Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (31274)	6/18/2008 9:01:50 AM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224755

The invasion was relatively easy dumbo. It was the democrat backed insurgency that was not.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (31274)	6/18/2008 9:08:55 AM
From: DizzyG	Respond to of 224755

Hate to break it to you, Kenneth... But the invasion was easy. Occupation, on the other hand is a different story. Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (31274)	6/18/2008 9:23:35 AM
From: DizzyG	Respond to of 224755

This sums it up best, Kenneth... Day after day the Obama ocean grows shallower and shallower. The man simply cannot deal with the issues ... certainly not in a meaningful way. Slogans and pabulum .. the Obama diet. boortz.com Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (31274)	6/18/2008 6:42:02 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 224755

Obama's Iraq flip-flops Obama's flip-flops tied to his patron Rezko's business interests. Richard Fernandez: Barack Obama’s position on Iraq has shifted significantly over the last six years. What is interesting is how his position on Iraq matches up with developments in Chicago. Specifically, there appears to be a direct correlation between the rising and falling prospects of his longtime friend and fundraiser Tony Rezko’s attempts to secure multi-million-dollar contracts to build and operate a power plant in Kurdish Iraq and the senator’s Iraq flip-flops. On October 2, 2002, Obama gave a speech categorically opposing an invasion of Iraq. He said: I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. But on April 5, 2004, Barack Obama appeared to significantly alter his position on Iraq. A YouTube video of Obama shows the incredulity on the interviewer’s face as Obama unexpectedly sounded almost like President Bush on the subject of retaining troops in Iraq. Here's O on youtube - Obama: Don't Bring The Troops Home youtube.com; Interviewer: But you said that troops should be withdrawn. Obama: No, no. I’ve never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I’ve said is that we’ve got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I don’t think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that. What’s important is that we have a long-term plan in process and short-term security strategy. It’s been suggested that that change in the senator’s position from opposition to a stern refusal to leave until the job had been finished can be explained by the unexpected ease with which the campaign had gone up till that time. But that doesn’t quite square with the facts. April 2004 was in fact the bloodiest month in the Iraq campaign till then and the start of the Sunni insurgency and Moqtada al-Sadr’s uprising. On March 31, 2004, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah ambushed a Blackwater convoy and hung the mutilated bodies of the Americans on the bridge.... ... But Rezko Watch, a blog following the trial of the Chicago political operative and Obama’s close friend and contributor Tony Rezko, remembered that something else took place in April 2004. Obama was at a party on April 3 — two days before the video– with Nadhmi Auchi, a London-based Iraqi billionaire who attended a Tony Rezko party in Chicago.... ... The meeting with Auchi takes on a special suggestiveness in light of later revelations that Rezko planned to build a $150 million Chamchamal Power Plant in Kurdish Iraq despite the fact he had no resources to do it with. According to John Batchelor, the former Obama supporter’s straitened circumstances at the time he was bidding for the project came up during the discovery proceedings at his recent trial.... ... But if Rezko had no money to build or finance the Chamchamal Power Project, how could he convince the Iraqi government to give him a letter of credit and where would the “other financing” come from? Subsequent events suggest the letter of credit would be arranged by another local connection, a Chicago Iraqi-American named Aiham Alsammarae, who is a one-time classmate of Tony Rezko and had been appointed as Iraq’s Minister of Electricity by L. Paul Bremer in July 2003. With Alsammarae at the head of the ministry, a letter of credit was possible. The money (”other financing”) would likely come from Nahdmi Auchi, who according to the Times Online, practically owned Tony Rezko. ... What had changed between June and November 2006 to alter Obama’s position? Possibly the situation on the ground. But one circumstance that had also changed was that the Rezko Chamchamal contract had been finally and irrevocably canceled only two weeks before. John Batchelor reports what Rezko told the judge during the discovery proceedings: We had, for whatever it’s worth, sometime in June received a letter saying the contract was canceled. We protested the cancellation. And, then, we received this [the November cancellation] letter. Batchelor describes some of the last-minute efforts to bring the Rezko power plant project back from the dead. ... There is much more in this piece that should be picked up by the mainstream media including the AP which will either try to charge or any excerpts or not pay for any it makes. The correlation of facts and the flip-flops appears to be more than a coincidence. The disagreement over whether Obama met with Auchi is really not that important to the narrative. I tend to think he met him, but found it inconvenient to remember it. What is really important is how Auchi fit into the Rezko schemes and how those schemes appear to have shaped Obama's attitude toward what we should do in Iraq. If you don't see the coincidence then Bill Clinton has a word or two for you. "Give me a break." Those are the words Clinton used to challenge Obama's position that he had been consistent in his opposition to the war. Posted by Merv prairiepundit.blogspot.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (31274)	6/18/2008 6:53:53 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 224755

Obama v. The Iraqi Foreign Minister — DrewM Uh oh. Senator ?Diplomacy Is My Middle Name? can't seem to get through one phone conversation with a foreign dignitary without either misunderstanding what the guy said or lying about it to the press. According to Obama the conversation went something like this. At a press availability in Michigan, I asked Obama if Zebari had expressed any concern to him that his plans to withdrawal U.S. troops as president would undo any security advances. "No, he did not express that," Obama said. "He did emphasize his belief that we've made real progress and I think was eager to see political accommodations between the factions follow up in the wake of this progress. ?And so my sense is that we should be able to execute a withdrawal and set a timeframe - a timetable that continues to allow US forces to support Iraqi forces in going after terrorists, that continues to train the Iraqi police and military as long as we're not training militias that are turning on each other. Yeah, except Zebari?s version of the story is a little different. Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that "Iraq is not an island." In other words, an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. "We have a deadly enemy," Mr. Zebari said. "When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity." Mr. Zebari says he believes U.S. forces can and should be drawn down. His point is that reductions should be made gradually, as the Iraqi army becomes stronger. The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Seems what we have here is a failure to communicate. And this is with an ally, a guy who has been foreign minister since the first provincial government was established in 2003. In other words, a pro who has worked and survived in a very dangerous environment and who has a boat load more experience than Obama. And still Obama manages to muff it. Yeah, let?s turn this idiot loose in a dangerous world. Posted by: DrewM ace.new.mu.nu

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (31274)	6/18/2008 7:04:49 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 224755

Obama the Politician-- Suddenly, NAFTA Looks Like a Grand Idea "Say Anything" Obama Here is a anti-NAFTA flyer sent out by the Obama Campaign to Ohio voters in February: "Only Barack Obama Consistently Opposed NAFTA." Obama Flyer from Ohio Daily Blog He may have been anti-NAFTA a couple of months ago... But despite his "overheated and amplified" rhetoric during the Democratic primary, Barack Obama now says that free trade may not be such a bad idea after all. CNN Money reported: The general campaign is on, independent voters up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade. In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee suggests he doesn't want to unilaterally blow up NAFTA after all. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy. Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered. What Obama says now is that he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people." That tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign's anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns. The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party. Is anyone really surprised by this? posted by Gateway Pundit gatewaypundit.blogspot.com