The War For Oil in Iraq

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Full transcript of that interview:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852,00.html

It relays a very different message.  He speaks very favorably of both the invasion (pointing our that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands in wars and gas attacks and tortured many more than the militants have) in general and President Bush individually.

The gist of it is correct, he thinks a short time frame is more realistic than a Germany type time frame for occupying troops.  But he does not share your war-for-oil crap that you are using his words to support.  Read the interview, he is a very reasoned individual - or a great politician anyway.

You're either a SUCKER or a sheeple.

[cannon_fodder]

Because I read the entire interview instead of excerpts?  

Got ya'.  Unless you take what is told to you at face value your an idiot.  Don't look for direct sources and don't worry about what was said in full nor in context.  Just take the story as given and run or your a "sheeple."

Makes perfect sense.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Because I read the entire interview instead of excerpts?  

Got ya'.  Unless you take what is told to you at face value your an idiot.  Don't look for direct sources and don't worry about what was said in full nor in context.  Just take the story as given and run or your a "sheeple."

Makes perfect sense.

You aren't a sheeple Cannon, just a resident of Dumbf*ckistan.

[FOTD]

McSame is toast. He'd foul up the world worse than Bush.  That he doesn't have a clue about these and many other things or that he just gets confused at times and misspeaks. As time goes on, it becomes increasingly clear that Senator McCain is not all that well versed in foreign affairs and isn't all that knowledgeable about domestic policy either.

You go believing the Whitewash House as well.

[Conan71]

I wish I could wake up everyday at 11am and start posting on here in my underwear, must be nice.

[}:)]

[FOTD]

Why is it %90 of the time you're dead wrong.

You should learn not to assume everything, Conan. It might help you out of your gloom.

[cannon_fodder]

My uncle recently retired (to Florida).  He met up with a group up us in Canada for a fishing trip.  He had a stock answer for "so what do you do every day?"

He would reply:
"Not a f***king thing, and that doesn't start until noon."

Classic.  I hope to be there someday.

[FOTD]

McCain camp reacts to Maliki's call for withdrawal: Voters don't care what Iraqi leaders say.»
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/19/mccain-camp-reacts-to-malikis-call-for-withdrawal-voters-dont-care-about-iraqi-leaders/

A "prominent Republican strategist" who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said more candidly, "We're f*cked."

McCain Owns First Foreign Policy Gaffe During Obama's Iraq Trip (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/mccain-owns-first-foreign_n_114013.html

If he gets elected, which he won't, but just if....we call him either McAirhead or McGaffe.
Great Prezidential material huh?

"WHAT I REALLY SAID WAS THAT BUSH AND McCAIN SHOULD WITHDRAW THEIR HEADS FROM THEIR ASSES ... PREFERABLY WITHIN THE NEXT 16 SECONDS." Maliki

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Why is it %90 of the time you're dead wrong.

You should learn not to assume everything, Conan. It might help you out of your gloom.

You are Mr. Doom and Gloom, "we are all ****ed"

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Why is it %90 of the time you're dead wrong.

You should learn not to assume everything, Conan. It might help you out of your gloom.

You are Mr. Doom and Gloom, "we are all ****ed"

Right. That's why the devil worships me.[8D]

[FOTD]

McCain Knee-Capped by Maliki

by Jim Lobe

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=13178

sweet.

[cannon_fodder]

Please tell me you are just pressing an issue and not trying to make an actual point FOTD.  We have gone over this.  It is reports like this that cause me to hate the far left (other's cause me to hate the far right).  It isn't news, it isn't reporting, it's just blatantly taking whatever pieces you want and ignoring the rest to deliver your political message.  That's a step above spin into the realm of propoganda:

quote:FOTD's source said
Maliki's endorsement in an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine came on the very eve of Obama's visit to Baghdad has made things even worse for the McCain camp

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=13178

quote:SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November?
. . .
Maliki: . . . Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852-2,00.html

See how I went to the "source" that your "news" cited and then quoted what was actually said?

It's clear your "source" either didn't read the interview or didn't care what it said.  Likewise, you are either totally ignorant of the fact (which I pointed out earlier) or totally lack integrity.  Maliki basically said Obama's plan is the general direction he wants to see but refused to endorse him.  Why isn't that good enough?  Why do you feel the need to lie about what was said?

Let's deal with the facts for a change.  

Huffingtonpost
aniwar.com
ourfuture.com
professorsmartass
thinkprogress

These are PARTISAN sources.  Do you seriously not understand the difference?  It's like citing to Rush Limbaugh to prove that Democrats are all idiots, but-for the fact that Rush at least doesn't just make things up that fly in the face of a referenced interview.  

