Question
•
General Government, Politics & Law
Iraq's government signals that it apparently shares Barack Obama's goal to have U.S. combat forces leave there by 2010. The statement comes as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee kicks off his first tour of the country, where the war there is now in its sixth year.
Loading...-
Answered John McCain
Bush always said that we are not occupiers and would leave when the government of Iraq asked us to if we leave now or 2010 there still will be some troops left just to back up the Iraq gov. We have been supporting the new army for some time now they have been doing most of the fighting casualties are way down.there are still troops in Bosnia , Clinton was in office then. -
Answered Barack Obama
What the cowering, intentionally dumbed-down sheeple fail to realize is that this election is not about electing Barack Obama, nor is it about this or any other specific issue...
This election is about the UTTER ANNIHILATION of the fetid, stinking carcass of the Bush-McBush Criminally Corrupt Republican Party and a return to The Rule of Law, complete with reverence for The Constitution rather than cheap Made-in-China flag pins.
We will prevail because our RAGE is more powerful than their FEAR.
"I don't do cowering." ~ Senator Barack Obama
-
Answered John McCain
Haven't all the Democrats, including Obama, been trying to pull out of Iraq either immediately or within one year? What happened to that? Now he's talking about 2010? Dem supporters - when will you learn that Obama as president is not going to end the war in Iraq? -
You McCain supporters talk about unfair media treatment that favors Obama, I witnessed the Media helping McCain spread untruths (off shore drilling as if it coulld truly take gas prices down) that's one example. But when Obama spoke of McCains meeting Gas tycoons and making a deal with them for one million dollars contribution to his campaign the media all but msnbc refused to show that. Any negative remarks directed at McCain from Obama are never aired. But Your McCain is in bed with the oil companys.And you Idiots want to vote for him!
-
Johnie, you don't get it.
Gas prices are a direct result of only thing - supply and demand. It's simple economics. The more supply, the lower the prices. The less demand, the lower the prices. The less supply, the higher the prices. The more demand, the higher the prices. It's exactly the same for corn, soy beans, wheat, cattle, hogs, pork bellies, ethanol, heating oil, propane, coffee, orange juice, sugar, copper, gold, and silver. Investors are betting their money on what the supply and demand is going to be in the future. Some investors guess wrong, and lose money. Some guess right, and make money.
Gas is higher because world demand is up (US consumption is actually close to the same or slightly down) and world supply is down. We are not going to decrease demand, because China and India, the two most populated countries in the world, are using more oil than ever before. The only way, THE ONLY WAY, to lower prices is to increase the supply. There is only one way to increase supply. To drill for more oil. Why don't you understand that?
Obama has done NOTHING to increase supply. The dems continue to try to decrease demand. They have been regulating us for years with things that are supposed to result in us using less oil. Well, we're using less oil, and we're paying more at the pump anyway.
I have a few friends on Soda Head that are liberals, and they are all considerate and polite. We disagree on many issues, but we don't have to call each other names to m...Johnie, you don't get it.
Gas prices are a direct result of only thing - supply and demand. It's simple economics. The more supply, the lower the prices. The less demand, the lower the prices. The less supply, the higher the prices. The more demand, the higher the prices. It's exactly the same for corn, soy beans, wheat, cattle, hogs, pork bellies, ethanol, heating oil, propane, coffee, orange juice, sugar, copper, gold, and silver. Investors are betting their money on what the supply and demand is going to be in the future. Some investors guess wrong, and lose money. Some guess right, and make money.
Gas is higher because world demand is up (US consumption is actually close to the same or slightly down) and world supply is down. We are not going to decrease demand, because China and India, the two most populated countries in the world, are using more oil than ever before. The only way, THE ONLY WAY, to lower prices is to increase the supply. There is only one way to increase supply. To drill for more oil. Why don't you understand that?
Obama has done NOTHING to increase supply. The dems continue to try to decrease demand. They have been regulating us for years with things that are supposed to result in us using less oil. Well, we're using less oil, and we're paying more at the pump anyway.
