posted March 13, 2008 12:44 PM            

Perhaps it's time to buy some ConAgra stock (CAG)...makers of Jiffy Pop...and Orville Redenbacher's. Kind of a 2 for 1 play in popcorn circles.

Now Hillary surrogates are playing the race card against O'Bomber. And I thought it was only dastardly republicans and conservatives who were...by definition...racists.

Geraldine Ferraro Leaves Clinton Camp After Saying Obama Where He Is Because He's Black
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4435376&page=1

posted March 13, 2008 12:52 PM              

GREAT ! thats something that i love about India and specially delhi (it has fast emerged as melting pot for different cultures in the last decade) too .

::: The factoral groups within both Pakistan and India number way too greatly. If the international community gets involved in this, it will spark conflicting notions between all those groups.

:::

posted March 13, 2008 01:01 PM            

Bush: Downright sunny on GOP's 2008 prospects
March 13, 8:37 AM

President George W. Bush spoke before the National Republican Congressional Committee last night and offered a more positive assessment of his party's chances in November than Republicans are used to hearing.

Some highlights:

-"I don't know about you, but I'm excited about the year 2008. I intend to finish strong, with my head held high. And I intend to work to see to it that we keep the White House and elect John Boehner Speaker of the House of Representatives."

-"First, you're going to be welcoming a new keynote speaker -- President John McCain."

-"I also want to welcome all the candidates who are running for office. You know, it's not an easy decision to make to run for the United States Congress. But it's a noble decision. And it's a tough decision for your families. And so I want to thank you for agreeing to run. I want to thank your families for agreeing to support you. My advice is work hard, talk about what's in your heart, let the people know your values, and win. And I think you will. I think 2008 is going to be a fabulous year for the Republican Party."

-"And the reason why I believe that is because when the American people look at our ideals versus the ideals of the Democrats, when they look at what we believe versus what they believe, they're with us. We represent the values of the American people. Our ideas are the ones embraced by the folks. They may not be the ones that the pundits listen to, but they're the ones who are out working every single day to make America a great and hopeful place. (Applause.)"

posted March 13, 2008 01:36 PM              

:::

posted March 14, 2008 12:13 PM            

When you're right, you're right

posted April 08, 2008 07:49 PM            

O'Bomber...Bomb, bomb, bomb
bomb Pakistan.

Obama calls for talks with Iran over Iraq
Apr 8 06:08 PM US/Eastern

Obama Calls for ‘Diplomatic Surge That Includes Iran’

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080408220807.ud9xv11e&show_article=1

posted April 08, 2008 08:41 PM            

"I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder, that the two problems you pointed out, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region are a direct result of that original decision.

"That's not a decision you gentlemen made. I will not lay it at your feet. You are cleaning up the mess afterwards." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080408220807.ud9xv11e&show_article=1

I'm not sure if talking to Iran will help, but I think it's between that and attacking them.

Petraeus confirmed that Iran is involved. We know war is not a viable option. What do you suggest? A more passive approach? Maybe a U.N. resolution or something? Idle threats and a generalized snub? Is that working so far?

posted April 08, 2008 09:26 PM            

O'Bomber is on record several times talking about withdrawing all US military forces from Iraq in 16 months..oh and never mind what happens to Iraqi citizens, never mind the bloodbath that would ensue. Oh, and never mind what happens to US military forces still in Iraq as combat troops are withdrawn. O'Bomber would make targets for terrorists out of them.

I have an idea. If O'Bomber should happen to be elected president..and remove all US military forces from Iraq, then let O'Bomber go to Iraq and take the last US helicopter out of Iraq.

posted April 09, 2008 03:33 AM            

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed. - Hillary Clinton

The only "Bullshiiit" around here is within your post that denies the above.

quote:

---

O'Bomber is on record several times talking about withdrawing all US military forces from Iraq in 16 months..oh and never mind what happens to Iraqi citizens, never mind the bloodbath that would ensue. Oh, and never mind what happens to US military forces still in Iraq as combat troops are withdrawn. O'Bomber would make targets for terrorists out of them.