Now change the subject or call me an idiot for using my own brain instead of some talking head.  More likely just ignore it, since you've got nothing.  And never have.

[FOTD]

Der Spiegel seems to be a bit partisan too, CF. Sorry if you missed Maliki's translation from Arabic to German and to English but the essence of which says McBush wants their oil and it's not up for grabs.

It Was Maliki's own interpreter who translated the remarks that Maliki supported Obama's timetable plan: "But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki's office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki's interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama's position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence."

Condemn these sources if you so desire but they beat what comes from the Whitewash Press room, or the Faux Newzy agencies, or the especially stupid rad eee oh talkers, or even the McLame campain.

I got Moe's editorial which you can't find in Dumbf*ckistan except through the internets or here at TNF!!

Is 'The One' Cocky or Commander in Chiefy?
   
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: July 23, 2008
JERUSALEM

Barack Obama wrinkles.

Just slightly, and just when he has to wear a flak jacket over his blue oxford shirt.

The media behemoth slouching after the senator is scouring his every word, expression, bead of sweat, basketball shot and accessory — are those hiking boots too Bremer? Are the sunglasses too rapper? Will he leave enough time for his glittery groupie, Carla Bruni? — for hints of imperfection that would foretell lacunae in presidential judgment.

The One, as McCain aides sardonically call Obama, glided through Afghanistan, Iraq and Jordan, girding his messianic loins for the inevitable kvetching he would face in Israel as skeptical Jews "try to get a better sense of what's in Obama's kishkes." So said Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, in The Daily News, defining "kishkes" as Yiddish for gut.

The king of Jordan personally drove the prince of Chicago from the palace to the airport on Tuesday night to catch his flight to Israel, leading a motorcade in his slate Mercedes 600 across the tarmac and right up to O-Force One, as The Chicago Sun Times mockingly calls the candidate's freshly branded 757, with the captain's chair embroidered with "Obama-'08/President." As the senator got out of the passenger seat, King Abdullah jumped out to chat some more, as though the two, who had only met in passing on the Hill, were old pals.

Obama finally found a Muslim with whom he's willing to be photographed.

At moments, Obama was acting as though he were already "on a coin," as Jon Stewart would say. But cocky or not, he needs to swoop up to conquer so Americans can picture him in the role.

The One left them swooning in Jordan. A member of the king's inner circle who attended the chicken-and-rice dinner with King Abdullah and Queen Rania said that Obama had gone a long way toward assuaging their fears that he would be so eager to run away from his paternal family's Muslim roots and to woo skeptical American Jews that he would not be "the honest broker" they long for after W.'s crazed missionary work in the Middle East.

"The guy gets it," the Jordanian official said after dinner with Obama. "Sharp, aware and a very good listener. He doesn't seem stuck in preconceived positions. He said he would get straight to the Palestinian issue as soon as he becomes president."

That old skill that Obama honed at the Harvard Law Review of listening until everyone at the table felt they had been heard (and agreed with) is coming in handy on his presidential dress rehearsal.

Soon after his sweet parting with King Abdullah, Obama spoke on the Tel Aviv tarmac about the special relationship between Israel and America that he vowed to "actually strengthen in an Obama administration." Ominous signs showed up in Jerusalem, including a construction vehicle attack near his hotel before he arrived and a dozen Americans holding McCain signs as he walked into the King David Hotel.

The smoother his trip has gone — from sinking a 3-pointer with the troops in Afghanistan to presenting the Obama-Maliki withdrawal plan for Iraq — the more panicky Republicans back in Washington have become.

The image of John McCain in a golf cart with Bush 41 in Kennebunkport — with Poppy charmingly admitting that they were "a little jealous" of all the Obama odyssey coverage — was not a good advertisement for the future, especially contrasted with the shots of Gen. David Petraeus and Obama smiling at each other companionably in a helicopter surveying Iraq. (Asked by a Democratic lawmaker a while back why there weren't more Democrats in the military, General Petraeus smiled slyly and said "there are more than you think.")

A foiled and frustrated McCain — trying to get covered when the entire media world has gone fishin' for Obama stories — took the Hillary tack of mocking the press for having a "love affair," as his campaign said, with the senator. McCain is hopping mad that the surge that he backed, and Obama resisted, has now set the stage for the Bush puppet Maliki to agree with Obama's exit strategy. But Obama has a better batting average with his judgment on how we shouldn't have gotten into Iraq, we should have gone after Osama and we should talk to Iran and other foes, if only to better assess their psychology. Then we might have deduced that Saddam had the "Beware of Dog" sign up without the dog.