I have a few friends on Soda Head that are liberals, and they are all considerate and polite. We disagree on many issues, but we don't have to call each other names to make our point. So, I will not call you an idiot. I think you just need a little bit of education.(less) -
johnie
The whole world is ran on oil. What do the farmers use to run there machinery to plant& harvest what do the truckers use to trans port the goods to market? I am for drilling to keep our oil in the united states for our use
I AM ALSO FOR ALTERNITIVE ENERGY BUT THE ECONOMY RUNS ON OIL RIGHT NOW. you know that when Clinton was in office the congress passed a bill to do what we are talking about (drilling) and it was vetoed by Clinton. You accuse the GPO of having ther hand in the pocket of the oil companies I asure you that some Dems . are there to
More than that the dems. have there hand in the pockets of the ENVIOROMENTALIST That is one of the big reasons we are where we ar today. -
Answered John McCain
McCain is the man that can do a better job he has the experience for combat since he served in the service and Obama never give his life for Our Country couldn't even shake hands more interested in getting his mug on the news than to worry about the soldiers in the hospital or in combat... -
Answered Barack Obama
Barack Obama talked to the Iraqi leader and both are pushing to be out by 2010. it's better to hear a great and most likely prediction rather than believe that it will take longer. No need to bash down Obama just because McCain thinks it will take longer.. only to "question his judgement". give me a break. -
Answered John McCain
Confessions of an Anti-Iraq War Democrat: Memories of a Purple Finger
By Lanny Davis
I remember the exact moment I had my first serious doubts about whether I was 100 percent right that the U.S. preemptive invasion of Iraq and the take-out of Saddam Hussein was a serious mistake.
I had been strongly opposed to the U.S. intervention from the start. I felt this way even though I believed (as did most everyone, including the intelligence community) that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and even though I thought that Saddam was a murderous, genocidal thug and the world would be better off -- and the U.S. safer -- with him dead.
However, I reasoned, the WMD inspectors were back in and we had Saddam surrounded -- thanks to George Bush, by the way, for which we Democrats did not give him sufficient credit at the time.
So why risk the uncertainties of a preemptive invasion, loss of life and treasure, and diverting our attention from 9/11 and the war against terror, which most U.S. intelligence indicated had nothing to do with Saddam?
Of course, all these remain good reasons for opposing starting the war, even as I look back now.
But then came my first moment of doubt.
I saw on TV in early 2005, in their first preliminary democratic elections, long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote under the hot desert sun with bombs and shrapnel exploding around them. Waiting to vote!
And then there was that indelible image -- an older woman shrouded in a carpe...Confessions of an Anti-Iraq War Democrat: Memories of a Purple Finger
By Lanny Davis
I remember the exact moment I had my first serious doubts about whether I was 100 percent right that the U.S. preemptive invasion of Iraq and the take-out of Saddam Hussein was a serious mistake.
I had been strongly opposed to the U.S. intervention from the start. I felt this way even though I believed (as did most everyone, including the intelligence community) that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and even though I thought that Saddam was a murderous, genocidal thug and the world would be better off -- and the U.S. safer -- with him dead.
However, I reasoned, the WMD inspectors were back in and we had Saddam surrounded -- thanks to George Bush, by the way, for which we Democrats did not give him sufficient credit at the time.
So why risk the uncertainties of a preemptive invasion, loss of life and treasure, and diverting our attention from 9/11 and the war against terror, which most U.S. intelligence indicated had nothing to do with Saddam?
Of course, all these remain good reasons for opposing starting the war, even as I look back now.
But then came my first moment of doubt.
I saw on TV in early 2005, in their first preliminary democratic elections, long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote under the hot desert sun with bombs and shrapnel exploding around them. Waiting to vote!
And then there was that indelible image -- an older woman shrouded in a carpet-like cape, smiling gleefully and holding her purple finger in the air for the TV cameras, purple with ink showing that she had voted.
Smiling! In the middle of war! With U.S. troops standing nearby!
Wow, I thought. Is it possible I was wrong?
Is it possible, I wondered, that Iraqis truly did want democracy and freedom and the right to vote and government of the people, just as we Americans do? And were willing to fight for it, with our help?
Wouldn't that be a good thing? Even a great thing?
Maybe another democracy, however imperfect, other than Israel in the Middle East could lead to more moderation, possibly other democracies? Democracies that could serve as bulwarks against al Qaeda-type of terrorist states?
Then in 2005-2006 came the increased violence from the Sunni insurgents against American kids, then the sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites, with young Americans caught in the crossfire. My certainty in opposing the war and supporting a deadline for getting out re-emerged.
And then in early 2007 came the Surge, which so many of us in the anti-war left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure, throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We were wrong.
The surge did, in fact, lead to a reduction of violence, confirmed by media on the ground as well as our military leaders.
