Lies.

NOPE....DEFINITELY HITS SMACK DAB IN THE FACE OF BEING THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH

Do you ever notice how the more ridiculous neocon posts get the dancing penises?

no







nobama2012-

By JEFF ZELENY
Published: August 1, 2007
WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — Senator Barack Obama said today that the United States should shift its focus from the war in Iraq to a fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said that if the Pakistani government fails to eradicate terror operations inside its borders, the United States should withhold aid and should strike Al Qaeda targets there itself.

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
In a speech, Senator Barack Obama criticized Pakistan for not doing enough to hunt down terrorists inside its borders.

Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination, said the Bush administration’s Iraq policy has made America more vulnerable to attack, and has weakened the country’s position in pressing the president of Pakistan, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to close down terrorist training camps.

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” Mr. Obama said today, “we will.”

In the second major foreign policy address of his campaign, Mr. Obama outlined a series of proposals intended to fight global terrorism, including a plan to send at least two additional brigades of American troops to Afghanistan to reinforce counterterrorism operations there. At the same time, he said, he also would increase nonmilitary aid to that country by $1 billion.

Mr. Obama, who is seeking to establish his foreign policy credentials in the wide field of presidential candidates, delivered a harsh rebuke of the administration’s strategy in Iraq. But the blame, he said, goes far beyond President Bush.

“Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war, giving the president the broad and open-ended authority he uses to this day,” Mr. Obama said. “With that vote, Congress became coauthor of a catastrophic war. And we went off to fight on the wrong battlefield, with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create, and no plan for how to get out.”

Mr. Obama, who had not yet been elected to the Senate at the time of the war authorization vote in 2002, is working to persuade Democratic primary voters that he has strong judgment in the foreign policy arena. Other candidates have questioned whether he has the experience a president needs.

Last week, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democrat of New York, and Mr. Obama traded heated remarks about the wisdom of meeting with hostile dictators without preconditions in pursuit of peace. Mr. Obama said that he would, while Mrs. Clinton said she would not, a distinction that Mr. Obama has seized upon to show that he is a candidate of change.

“It’s time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s time to turn the page on Washington’s conventional wisdom — that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear.”

The Clinton campaign did not offer a response to Mr. Obama’s address today, which was delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Mr. Obama did not mention Mrs. Clinton by name in his 35-minute speech, but he alluded to their disagreement several times.

“The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work,” Mr. Obama said. “Go down the list of countries we’ve ignored, and see how successful that strategy has been.”

-New York Times


WASHINGTON (CNN) –Sen. Barack Obama says he would shift the war on terror to Afghanistan and Pakistan in a speech he delivered Wednesday.

In his speech, Obama, D-Illinois, said things would look different in an Obama administration: “When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

Obama says the war in Iraq has left Americans more in danger than before 9/11.

"The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war," Obama will say. "He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq — which didn't exist before our invasion — and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training recruits in Pakistan."

Despite the challenges, and potentially destabilizing effect U.S. military action inside Pakistan could create, Obama said it was important to remain enagaged there. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," he will say. "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama also reiterated his disagreement with the Bush administration's diplomatic posture. "It’s time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action," he said. "It’s time to turn the page on Washington’s conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that Presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear."

Obama also said he would create an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to address terrorist threats from Indonesia to Africa.

Obama delivered his remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.

-CNN


By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 2, 2007; Page A01

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.



Sen. Barack Obama speaks at the Woodrow Wilson Center, where he described an anti-terrorism policy that he says he would pursue if elected president. Some of his Democratic opponents criticized his speech. (By Charles Dharapak -- Associated Press)

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Obama's warning to Musharraf drew sharp criticism from several of his rivals for the Democratic nomination, but not from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

Obama delivered a biting critique of President Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq and of the administration's overall strategy for combating terrorism, while seeking to reassure Americans that his long-stated opposition to the Iraq war would not compromise his commitment to defending the country from the threat of Islamic extremists.

The muscular speech appeared aimed at inoculating him from criticism that he lacks the toughness to lead the country in a post-9/11 world, while attempting to show that an Obama presidency would herald an important shift in the United States' approach to the world, particularly the Middle East and nearby Asian nations.

