, bombed the US barracks Beirut which killed 241 Americans on a peacekeeping mission, bombed the Khobar Towers killing 19 Americans, hijacked an aircraft and killed Robert Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac, bombed a Jewish center in Argentina, killing 85, their proxy Hezbollah has started several conflicts with Israel, including the one last summer which left hundreds dead. They still have a bounty on the head of Salmon Rushdie for writing a book that they didn’t like, they have provided the Shiite death squads in Iraq with training and material as well as the Sunni death squads that go after the Shiites with the objective of creating as much bloodshed in Iraq as passable. They have also been supplying shaped charges and shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles to kill coalition troops. They Chant 'death to America' on a daily basis in their schools and Mosques, they continually threaten to wipe Israel off the map, they have mined the Strait of Hormuz, they publicly lynch girls for being 'disobedient', they publicly lynch boys for being homosexual, they publicly lash women for the crime of being raped, they stone women to death for infidelity, they censor their news, They beat a Canadian journalist to death because she wrote unflattering stories, they murder political dissidents, invented the suicide bomber, kidnapped British sailors and held them hostage, kidnapping american aid workers and holding them hostage...ect, ect....
The author of these looooong drawn out bursts of propaganda is an iranian who desperately wants the USA to capitulate in Iraq in order to give power to the mullahs and thugs who make daily life a nightmare for the country that he cowardly escaped from and now plays apologist for.
Iran is a country that STONES people to death, in 2008... And this creep wants to help the mullahs solidify their power over the people they oppress.
In addition to their crimes against the USA, Lebbanon, Israel and the west, this is what they do to their own people:
www.liveleak.com/view?i=aea_1185836331
www.liveleak.com/view?i=271_1189517695
www.liveleak.com/view?i=518_1190245078
Take a look at what you and Obama want to legitimize. Seriously, register and sit through it. This is what you want to help.
'White House censorship of the facts on Iran'
They are trying to get an atomic bomb to destroy the enemy that they were raised to hate from birth, and probably that enemy's defenders. They are ruled by someone who believes that he is being guided by a 12 year old child who has been locked in a well for 1600years... They have defined themselves as our enemy since 1979 and have been acting like it to the best of their abilities. Take a look, Iranian, at what they do in Lebanon... in Sadr city, in Argentina wherever they can: They sew terrorism in the furtherance of their Shiite revolution.
I know that sounds wonderful to you, but I will NEVER submit to islam and I will fight against my government appeasing islamist terrorists. That is why I will not vote for Obama and will support anyone running against him,
'If you know how to source the material, getting a post up here takes less than 2 minutes, content and all. The original stuff gets written just about as quickly.'
Instead of spamming forums by dumping truckloads of 'cut and paste' blather that was written in about 2 minutes why don't you actually go out and read something that wasn't written by an adolescent Trotskyite or an islamist propagandist. In other words; get a life you neurotic, Rainman of BS.
RE:
'I know that sounds wonderful to you, but I will NEVER submit to islam and I will fight against my government appeasing islamist terrorists. That is why I will not vote for Obama and will support anyone running against him.'
==========================================================
There were some clips of West Virginia voters saying the same stupid things as you did. Amazing that you can get through the door without walking into it. No one is asking anyone to 'submit to Islam'. You sound like you're on an ego trip - the same one that's led Bush down this road to making things worse. Bigotry and ignorance are a bad mix.
Bush brought things to this point by creating a long-term mess in Iraq, while leaving Afghanistan to fester. He should not be ON Mount Rushmore; but rather under it.
You resolve problems by getting the sides together ... example:
COLIN POWELL:
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&c id=1 184766015860
Colin Powell: Quartet should find way to talk to Hamas (July 2007)
Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday the international diplomatic Quartet on the Middle East should find some way to talk to Hamas.
'I don't think you can just cast them into outer darkness and try to find a solution to the problems of the region without taking to account the standing that Hamas has in the Palestinian community,' Powell said in a radio interview.
... having his head up Roggio's ass ...
'He's a CHRISTIAN, you idiot'
He is an APPEASER you idiot.
' No one is asking anyone to 'submit to Islam'.'
The Iranians are. Indeed, that was pretty much the text of the letter that Ahmadinejad sent to Bush. Come to think of it, those were Bin Ladens demands as well...