It did allow the Shi'ite government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in the last several months to show leadership by joining, if not leading, the military effort to clean out of Basra the masked Mahdi Army controlled by the anti-U.S. Shi'ite extremist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and in the Sadr City section of Baghdad he claimed to control.
This willingness by the Shi'ite-dominated Maliki government to move against the Sadr Shi'ite extremists won crucial credibility for the government among many Sunni leaders and Sunnis on the streets, who joined together with Shi'ites to turn against the al Qaeda in Iraq and other Taliban-like extremists.
These are facts, not arguments.
I think there are a lot of anti-war Democrats who, like me, are impressed by these facts and who now see a moral obligation, after all the carnage and destruction wrought by our military intervention, not just to pick up and leave without looking over our shoulders.
Surely we owe the Iraqis who helped us, whose lives are in danger, immediate immigration rights to the U.S. Yet the shameful fact is that most are still not even close to having such rights.
Surely we owe the Maliki government and the Shi'ite and Sunni soldiers who put their lives on the line against Shi'ite and Sunni extremists and terrorists at our behest some continuing presence and support and patience as they strive to find peace, political reconciliation -- and maybe even the beginnings of a stable democracy.
The only question is, for how long?
Forever? No. 100 years? No.
But for how long? I don't know.
I just know I can't get out of my mind that lady with the purple finger held up, smiling into the camera. If getting in was a mistake, then getting out -- how and when -- is not so simple as long as there is hope that she can some day live in a democratic Iraq that can help America in the war against terror.
Lanny Davis is a prominent Washington lawyer and a political analyst for Fox News. In 2007 and 2008, he made multiple appearances on cable TV in support of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. From 1996 to 1998, he served as special counsel to President Clinton. This piece was published in the Washington Times on Monday, July 21, 2008.(less) -
Answered Barack Obama
predictions are often inaccurate, and my crystal ball is broken. anyway, based on the fact that sen. obama already has a fairly detailed plan and mcbush says we might stay there another hundred years, then sen. obama would do a better job of ending the war. also, i subjectively think that sen. obama is vastly more intelligent and less self-serving than mcbush. i also like sen. obama's repeated displays of good character and dislike mcbush's shoddy "morals". i think sen. obama would get the job done competently and mcbush would use every opportunity he had to line his pockets or win political favors. here's a joke for you. how long does mcbush expect to live? answer: one hundred years. -
Confessions of an Anti-Iraq War Democrat: Memories of a Purple Finger
By Lanny Davis
I remember the exact moment I had my first serious doubts about whether I was 100 percent right that the U.S. preemptive invasion of Iraq and the take-out of Saddam Hussein was a serious mistake.
I had been strongly opposed to the U.S. intervention from the start. I felt this way even though I believed (as did most everyone, including the intelligence community) that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and even though I thought that Saddam was a murderous, genocidal thug and the world would be better off -- and the U.S. safer -- with him dead.
However, I reasoned, the WMD inspectors were back in and we had Saddam surrounded -- thanks to George Bush, by the way, for which we Democrats did not give him sufficient credit at the time.
So why risk the uncertainties of a preemptive invasion, loss of life and treasure, and diverting our attention from 9/11 and the war against terror, which most U.S. intelligence indicated had nothing to do with Saddam?
Of course, all these remain good reasons for opposing starting the war, even as I look back now.
But then came my first moment of doubt.
I saw on TV in early 2005, in their first preliminary democratic elections, long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote under the hot desert sun with bombs and shrapnel exploding around them. Waiting to vote!
And then there was that indelible image -- an older woman shrouded in a carpe...Confessions of an Anti-Iraq War Democrat: Memories of a Purple Finger
By Lanny Davis
I remember the exact moment I had my first serious doubts about whether I was 100 percent right that the U.S. preemptive invasion of Iraq and the take-out of Saddam Hussein was a serious mistake.
I had been strongly opposed to the U.S. intervention from the start. I felt this way even though I believed (as did most everyone, including the intelligence community) that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and even though I thought that Saddam was a murderous, genocidal thug and the world would be better off -- and the U.S. safer -- with him dead.
However, I reasoned, the WMD inspectors were back in and we had Saddam surrounded -- thanks to George Bush, by the way, for which we Democrats did not give him sufficient credit at the time.
So why risk the uncertainties of a preemptive invasion, loss of life and treasure, and diverting our attention from 9/11 and the war against terror, which most U.S. intelligence indicated had nothing to do with Saddam?
Of course, all these remain good reasons for opposing starting the war, even as I look back now.