The speech came a week after Clinton described Obama as "irresponsible and frankly naive" for saying during a Democratic debate that he would be prepared to meet during his first year as president with leaders of rogue nations without preconditions. That set off a days-long argument between the two over diplomacy and the use of the presidency.

Obama described Clinton's approach to diplomacy as "Bush-Cheney light." She described that comparison as "silly." Their differences on the issue of dealing with nations such as Iran, North Korea and Syria, however, appear not to be significant. Both favor a much more energetic and open diplomatic strategy than they say Bush has followed.

Much of Obama's speech yesterday focused on steps designed to reinvigorate U.S. diplomatic efforts to combat terrorism, but the most noteworthy proposals dealt with military actions. Obama said he would deploy at least two more brigades -- about 7,000 troops -- to Afghanistan to combat what he said is the growing Taliban influence there while sending the Afghan government an additional $1 billion in nonmilitary aid.

But he said he would tie U.S. military aid to Pakistan to that country's success in closing down terrorist training camps, in blocking the Taliban from using its territory as a staging ground for attacks on Afghanistan and in getting rid of foreign fighters.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama offered no direct criticism of his leading rival for the Democratic nomination, but he indirectly rebuked Clinton and other Democrats who voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the war. "With that vote, Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war," he said.

-Washington Post

Expand our Diplomatic Presence: To make diplomacy a priority, Obama will stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in the tough and hopeless corners of the world – particularly in Africa. They will expand our foreign service, and develop the capacity of our civilian aid workers to work alongside the military.

-From his campaign page. Doesn't really sound like a modest foreign policy now does it? Maybe I'm all wrong on this one, but it sounds like he wants MORE involvment, perhaps not aggression, but still more money/involvment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIum0o-_LZk

This is of his speech. Same one the other's talk about.


"Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety."


- http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php



Once again, the only "change" the man talks about is removal of troops from Iraq. He wants to reinforce troops in Afganistan, and is looking into taking it into Pakistan. He, and McCain both, i believe, have been looking into sending troops into Georgia as well...I may be outdated on that...

So if we are chasing Bin Laden and he crosses the border into Pakistan, and Pakistani Army takes no action, are you saying we should just say, oh well, he got away?

We were descussing war costs. And why Obama's healthcare plan may not be the best idea for right now. Step one, balance a budget, audit fed, get control of resources. Step two cut certain senseless programs. Step three with money saved from other areas, apply it to your healthcare plan. First things first. He has no plan to cut government spending (as far as i know). And if he supposedly wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans then who the hell is gonna pay for these things? You're gonna need (approx) 70 billion dollars a year to support a program like that. Either he is making empty promises or a foolish decision financially during a financial crisis.

Anyhow, there is controversy on whether or not the Pakistan military will open fire on U.S. troops that cross the border. They fear that we are invading their sovereignty. I'm all about going after Bin Laden. I am a former paratrooper my friend, and combat veteran. I am not about to suggest we tie the hands of the troops on the ground. Right now, pull out of everywhere. Our previous foreign policy didn't work, right? So we change it. What happens when Iraq turns into a safe haven for terrorists? That's pretty much what's gonna happen when we leave. We gonna invade again, saying how we made a mistake by pulling out? (Yes, most insurgents are backed by terrorist groups in Syria and Iran. I personally helped gather some of that intel.)

As Dr. Paul said, the system is broken. We need to fix it.

And in order to fix things we need to "change" our ways.

Obama = no big changes
McCain = no big changes

You like Dr. Paul right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez5robAWmu4&feature=related

NOOBAMA

Obama/Biden

WRITE IN MICKEY MOUSE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!! He's never let any of us down! GO MICKEY GO!!!!

i think he had pre marital sex with minnie so hes out

atleast him and minnie are still together!!!

I'm votin for Mickey! lol

love your name thats what i wanted to name my little one but the ex didnt like it

McCain/Palin

Who would you propose to tax to pay for the blunders of these excessively paid CEO's and upper management types that have destroyed their employees future and quite frankly possibly the futures for many of the rest of us while continuing to live a life of excessive luxury? Better yet, who does McCain propose to tax?

Reading is also fundamental not findamental.

Isn't that what's happening this very moment and more to come...with all the goodies the treat turns out to be a trick.

All the rich and elite are going to go for McCain, he stands for their beliefs because HE IS ONE OF THEM. McCain has no clue how to run this country except to cater to the rich and elite.