'You sound like you're on an ego trip '
So not wanting to legitimize these little monsters is somehow egotistical?
'Bush brought things to this point by creating a long-term mess in Iraq, '
The mess in the middle east predates Bush by about 1650 years.
' He should not be ON Mount Rushmore; but rather under it.'
A threat?
''I don't think you can just cast them into outer darkness and try to find a solution to the problems of the region without taking to account the standing that Hamas has in the Palestinian community,' '
Not exactly the call for negotiations with terrorists that you make it out to be now is it?
You can start your fatwa against him PB, in the eyes of his 'negotiating partners' Obama is worse then I am. I am just a kuffar, HE is irtidad!
From that neocon rag, the New York Times: (Abridged for brevity)
One danger of [Obama's] charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the Muslim world.
[...]
It is a mistake to conflate his African identity with his Muslim heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans can understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith.
As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.
Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.
His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).
With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.)
It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran’s Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.
For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.
Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.
At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.
That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.
Edward N. Luttwak, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of “Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace.”
'Hidden Dum-Dum's definition of -embedded-'
Go drive your cab.
Not only did the Prince of Peace say at the YouTube debate last July that he'd meet personally and without precondition with Iran, he reaffirmed that position in November in an interview with the New York Times:
'Senator Barack Obama said he would 'engage in aggressive personal diplomacy' with Iran if elected president, and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek 'regime change' if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues...
Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that 'changes in behavior' by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees...
Mr. Obama's willingness to conduct talks at the highest level with Iran ... differs significantly from the Bush administration.'
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/01cnd-obama.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en =6e53bced62b78a88&ex=1351656000&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewant ed=all
Isn't the leader who claimed he would have our nation go after osama bin laden and the 9/11 terrorist gang in the countries that harbored them-Afghanistan and Pakistan- the same leader who quickly appeased the military dictator of Pakistan by not going after osama bin laden and the 9/11 terrorist gang in Pakistan, the very country that continues to harbor them? The same country that gave nuclear bomb technology to their buddy nation of North Korea. Oh yes, we are afraid that we might violate Pakistan national sovereignty! Seems like real appeasement to me.
Some of you should perhaps venture out in the world andstop panicking about islam .Paranoia is not exactly the proper input to address anotherculture .The result is to declare Obam a muslim,then pretending heis in fact a relapse,pretending he is too close with islam,pretending he is too close with islamist,then to conclude according to islam he is to be decapitated .Honestly this kind of ignorance ought to emabarass just by the sheer contradictions of logics those that use this kind of nonsense in a political debate .
The only conclusion one cand raw from this kind of confusion is that a little bit more understanding wouldn't harm some of you .
Biggotry is not the monopoly of islam .What to say about asociety where 4 year old toddlers are accused of sexual harasment and lifted from the school banks by police officers because the kid in question puts his head to rest against the bossom of the teacher .The toddler now has a police record labeling him as a sexual pervert.And likewisea six year old boy dragged to a police station also from school because he pats another girl's bottom during playtime .Isn't is biggotry uand complete misunderstanding of the nature of childrento accuse such small children of sexual behaviour.More examples are available .The bad news ist hat these events did not take place in Iran or another islamist country but in the good old US of A.What to think of that ?
'who quickly appeased the military dictator of Pakistan by not going after osama bin laden and the 9/11 terrorist gang in Pakistan'
We ARE going after bin Laden in Pakistan. We have troops on the ground IN Pakistan... Bin Laden is hiding, to tell you the truth we don't even KNOW if he is in Pakistan. Should we send in a full scale invasion into every country that we suspect is harboring bin laden?
'. Oh yes, we are afraid that we might violate Pakistan national sovereignty! '
We have special forces operating in Pakistan. We re guarding Pakistan nuclear arsenal, we have been handed more al Qaeda by Pakistan then anywhere else... And you want a full scale invasion because you are so smart...
'Some of you should perhaps venture out in the world andstop panicking about islam'
No one is pancaking, I just object to aircraft full of people being flown in to buildings full of people and the idiots who think rewarding that behavior is the way to prevent it.