But then came my first moment of doubt.
I saw on TV in early 2005, in their first preliminary democratic elections, long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote under the hot desert sun with bombs and shrapnel exploding around them. Waiting to vote!
And then there was that indelible image -- an older woman shrouded in a carpet-like cape, smiling gleefully and holding her purple finger in the air for the TV cameras, purple with ink showing that she had voted.
Smiling! In the middle of war! With U.S. troops standing nearby!
Wow, I thought. Is it possible I was wrong?
Is it possible, I wondered, that Iraqis truly did want democracy and freedom and the right to vote and government of the people, just as we Americans do? And were willing to fight for it, with our help?
Wouldn't that be a good thing? Even a great thing?
Maybe another democracy, however imperfect, other than Israel in the Middle East could lead to more moderation, possibly other democracies? Democracies that could serve as bulwarks against al Qaeda-type of terrorist states?
Then in 2005-2006 came the increased violence from the Sunni insurgents against American kids, then the sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites, with young Americans caught in the crossfire. My certainty in opposing the war and supporting a deadline for getting out re-emerged.
And then in early 2007 came the Surge, which so many of us in the anti-war left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure, throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We were wrong.
The surge did, in fact, lead to a reduction of violence, confirmed by media on the ground as well as our military leaders.
It did allow the Shi'ite government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in the last several months to show leadership by joining, if not leading, the military effort to clean out of Basra the masked Mahdi Army controlled by the anti-U.S. Shi'ite extremist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and in the Sadr City section of Baghdad he claimed to control.
This willingness by the Shi'ite-dominated Maliki government to move against the Sadr Shi'ite extremists won crucial credibility for the government among many Sunni leaders and Sunnis on the streets, who joined together with Shi'ites to turn against the al Qaeda in Iraq and other Taliban-like extremists.
These are facts, not arguments.
I think there are a lot of anti-war Democrats who, like me, are impressed by these facts and who now see a moral obligation, after all the carnage and destruction wrought by our military intervention, not just to pick up and leave without looking over our shoulders.
Surely we owe the Iraqis who helped us, whose lives are in danger, immediate immigration rights to the U.S. Yet the shameful fact is that most are still not even close to having such rights.
Surely we owe the Maliki government and the Shi'ite and Sunni soldiers who put their lives on the line against Shi'ite and Sunni extremists and terrorists at our behest some continuing presence and support and patience as they strive to find peace, political reconciliation -- and maybe even the beginnings of a stable democracy.
The only question is, for how long?
Forever? No. 100 years? No.
But for how long? I don't know.
I just know I can't get out of my mind that lady with the purple finger held up, smiling into the camera. If getting in was a mistake, then getting out -- how and when -- is not so simple as long as there is hope that she can some day live in a democratic Iraq that can help America in the war against terror.
Lanny Davis is a prominent Washington lawyer and a political analyst for Fox News. In 2007 and 2008, he made multiple appearances on cable TV in support of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. From 1996 to 1998, he served as special counsel to President Clinton. This piece was published in the Washington Times on Monday, July 21, 2008.(less) -
Answered John McCain
Do you even have to ask? John McCain will make us all proud!
Do you want Obama? Read this letter!
*********PLEASE REPOST TO GET THE TRUTH OUT!*******
Letter from Soldier in Afghanistan (On Obama's Visit)
From the son of a friend stationed in Afghanistan.
-Mike
Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person.
I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram, Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to "The War Zone.
I want to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.
As Soldiers lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say
a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General.
As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big
top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with
weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball.
He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for
their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home that he is their candidate for President.
I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way
over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they
are providing for you.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the
Dallas Cow...Do you even have to ask? John McCain will make us all proud!
Do you want Obama? Read this letter!
*********PLEASE REPOST TO GET THE TRUTH OUT!*******
Letter from Soldier in Afghanistan (On Obama's Visit)
From the son of a friend stationed in Afghanistan.
-Mike
Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person.
I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram, Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to "The War Zone.
I want to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.
As Soldiers lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say
a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General.
As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big
top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with
weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball.
He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for
their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home that he is their candidate for President.
I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way
over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they
are providing for you.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the
Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States.
I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our
Commander-and-Chief.
It was almost that he was scared to be around those that
provide the freedom for him and our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry, but I wanted you all to
know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.
In service,
TF Wasatch
American Soldier
God help us all ,if this SOB get's in.(less) -
raves +1
Answered Barack Obama
im to young to vote but if i could i would vote for barack