It doesn't work for McCain — and his foreign policy guru Henry Kissinger — to keep insisting that timetables will lead to defeat.

The Angry One can try to paint The One as having bad judgment. But who is being advised by Kissinger, the man who helped keep us in Vietnam and get us into Iraq?"


Once again, she's spot on. There is a sea change and we'd rather see intelligence supercede stupidity this time around.

Cannon, thanks for attempting to defend the lies of the fright wing! Keep it up. We need devil's advocates around here![]

[FOTD]

BTW, just because you use your own brain does not make it truthiness or right. Maybe right wing but not necessarily correct.

Cannon Fodder.....the last hold out to fright wing MSM.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/072208.html

"In a Feb. 2, 2002, speech to the Munich Conference on Security Policy, McCain said the United States and its allies needed to concentrate on overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

"The next front is apparent, and we should not shirk from acknowledging it," McCain said. "A terrorist resides in Baghdad, with the resources of an entire state at his disposal, flush with cash from illicit oil revenues and proud of a decade-long record of defying the international community's demands that he come clean on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.

"A day of reckoning is approaching."

McCain's speech, with the ambitious title, "From Crisis to Opportunity: American Internationalism and the New Atlantic Order," laid out the aggressive neoconservative agenda that President George W. Bush would pursue in the months that followed.

Bush soon was diverting U.S. intelligence resources from Afghanistan to the new front – Iraq – undercutting efforts to track down Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key surviving al-Qaeda leaders, who had sought refuge in the rugged Pakistani tribal areas.

By late summer 2002, the Bush administration had begun its propaganda campaign to stoke American war fever toward Iraq. In the fall, Bush stampeded Congress into approving a use-of-force resolution. One year after McCain's speech, the U.S. military was putting the final touches on invasion plans.

On March 19, 2003, Bush fulfilled McCain's dream by launching the invasion of Iraq, succeeding in ousting Hussein's government in three weeks but then finding a large U.S. expeditionary force tied down by a stubborn insurgency for the next five-plus years."


Cannon Fodder, do you have a problem connecting the dots or are you so gilded to believe that  the devilish blogs and internet sites posted twist historical facts?
McCain's day of reckoning is coming.

[cannon_fodder]

Argh.  So the SOURCE of the interview is biased?  Therefor we can pick and chose from that source the scraps of the interview that we want.  That makes sense.

Someone mistranslated "this is not an endorsement" from "I endorse Barrack Obama" and no one in the world caught on to that?

And nothing in the interview suggests Bush is trying to steal their oil.  It wasn't even discussed in the interview.  Where did that even come from?

You're either a fool or have no integrity.  I'll let you tell me which it is.

I'll say it 12 more times in case your just dense:
1) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama.  "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.

2) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.

3_ Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.

4) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.

5) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.

6) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.

7) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.

Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.

9) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.

10) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.

11) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.

12) Maliki said the timetable concept was in line with his thought but explicitly said he is not endorsing Barrack Obama. "Bush stealing oil" was not even discussed.

Here is the link again to the actual interview:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852-2,00.html

Here is a NY Times article about how so many people are taking the interview as an endorsement when it was not, and the problems that is causing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html

Here is a Reuter's news story that says the remarks were not meant to back Barrack Obama nor a specific plan:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_maliki_obama_dc

I cited to one of the largest publications in Germany that did the actual interview, the very liberal New York Times, and the international news agency Reuter's who spoke with Iraqi government officials.  You again cited crap.
- - -

If you are still somehow confused, let me know.
Honest to god, read the interview, go find various translations, learn Arabic.  You can make translation excuses all you want, but it's a pathetic excuse to TOTALLY alter the meaning and insert parts of the discussion that never even happened.

Honestly, you create your own world and do all you can to reinforce it.  Try reading SOURCE material instead of propaganda.   You're nothing more than a repeater, just doing what you're told. The irony is you accuse people who do research, view source material, and question what they read of that exact offense.

Stop and think, which is the better course of action:  reading the interview and determining it's meaning OR reading partisan blogs attributing their own meaning to the interview and repeating it as fact?

[edit]The last post links to a source sponsored by and run by the author of  "Neck Deep, the Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush." It is a yet ANOTHER blantantly partisan site pushed off as news. And for fun, doesn't address the matter at hand anyway.  Thus, it was not responded to.[/edit]