'
Biggotry is not the monopoly of islam .What to say about asociety where 4 year old toddlers are accused of sexual harasment and lifted from the school banks by police officers because the kid in question puts his head to rest against the bossom of the teacher .The toddler now has a police record labeling him as a sexual pervert.And likewisea six year old boy dragged to a police station also from school because he pats another girl's bottom during playtime .'
Tonny, once again, you demonstrate that you do not know the first thing about Americans.
'Some of you should perhaps venture out in the world andstop panicking about islam'
Yeah, we should be more like Europe:
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZNx0xHe0p0
RE:
'who quickly appeased the military dictator of Pakistan by not going after osama bin laden and the 9/11 terrorist gang in Pakistan'
We ARE going after bin Laden in Pakistan. We have troops on the ground IN Pakistan... Bin Laden is hiding, to tell you the truth we don't even KNOW if he is in Pakistan. Should we send in a full scale invasion into every country that we suspect is harboring bin laden?
===========================
Bush had the opportunity to go after the Taliban, and did not. We let them escape over the mountains into Pakistan.
Talking about 'NOW' is as stupid as trying to reverse an amputation after the surgery. For anyone who actually bothers to keep up with the news, the 'government' in Pakistan is fragile, and their internal problems are far from over. The presence of U.S. troops would not be welcomed by the people, particularly those in Waziristan.
THIS!!! is appeasement!!! Pakistan, for their part, is once again 'folding' and leaving the game, and pulling back their troops:
online.wsj.com/article/SB121078214645692263.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan freed dozens of militants Wednesday and started pulling troops from areas of a volatile tribal region as a part of an effort to make peace with Islamist militants.
Government officials also said the two sides were close to a deal that could end hostilities in the country's tribal region of South Waziristan and in parts of North West Frontier Province, one of Pakistan's four provinces.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization said it is concerned that the Pakistani government's peace efforts have led to a sharp rise in attacks on the coalition's forces in eastern Afghanistan, where they are fighting insurgents. NATO spokesman James Appathurai said Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer plans to visit Islamabad soon for talks.
Pakistan's new government has been trying to reach a peace deal with Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of Tehrik-e-Taliban, a militant outfit involved in several bloody terrorist attacks in northern Pakistan. But the talks stalled last month after the government rejected the militants' demand to pull out troops from a tribal region.
The government's efforts have alarmed Washington, which worries that the lull will allow al Qaeda and other militant groups to regroup inside Pakistan and attack both there and over the border. But Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has said the Pakistani government's past strategy, centered on military assaults, failed to produce the desired results.
The U.S. has poured $6 billion into Pakistan in the last six years and accomplished absolutely nothing so says Joel Brinkley a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and now a professor of journalism at Stanford. This is a very interesting article, and it is just another stupid happening in the saga of Geo. Bush!
'McCain campaign decides to purge'
And the subject was Obamas appeasement, thanks for cutting and pasting another ENTIRE article that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
'The time for this discussion was 2001'
And the subject was Obamas appeasement, thanks for cutting and pasting another ENTIRE article that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
'Bush had the opportunity to go after the Taliban, and did not. We let them escape over the mountains into Pakistan.'
So you flip flop again, you have been on both sides of this issue so many times that your opinion on it (as well as everything else) is completely worthless. It will just change in a matter of moments.
We did not 'let' anyone escape. Nor do you even know if Bin Laden is in Pakastan.
' The presence of U.S. troops would not be welcomed by the people, particularly those in Waziristan.'
We have special forces in Waziristan. Idiot. A full scale invasion of Pakistan is not in our internists, yet you are blathering on about the fact that we didn't invade them with everything we have as somehow appeasing them. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN DUMB.
Actually, you are an Iranian islamist apologist who should be packed up and sent back to where you REALLY think of as home.
'Interview with a Taliban leader'
And the subject was Obamas appeasement, thanks for cutting and pasting another ENTIRE article that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
'Shariah law is the issue'
Yes, I will not submit to Sharia or islam... THAT is the issue.
'es, it is quite true that the US has been appeasing the military dictator of Pakistan for almost seven years since 9/11. I have read many accounts of this, from many different sources. Offered up below is just another report detailing our appeasement.'
So we should have invaded Pakistan?
' We had the world with us back then,'
LOL...