---

Why don't we go to what he actually did say today? ...because it's telling:

quote:

---

OBAMA: OK, let me shift to Iran.

Just as -- and, Ambassador Crocker, if you want to address this, you can. Just as it's fair to say that we're not going to completely eliminate all traces of Al Qaida in Iraq, but we want to create a manageable situation, it's also true to say that we're not going to eliminate all influence of Iran in Iraq, correct?

That's not our goal. That can't be our definition of success, that Iran has no influence in Iraq.

So can you define more sharply what you think would be a legitimate or fair set of circumstances in the relationship between Iran and Iraq, that would make us feel comfortable drawing down our troops?

U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ RYAN CROCKER: Senator, as I said in my statement, we have no problem with a good, constructive relationship between Iran and Iraq. The problem is with the Iranian strategy of backing extremist militia groups and sending in weapons and munitions that are used against Iraqis and against our own forces.

OBAMA: Do we feel confident that the Iraqi government is directing these -- this aid to these special groups?

Do we feel confident about that, or do we think that they're just tacitly tolerating it? Do you have some sense of that?

CROCKER: There's no question in our minds that the Iranian government, and in particular the Quds Force, is -- this is a conscious, carefully worked-out policy.

OBAMA: If that's the case, can you respond a little more fully to Senator Boxer's point? If, in fact, it is known -- and I'm assuming you've shared that information with the Maliki government -- that Iran's government has assisted in arming special groups that are doing harm to Iraqi security forces and undermining the Iraqi government, why is it that they're being welcomed the way they were?

CROCKER: Well, we don't need to, again, tell the prime minister that. He knows it.

OBAMA: OK.

CROCKER: And is trying to take some steps to tighten up significantly on the border.

In terms of the Ahmadinejad visit, you know, Iran and Iraq are neighbors. A visit like that should be in the category of a normal relationship.

OBAMA: OK.

CROCKER: I think what we have seen since then, in terms of this very clear spotlight focused on a malign Iranian influence, puts that visit into a very different perspective for most Iraqis, including the Iraqi Shia.

OBAMA: OK. Because -- Mr. Chairman, I know that I am out of time, so let me just, if I could have the indulgence of the committee for one minute?

SEN. JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., D-DEL.: Everybody else has.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: I just want to close with a couple of key points.

Number one, we all have the greatest interest in seeing a successful resolution to Iraq -- all of us do. And that, I think, has to be stated clearly in the record.

I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder, that the two problems that you've pointed out -- Al Qaida in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region -- are a direct result of that original decision.

OBAMA: That's not a decision you gentlemen made. I won't lay it at your feet. You are cleaning up the mess afterwards. But I think it is important as we debate this forward.

I also think that the surge has reduced violence and provided breathing room, but that breathing room has not been taken the way we would all like it to be taken. And I think what happened in Basra is an example of Shia versus Shia jockeying for power that underscores how complicated the political situation is there and how we still have to continue to work vigorously to resolve it.

I believe that we are more likely to resolve it, in your own words, Ambassador, if we are applying increased pressure in a measured way. I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind -- and this is where we disagree -- includes a timetable for withdrawal.

Nobody's asking for a precipitous withdrawal, but I do think that it has to be a measured but increased pressure; and a diplomatic surge that includes Iran. Because if Maliki can tolerate as normal neighbor-to-neighbor relations in Iran, then we should be talking to them as well. I do not believe we're going to be able to stabilize the position without them.

Just last point I will make. Our resources are finite. And this has been made -- this is a point that just was made by Senator Voinovich, it's been made by Senator Biden, Senator Lugar, Senator Hagel. There's a bipartisan consensus that we have finite resources. Our military is overstretched, and the Pentagon has acknowledged it.

The amount of money that we are spending is hemorrhaging our budget, and Al Qaida in Afghanistan I think is feeling a lot more secure as long as we're focused in Iraq and not on Afghanistan.

Wen you have finite resources, you've got to define your goals tightly and modestly.

