Obama Proposes *GASP* Faith-Based Initiatives

[FOTD]

Inteller, this will turn you on !!!!

Condoleezza Rice Says She's `Proud' of Decision to Invade Iraq

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIefxPxr_Gw8&refer=worldwide

Do you gravitate towards war criminals?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by inteller

your beloved fruit is not going to yank troops out of iraq like he said he would..what do you think about that?

That is not true. He will pull down troops as necessary and he will end the war.

Do you really think Obama is going to end the war any sooner than McCain, Clinton, Romney, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Rudy, etc. ad nauseum would have?  

Not a chance.  

He's a player in the same exclusive club those guys are.  If elected President, Obama will be told by the special interests of defense contractors, the Pentagon, and everyone else profiting off this war when he can end the war.  It won't be on the idealistic time-frame he's putting forth to win the election.

Then he will snipe it's all Bush's fault.

You truly are a spin-meister, this guy is starting to espouse views you have consistently speared Bush for, yet you continue to support him and spin it all into some sort of "change".  Chump change maybe, not real change.  There's no "real change" left on the ballot.

[FOTD]

Yes, many patriotic Americans want the war ended. Almost %70 want the war over. The politics of diversion can't work with those numbers.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/22939109.html?location_refer=OnStage

"He blamed any confusion on the McCain campaign, which he said had "primed the pump with the press" to suggest "we were changing our policy when we haven't."

"I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill-conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end," he said. "I have also said I would be deliberate and careful about how we get out. That position has not changed."

So Conan, do you favor continuing this war? Until when and until what goal is left to accomplish?

Repiglijerk war monger? Just hateful towards Barack Obama?

What's your issue?

[FOTD]

Conan, you get your news right off the GOPee er's website for distraction. Go to the dem site for action...Looks like the Repugs are going to go by the oudated 2004 Rove playbook, using false generalizations, misleading info, lies and distortions to "spin" stories about the dem contender. As long as we keep exposing them by using the truth against them, this strategy won't work again. We're finally going out of the spin cycle and can finish the wash-away of all the dirt and grime, immorality and crime that has built up.

Day Two Of Uninformed Coverage Of Obama's Iraq "Shift"

http://blogs.dw-world.de/acrossthepond/tim/1.6783.html

"There's some snarkiness out there today toward Barack Obama from reporters after he chided them for their coverage of his recent statements on Iraq. We reporters, like all humans, do sometimes bristle at criticism, but everyone who erroneously reported that Obama had somehow changed his position ought to just go ahead and swallow this medicine.

Obama simply did not change his position, as some reported he did. A little basic research
is all it takes to learn that. Obama, as far back as September of 2007, refused to commit to fully pulling out troops before 2013. That's more than 16 months, the timespan he frequently cites for ending the Iraq War. No, he has not often emphasized his "facts on the ground" argument, but it's always been there.

When Obama said today, "I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured," he was wrong in his characterization of the media's calibration. It was quite poorly calibrated, in fact.

The New York Times piece linked above suggested that somehow Obama was doing a flip-flop within a flip-flop by changing his story from "I wasn't clear enough" in Thursday's second press conference to "you didn't hear me right." To me, this reads more like the kind of thing anyone says in an argument; being charitable to the other party, one might start by saying, "Perhaps I should have said it better," but when the message still doesn't get through, charity goes out the window and things shift to "You should listen better."

Obama might have felt compelled to bring the subject up again because of pieces like this, which delve into whether he's on the verge of getting saddled with a flip-flopper label.

Writes the AP in another bit of strange reporting: "His problem is that his change in emphasis to flexibility from a hard-nosed end-the-war stance — including his recent position that withdrawing combat troops could take as long as 16 months — will now be heard loud and clear by an anti-war camp that may have ignored it before. So he could face a double-whammy in their feelings of betrayal and other voters' belief in the Republican charge that he is craven." It's hard to understand why any reporter would postulate that. A very casual scan of some of the most liberal blogs -- home of the most strident anti-war positions on the left -- shows that, in fact, it is only the media that has drawn their scorn, not Obama. And as TPM pointed out, the 16-month timeline is not "recent," either.

In my day job at Congressional Quarterly, I report on policy first, politics second. But here, at Across the Pond, I'm a political reporter first and foremost. And incidents like the recent spate of reporting and "analysis" on Obama's Iraq stance give dishonor to that profession."