'Where do you think bin laden and the other al qqaeda who escaped went? '
Why don't we just invade EVERY country that we suspect they are hiding in? If you know where bin Laden is let us know. Otherwise, advocating for invading every country that we suspect he is hiding in is just plain stupid.
'To our al qaeda attracting magnet we constructed in Iraq? '
Many, many thousands of them DID go to Iraq and were killed there.
'By most intelligent accounts they went into Pakistan'
Good thing that we have American troops operating in Pakistan then.
' Why should we be, as you claim, still be looking for bin laden, in Pakistan, '
We should be looking for him everywhere we suspect he is, that doesn't mean large scale invasions of countries that have been our allies in the past and that have been cooperating with us.
Bin Ladens son went to Iran, should we have invaded Iran as well?
'It is no wonder to me that Pakistan has turned over some al qaeda to us. That's exactly where most of them are living. '
You had Eric Rudolph living in the Appalachian mountains in the middle of the USA for 5 years while on the 10 most wanted list... Once again, where is Bin Laden? If you know where he is you will see US military intervention.
' Appeasement works both ways- in exchange for the US leaving hands off Pakistan'
So we should invade Pakistan...
'Please feel free to read up on all this, so you can understand it better.'
Please feel free to clean out your savings account and buy a clue. The ENTIRE article that you ct and pasted from sources unknown doesn't change the fact that a full scale invasion of Pakistan would be a stupid thing to do.
RE:
'And the subject was Obamas appeasement, thanks for cutting and pasting another ENTIRE article that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.'
=======================================
The topic is also McCain's cronyism in terms of his backers, because when you provide for those who back you over and above the other constitutents, it's a form of payola. When your platform is based on prolonging Bush's errors, rather than finding a way to STOP spending a fortune propping up a situation that Bush himself created, that's not the 'opposite' of appeasment - it's unrealistic. If the basis of the fundamentalists is indeed Sharia law (which even the populations of those countries don't want), there's nothing that our military presence will do to abate those feelings. In fact, we become the irritant which makes it worse just by being there.
Per Boone Pickens, the cost to the U.S. of oil each year is $600 billion. Another 'bonus' from the Bush demagoguery.
www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/community-wind-power-51526.aspx
T. Boone Pickens discussed his $10 billion plan to erect 2,700 wind turbines across the Texas panhandle, a project that will generate enough electricity to power about one million homes, in a recent interview with The Guardian (U.K.). Pickens, founder of Mesa Petroleum and bona fide oil tycoon, presumably doesn’t have any big plans for Earth Day: “Don’t get the idea that I’ve turned green,” he told his interviewer.
==============================
YOUR topic is Obama's appeasement, thanks to Bush's planned outburst just to inflame schmucks like you - as if you needed any help in your delusions.
Did you bother to read what Obama said? Or, were there too many of those darned syllables for you again?
www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?th&emc=th
“The debate we’re going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake,” he said. “I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder.”
Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”
I asked him if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power like Iran is different from negotiating with a nation that’s primarily pursuing material interests. He acknowledged that “If your opponents are looking for your destruction it’s hard to sit across the table from them,” but, he continued: “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”
'The topic is also McCain's cronyism[sic] in terms of his backers, because when you provide for those who back you over and above the other constitutents[sic], it's a form of payola'
No idiot, that:
1) Wasn't the topic you filthy islamist dog.
2) McCain does not do that, unlike Obama who has actually helped Tony Rezko steal millions of dollars from the tax payers in exchange for campaign contributions.
3) In light of #2 one can only shudder to think what kind of payback George Soros is going to expect for all the checks he is paying out on Obamas behalf.
' When your platform is based on prolonging Bush's errors, '
When YOURS is throwing a lifeline to the islamist scumbags that are being DEFEATED in Iraq to enable Iran to take over...
' If the basis of the fundamentalists is indeed Sharia law (which even the populations of those countries don't want), there's nothing that our military presence will do to abate those feelings.'
Yes, there is: We can stop those who are forcing Sharia down other peoples throats at the tip of a Kalashnikov. We can and ARE doing that in both countries that you want to abandon.
'Per Boone Pickens, the cost to the U.S. of oil each year is $600 billion. '
You have a mental problem that makes you incapable of concentrating on the topic at hand and veering off on completely unrelated nonsense.
