President Obama

Glasser · by **Glasser** on 07/15/08, 9:51 pm

How will the world react WHEN President Obama, not only changes his position on a very crucial issue, but denies ever saying he took his original stance? He has repeatedly done this in his say anything quest for president. Pardon me while I go throw up.

Eyas · by **Eyas** on 07/16/08, 12:14 am

They'll react the way the MSM tells them to react. Or, at least, the MSM will do backflips to cover his tracks and try to make it seem as if two diametrically opposed positions are actually consistent with one another -- they're just "nuanced". And if you don't understand this nuance, you must be a dolt, or a racist-bigot-sexist-homophobe-warmonger-hatemonger-Republican-conservative.

SoldiersMum · by **SoldiersMum** on 07/16/08, 1:48 am

Well, he's changed his position on the war again.  He's going to end the war on the first day he's Prez.  He's also going to get tough with Amedinejad by having a chit chat without preconditions....again.

Apparently, the far left loons have put pressure on him to be who he really is.  Back to the inexperienced fool.

Tomorrow he will go back to saying he's going to make sure the troops are safe and he'll do what the Iraqis want and Petreaus says is best.

All the while, he has scrubbed his website of any reference he's made  to the failing surge while he's going to Iraq and talks to the troops.  Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

Igmond50 · by **Igmond50** on 07/16/08, 7:17 am

[SIZE=9pt]Obama's position has not changed relative to Iraq. He has said we will leave and I am certain he will begin the process as soon as he takes office. Those opposed to his plan are claiming he is flip flopping because the argument to stay in Iraq is so weak. Everyday more lives are wasted and more money is wasted for the purposes of oil companies that want access to the most plentiful oil reserves in the world. The killing has always been about oil and the hate Bush had for Saddam and his ilk.
[SIZE=9pt]
[SIZE=9pt]There is no way that Obama would back off his promise to end the war in Iraq. He knows where his bread is buttered.

paleocon · by **paleocon** on 07/16/08, 8:12 am

Igmond50 wrote:Obama's position has not changed relative to Iraq. He has said we will leave and I am certain he will begin the process as soon as he takes office. Those opposed to his plan are claiming he is flip flopping because the argument to stay in Iraq is so weak. Everyday more lives are wasted and more money is wasted for the purposes of oil companies that want access to the most plentiful oil reserves in the world. The killing has always been about oil and the hate Bush had for Saddam and his ilk.

There is no way that Obama would back off his promise to end the war in Iraq. He knows where his bread is buttered.

Talk about ignoring reality!  Obama has already changed his position on Iraq at least twice.  The argument for seeing it through in Iraq is the only rational argument.  We have won the military war in Iraq and the Iraqi government needs just a little more time to consolidate political power there.

Lives sacrificed bringing freedom and democracy to 29 million Iraqis are not wasted.  If you were so worried about "wasted lives" why not protest the slaughter of the unborn in this nation largely paid for by tax dollars?

And please at least try to get one fact right.  Iraq does not have "the most plentiful oil reserves in the world."  A 45 second Google search disproves this silly statement.  (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html).

The war has been about fighting terrorism and safeguarduing this nation's freedom.  The war was badly managed for several years.  Bush deserves the blame for those bad decisions but the "surge" worked.  We needed more troops there and when Bush put them there the enemy was routed.

Do you get your DNC talking points directly from the Ofbama campaign?

Igmond50 · by **Igmond50** on 07/16/08, 9:53 am

paleocon wrote:
Igmond50 wrote:Obama's position has not changed relative to Iraq. He has said we will leave and I am certain he will begin the process as soon as he takes office. Those opposed to his plan are claiming he is flip flopping because the argument to stay in Iraq is so weak. Everyday more lives are wasted and more money is wasted for the purposes of oil companies that want access to the most plentiful oil reserves in the world. The killing has always been about oil and the hate Bush had for Saddam and his ilk.

There is no way that Obama would back off his promise to end the war in Iraq. He knows where his bread is buttered.

Talk about ignoring reality!  Obama has already changed his position on Iraq at least twice.  The argument for seeing it through in Iraq is the only rational argument.  We have won the military war in Iraq and the Iraqi government needs just a little more time to consolidate political power there.

Lives sacrificed bringing freedom and democracy to 29 million Iraqis are not wasted.  If you were so worried about "wasted lives" why not protest the slaughter of the unborn in this nation largely paid for by tax dollars?

And please at least try to get one fact right.  Iraq does not have "the most plentiful oil reserves in the world."  A 45 second Google search disproves this silly statement.  (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html).

The war has been about fighting terrorism and safeguarduing this nation's freedom.  The war was badly managed for several years.  Bush deserves the blame for those bad decisions but the "surge" worked.  We needed more troops there and when Bush put them there the enemy was routed.

Do you get your DNC talking points directly from the Ofbama campaign?