OBAMA: And so my final -- and I'll even pose this as a question and I won't -- you don't necessarily have to answer it -- maybe it's a rhetorical question -- if we were able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without U.S. troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success?

It's obviously not perfect. There's still violence, there's still some traces of Al Qaida, Iran has influence more than we would like. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success? Would that meet our criteria, or would that not be good enough and we'd have to devote even more resources to it?

CROCKER: Senator, I can't imagine the current status quo being sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown.

BIDEN: That wasn't the question.

OBAMA: No, no, that wasn't the question. I'm not suggesting that we yank all our troops out all the way. I'm trying to get to an endpoint. That's what all of us have been trying to get to.

And, see, the problem I have is if the definition of success is so high, no traces of Al Qaida and no possibility of reconstitution, a highly-effective Iraqi government, a Democratic multiethnic, multi- sectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don't like, then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years.

If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an Al Qaida base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe, and that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has been trying to drive at, and we haven't been able to get as clear of an answer as we would like.

CROCKER: And that's because, Senator, is a -- I mean, I don't like to sound like a broken record, but this is hard and this is complicated.

I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry forward its further development without a major commitment of U.S. forces, with still a lot of problems out there but where they and we would have a fair certitude that, again, they can drive it forward themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slip away from them again, then, clearly, our profile, our presence diminishes markedly.

But that's not where we are now.

OBAMA: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

---

posted April 09, 2008 08:28 AM            

Nice try but your article is dated Sept 2002...and HEY ACOUSTIC..the war didn't start until 6 months later in March of 2003. Oh and HEY ACOUSTIC, the war didn't start until Saddam was given one final opportunity to comply with UN Resolutions. That too was done with a UN Resolution. You're just full of it.

I know you didn't read the Joint Resolution of Congress acoustic. Wouldn't want to go straight to the source now would you acoustic??? After all, who needs that when you've got the leftist news sources..like CBS who are so screwed up they're now in talks with CNN to have CNN furnish some of their reporting. Waiting was done..6 months worth of waiting and this was after 12 YEARS of waiting for Saddan to comply with 16 UN Resolutions. The Joint Resolution contains NO LANGUAGE about waiting for any other conditions to be performed by Bush or anyone else. Hillary is full of methane gas.

posted April 09, 2008 08:54 AM            

Now acoustic, what the hell does your response have to do with what I said. You remember, what I said that you put up in a quote. The part where the Insane One talks about withdrawing ALL US forces in 16 months. Yeah acoustic, that one...to which you give some BS nonsense..off point BS nonsense about what O'Bomber said at the hearings yesterday...which had nothing to do with what I said.

Beyond the fact your response was totally off the point acoustic, this moron who wants to bomb friends and allies...and talk to our enemies...screwed up so royally it's hard to not believe he isn't confused as to who is who in the middle east. He seems to use Iraq and Iran interchangably. Let's look at your insane socials twits own words.

quote:

---

So can you define more sharply what you think would be a legitimate or fair set of circumstances in the relationship between Iran and Iraq, that would make us feel comfortable drawing down our troops?

U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ RYAN CROCKER: Senator, as I said in my statement, we have no problem with a good, constructive relationship between Iran and Iraq. The problem is with the Iranian strategy of backing extremist militia groups and sending in weapons and munitions that are used against Iraqis and against our own forces.

OBAMA: Do we feel confident that the Iraqi government is directing these -- this aid to these special groups? *****Note, O'bomber seems to think the Iraqi government is attacking their own citizens and military forces. Doesn't this moron know the subject here was IRAN furnishing weapons, funding and munitions for attacks inside Iraq? Guess not because it appears O'Bomber has the very same problem you have acoustic.

Do we feel confident about that, or do we think that they're just tacitly tolerating it? Do you have some sense of that?

CROCKER: There's no question in our minds that the Iranian government, and in particular the Quds Force, is -- this is a conscious, carefully worked-out policy.

---

No reason and no need to go any further into the ravings of a lunatic leftist socialist...who would bomb allies and friends...like Pakistan and talk with enemies...like Iran.

posted April 09, 2008 11:23 AM            

quote:

---

O'Bomber is crazy..as in insane if he actually believes Iran SHOULD HAVE INFLUENCE INSIDE IRAQ.