Want to know why oil is so frigging high? Because the democrats have rejected drilling in Alaska. They have rejected drilling off the pacific coast. They have rejected drilling off the Baja peninsula. They have rejected drilling in Colorado. They have rejected drilling in Wyoming. They have rejected drilling in the Dakotas. They have rejected expanding operations in the Gulf Of Mexico. They have rejected drilling off the East coast... They just rejected exploiting the oil shale in Colorado even though we now have the technology to do it.
www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/15/panel-defeats-attempt-end-oi l-shale-moratorium
There is enough oil to last the next 100 years in the USA but the democrats wont let us touch it because the 'environmentalists' would have a fit. That is why oil is at 120 a barrel and that is why it is going higher.
Now, you complete moron, think... focus here with all your capabilities:
What is going to happen to the price of oil if we turn over Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran? What will happen to the price of oil if Iran is allowed to choke off the strait of Hormuz as they have repeatedly threatened and tried to do? Yes, IDIOT, the price of oil will skyrocket. That is what Obama wants to.
'YOUR topic is Obama's appeasement, thanks to Bush's planned outburst just to inflame schmucks like you - as if you needed any help in your delusions.'
Bush was talking about Carter who was meeting with Hamas while they were murdering Israelis in rocket attacks, you ape.
'Did you bother to read what Obama said? Or, were there too many of those darned syllables for you again?'
I posted the video of his vow to get on his knees on behalf of the USA for whatever tin plated dictator has an issue for the Great Satan. Go watch it, as well as what the monsters you wish to put in charge of the middle east are doing to your cousins:
www.liveleak.com/view?i=aea_1185836331
www.liveleak.com/view?i=271_1189517695
www.liveleak.com/view?i=518_1190245078
'“If your opponents are looking for your destruction it’s hard to sit across the table from them,”
But he will anyway...
'File this one with the stories about how well al-Maliki did in Basra, before U.S. and British forces saved his butt, and the Iranians got al-Sadr to cease)'
Idiot, the iranians got sadr to cease because they saw the militia (group of thugs who were really great at beating up on the civilian population, hiding, and getting absolutely slaughtered when they tried to stand and fight) getting it's ass kicked all over the place.
You were wrong then, you are wrong now. Don't you ever tire of making a fool out of yourself you islamist idiot?
George Bush seems to have really rattled Barack Obama and the Democratic Party with his speech yesterday in the Israeli Knesset. Rather than ignoring Bush’s argument against appeasement, or adopting it, Barack Obama has declared that Bush intended his denunciation of appeasement as an attack on his campaign, even though Bush never even mentioned the nationality of modern appeasers in his speech. Obama lashed out in a speech today, calling Bush’s rhetoric “appalling”: [waaaaahhhhh-ed]
Barack Obama has called President Bush’s comments on appeasement “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world.”
[...]
Yesterday, Obama accused President Bush of “a false political attack” after Bush warned in Israel against appeasing terrorists — early salvos in a general election campaign that’s already blazing even as the Democratic front-runner tries to sew up his party’s nomination.
But Bush never mentioned any specific person in his speech today, and didn’t even specify that he was referring to Americans. Newsbusters has the full transcript, with this relevant part of the speech.
'Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.'
[...]Obviously, Bush wasn’t referring to American politicians in this passage, but instead politicians in Europe and elsewhere who have either an animus towards Israel or appreciation for dhimmitude. Nothing — and I mean nothing — in this speech points to any candidate or the Democratic Party, unless they identify themselves as the reference.
Obama and his surrogates drew those connections themselves. Instead of acknowledging the historical truth of appeasement’s failures, they chose to argue with it. Obama could have taken the smart route and embraced it to explain how he understands the lessons of appeasement, which is why his talks with Iran would not result in it. Instead, he got volcanically defensive, which suggests that even Obama sees the parallels between his everything’s-on-the-table approach and the Chamberlain diplomacy which resulted in dismantling Czechoslovakia.
And if Obama considers discussion of foreign policy “divisive”, then he should hie himself right back to Academia. Guess what, Senator? Presidential elections focus on foreign-policy principles, and if you can’t defend yours, then you have no business running for office.
hotair.com/archives/2008/05/16/rookie-mistakes-again-obama-owns-appease ment/
Marc Ambinder reports that Bush meant to scold Jimmy Carter for his recent visit with Hamas, as Ed Gillespie explained to reporters in Saudi Arabia:
“We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. … There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. that was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it.”