[SIZE=9pt]I do not get my talking points from anyone. I take what I have learned and observed and apply it. I am not in favor of Obama politically. I am in favor of ending the war. The republican (conservative) talking point is that we have brought freedom to the 29 million people of Iraq. That is bull...it is neither why we went there nor a result of having gone. It is a buzzword (phrase) that will get a certain number of people's hearts a fluttering and a great way to get them to fall in line. Your government has and is lying to you through a number of different means for purposes they will never admit to but nonetheless exist. A choice to begin examining a leader's statement assuming it is a lie would have been an effective means of preventing the mess we allowed ourselves to be led into. And yes...that includes Obama. I admit there is a chance he is lying about ending the war...but other indicators (money, reserve force, political pressure from his base, etc.) lead me to conclude he will have little choice but to follow through.
[SIZE=9pt]
[SIZE=9pt]P.S. You are correct about Iraq...they have the 3rd largest reserves. I stand corrected as it relates that fact but not as it applies to the overall point. We are there for the purpose of allowing access to oil. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

paleocon · by **paleocon** on 07/16/08, 10:40 am

Igmond50 wrote:
I do not get my talking points from anyone. I take what I have learned and observed and apply it. I am not in favor of Obama politically. I am in favor of ending the war.

So it is just a strange coincidence that you echo the antiwar, leftist propaganda about the war in Iraq on every point so far? Strange how these things happen.

Igmond50 wrote:
The republican (conservative) talking point is that we have brought freedom to the 29 million people of Iraq. That is bull...it is neither why we went there nor a result of having gone. It is a buzzword (phrase) that will get a certain number of people's hearts a fluttering and a great way to get them to fall in line.

So you deny that there is a functional democracy in Iraq? Do you deny that 29 million people are freer today under Al Maliki than they were under Saddam Hussein? Do you deny that violence in Iraq is down? Does freeing people from tyranny NOT make your heart flutter? Would you be in favor of restoring the USSR and enslaving 300 million people? Is that what makes your heart flutter?

Igmond50 wrote:
Your government has and is lying to you through a number of different means for purposes they will never admit to but nonetheless exist. A choice to begin examining a leader's statement assuming it is a lie would have been an effective means of preventing the mess we allowed ourselves to be led into. And yes...that includes Obama. I admit there is a chance he is lying about ending the war...but other indicators (money, reserve force, political pressure from his base, etc.) lead me to conclude he will have little choice but to follow through.

Government lies. We agree on that. That is why our founding fathers wanted a limited government with expressly defined powers. It amazes me how people like you can in one breath condemn the excesses of government and then turn around and call for MORE GOVERNMENT to fix the problem.

Obama is a typical politician. He will say, and has said, anything to get elected. His multiple positions on many "core beliefs" prove that he was lying or is now lying. More government lies either way you look at it.

Igmond50 wrote:
P.S. You are correct about Iraq...they have the 3rd largest reserves. I stand corrected as it relates that fact but not as it applies to the overall point. We are there for the purpose of allowing access to oil. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

That cannot be correct. Saddam managed to ship a lot of oil. If we were interested in access to oil our government would have allowed Saddam to continue to murder indiscriminately as long as the oil flowed. FOLLOW THE LOGIC!

Eyas · by **Eyas** on 07/16/08, 12:00 pm

[quote="Igmond50"] Everyday more lives are wasted and more money is wasted for the purposes of oil companies that want access to the most plentiful oil reserves in the world. The killing has always been about oil and the hate Bush had for Saddam and his ilk.

We are there for the purpose of allowing access to oil. FOLLOW THE MONEY.[/quote]

Where is my oil, anyway? The only money I'm following is the $4.20 per gallon I pay for gas.

If we went to war only for oil -- where is it?

SoldiersMum · by **SoldiersMum** on 07/16/08, 1:17 pm

Since there is more oil in the US and offshore than in all of the Middle East, we didn't need to even go to war at all. So, the Democrats could be authorizing drilling to get us out of Iraq but alas, both of these statements are bogus:

We went to Iraq for the Oil

and

Drilling oil now will not solve the problems.

So, now that we are completely off topic, let's try to get back to President Obama.

He is now saying the New Yorker cover is an insult to Mulims. Apparently, a President Obama would restrict any speech or media that has a thing to do with race...any race. I'm sure he'll be bringing in La Raza or Hispanics, in general, any day now. However, there will be no race issue with whites, particularly white males who have been persecuted for years now.

Igmond50 · by **Igmond50** on 07/16/08, 1:52 pm

Eyas wrote:
Igmond50 wrote: Everyday more lives are wasted and more money is wasted for the purposes of oil companies that want access to the most plentiful oil reserves in the world. The killing has always been about oil and the hate Bush had for Saddam and his ilk.

We are there for the purpose of allowing access to oil. FOLLOW THE MONEY.[/quote]

Where is my oil, anyway? The only money I'm following is the $4.20 per gallon I pay for gas.

If we went to war only for oil -- where is it?

President Obama

President Obama

Re: President Obama

Re: President Obama

Re: President Obama

Re: President Obama

Re: President Obama

Re: President Obama

Re: President Obama

Re: President Obama

Re: President Obama