---

posted April 09, 2008 11:42 AM            

It wasn't 6 months it was 12 years acoustic. The fact demoscat gas bags were bloviating is irrelevant. Hedging their bets is so contemptible but demoscats voted for the war and that's undeniable. It's also undeniable that war resolution contained NO LANGUAGE requiring or even suggesting Bush WAIT even a second longer.

It's also undeniable demoscats have been attempting to throw the war for most of 4 years. That's contemptible beyond words.

It's also undeniable the two leftist socialist demoscat candidates for president are at the forefront in attempting to hand terrorists a victory in Iraq.

***edit

God, you don't even read the crap you post here acoustic.

quote:

---

Just as -- and, Ambassador Crocker, if you want to address this, you can. Just as it's fair to say that we're not going to completely eliminate all traces of Al Qaida in Iraq, but we want to create a manageable situation, it's also true to say that we're not going to eliminate all influence of Iran in Iraq, correct?

That's not our goal. That can't be our definition of success, that Iran has no influence in Iraq.

---

Of course the terrorist government of Iran should have NO INFLUENCE within Iraq. What, is this moron also insane. Unfortunately, the answer to that question is without question yes.

posted April 09, 2008 01:42 PM            

quote:

---

It's also undeniable that war resolution contained NO LANGUAGE requiring or even suggesting Bush WAIT even a second longer.

---

What is undeniable is that Democrats across the country called for the President NOT to be hasty, and rush to war. What the war resolution said is not the issue.

Mr. Bush may soon find himself forced to choose between going ahead with an invasion despite marginal international support, or bowing to demands by many allies to give inspectors more time. We believe more time is warranted to determine whether Iraq's dismantlement of missiles is a signal that Mr. Hussein is reconsidering his stubborn defiance of the United Nations and to see if a solution short of war is still possible. - New York Times, March 3, 2003 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E4DB1F3CF930A35750C0A9659C8B63

Congress Must Resist the Rush to War - New York Times, October 10, 2002 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E6D81F3BF933A25753C1A9649C8B63

A Rush to War—Now a Rush Out of One? http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,493243,00.html

Why the Rush to War? - The Independent

Democrats Urge Bush Not to Rush to War

My memory isn't wrong on this. Yours is troubling.

posted April 09, 2008 02:05 PM            

quote:

---

OBAMA: If that's the case, can you respond a little more fully to Senator Boxer's point? If, in fact, it is known -- and I'm assuming you've shared that information with the Maliki government -- that Iran's government has assisted in arming special groups that are doing harm to Iraqi security forces and undermining the Iraqi government, why is it that they're being welcomed the way they were?

---

Do you understand his question? He is asking why Iraq warmly welcomed Ahmadinejad when Iran's government is assisting in arming special groups that are engaging in battle with Iraqi security forces. Do you have a problem with that?

Crocker's response:

quote:

---

In terms of the Ahmadinejad visit, you know, Iran and Iraq are neighbors. A visit like that should be in the category of a normal relationship.

---

So... Maliki's talking with Ahmadinejad? Doesn't Maliki represent an ally? It's ok for Maliki, but not Obama? Obama says:

quote:

---

Nobody's asking for a precipitous withdrawal, but I do think that it has to be a measured but increased pressure; and a diplomatic surge that includes Iran. Because if Maliki can tolerate as normal neighbor-to-neighbor relations in Iran, then we should be talking to them as well. I do not believe we're going to be able to stabilize the position without them.

---

More quotes you seemed to have missed from Obama:

quote:

---

OBAMA: I just want to close with a couple of key points.

Number one, we all have the greatest interest in seeing a successful resolution to Iraq -- all of us do. And that, I think, has to be stated clearly in the record.

I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder, that the two problems that you've pointed out -- Al Qaida in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region -- are a direct result of that original decision.

---

quote:

---

It's obviously not perfect. There's still violence, there's still some traces of Al Qaida, Iran has influence more than we would like.

---