And if one actually reads what Bush said, that interpretation looks a lot more likely than a supposed attack on Obama. Carter had just hugged Khaled Mashaal in Damascus and insisted that the US should open a dialogue with Hamas.
marcambinder.theatlantic.com
Barack Obama, meanwhile, continues to embarrass himself today at a presser on an attack that never was.
He heard the word 'appeaser' and naturally thought people were talking about him.
Bush just reads what his speech writer hands him, and then he doesn't even do that very well!
As usual:
'2) McCain does not do that, unlike Obama who has actually helped Tony Rezko steal millions of dollars from the tax payers in exchange for campaign contributions.'
Liar!
'3) In light of #2 one can only shudder to think what kind of payback George Soros is going to expect for all the checks he is paying out on Obamas behalf. '
Maybe something like Rupert Murdoch's access to any media organization he cares to take and turn into another right wing outlet?
Your ranting is comical at best, and propoganda at worst.
I'd suggest that, before you draw any conclusions, you open your eyes to the fact that totalitarians the world over are, at this moment, allowing 10's of thousands of people to die, that could be helped, simply because they are frightened of opening their societies to the rest of humanity.
Compared to this, I think your attention would be better served by offering dissent for those marxist regiemes you love so much. As for Mr. Obama, I could care less what he worships as long as he puts America first. After all, that is the oath Presidents take.
Also, I happen to live in one of the most liberal states in America and it was the libnazi legislature that criminalized every man-on-woman assualt as a sexual assault. We actually had a 13 year old brought up on felony sexual assault charges for slapping a girls ass.
This is what happens in the libnazi state.
why don't you move somewhere that fits you better - or maybe outside the U.S.!
'This is what happens in the libnazi state.'
This is what happens in a rightwing, fundamentalist, republican state.
'Obama who has actually helped Tony Rezko steal millions of dollars from the tax payers in exchange for campaign contributions.'
Liar!'
No not a lie, he isn't even disputing it:
www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article
Obama's letters for Rezko
NOT A FAVOR? | As a state senator, he went to bat for now-indicted developer's deal
June 13, 2007
Recommend (2)
BY TIM NOVAK Staff Reporter/tnovak@suntimes.com
As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.
The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district.
The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district.
Obama's letters, written nearly nine years ago, for the first time show the Democratic presidential hopeful did a political favor for Rezko -- a longtime friend, campaign fund-raiser and client of the law firm where Obama worked -- who was indicted last fall on federal charges that accuse him of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business under Gov. Blagojevich.
So no, not a 'lie'...
'Maybe something like Rupert Murdoch's access to any media organization he cares to take and turn into another right wing outlet?'
Thats what Soros would want? Shows your understanding of the situation...
'Dear Tonny from Oxnard'
Heh...
'No not a lie, he isn't even disputing it:'
Please post the article where he admits to 'helped Tony Rezko steal millions of dollars from the tax payers in exchange for campaign contributions'. I must have missed that one?
'www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article'
The article does not have Obama admitting to 'helped Tony Rezko steal millions of dollars from the tax payers in exchange for campaign contributions'.
Again with the half-truths, liar.
'So no, not a 'lie'... '
The artiicle you posted does not support your lies above, nowhere doe this article say 'helped Tony Rezko steal millions of dollars from the tax payers in exchange for campaign contributions'. So yes another lie.
'Thats what Soros would want? Shows your understanding of the situation...'
Shows your right wing neo-con bigotry for anything you do not believe in.
'The article does not have Obama admitting to 'helped Tony Rezko steal millions of dollars from the tax payers in exchange for campaign contributions'.'
Obama wrote letters for Rezko to do just that...
'Obama's letters, written nearly nine years ago, for the first time show the Democratic presidential hopeful did a political favor for Rezko -- a longtime friend, campaign fund-raiser and client of the law firm where Obama worked -- who was indicted last fall on federal charges'
'Shows your right wing neo-con bigotry for anything you do not believe in.'
That didn't make even a little sense.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story