Obamamania

[OscarGuy]

You know, we may actually be benefited by someone who has Islamic heritage in the White House. Perhaps we wouldn't turn a blind eye to their religious beliefs when waging war to bring Christianity to Iraq....I mean Peace...Peace...we're bringing PEACE to Iraq...that's what they say.

[Sonic Youth]

Obama (who, I'll reiterate, I'm no fan of) is now bearing the brunt of sleaze attacks by the sleaze right-wingers. Besides having an unfortunate last name that sounds like "Osama", he also has an equally unfortunate middle name: Hussein. Barack Hussein Obama.

However, he does not go by that name. He only refers to himself by first and last name. Think that stops the Republicans who want to smear him?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog....hussein

And then there was this,

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612150011

And now there's this,

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html

"So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian, and even if he despised the behavior of his father (as Obama said on Oprah); is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?"

Just a little sneak peek at what scumbags some Republicans are going to be a few years from now.

[Greg]

Obama now has competition from a more-consistent-anti-war voice. Dennis Kucinich will run again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16157918/

[99-1100896887]

You have to look at the whole book, not just an excerpt of a criticism that happens to go along with your thinking.

I know you are a young man( (espec. if you are Bryan on MYSpaceUAABD) and have not had to think much about life, except what someone filled your head with, I sincerely hope, that as you get older, you begin to discover something NEW that you did not consider when you made up your mind about the neo-cons, etc. It will happen, mark my words.

In order to be a well-rounded adult, you must learn a new fact everyday, and see the world from a wider purview that what you see now. If you get to be my age( maybe not possible in the world the neo-cons have created), and still have the views and baggage that you have been carrying, you will be a sad person, indeed. I know this from experience: I have mentioned that I have a neighbour just as set in his ways as you, but sadly, he DID not learn much in life( he is 65), and it reveals much about him when he opens his mouth. Read other reviews, too. Read what is between the lines. But read the book, then tell me what you think. Don't avoid another point of view without considering it.
I taught theatre, and would,every now and then, run into a student who thought he knew everything there was about acting and theatre. It did not take too long for someone like this to either get the program and open his ears to LEARN, or drop the class, in which case, he learned nothing new.

You must have realized by now that when your opinion is attacked by intelligent people on this board: people who know books, theatre, art, music and philosophy as well as movies, that you are out of step with what is really happening around you.

[criddic3]

Funny. I got the link again. The book is called America Alone, by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke. Not that I expect that you read much that does not fit with whatever whoever filled your ears with.

An amazon.com review describes the book, in part, this way:

the authors have an axe to grind, and grind away they do. They offer strong views and information tinged with passion, so if you find yourself elated - or deeply annoyed - write to them...and not to us

[99-1100896887]

Funny. I got the link again. The book is called America Alone, by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke. Not that I expect that you read much that does not fit with whatever whoever filled your ears with.

[criddic3]

Gee. If you have to use a search engine! Seek and ye shall find.
Try this link, as several books have appeared about the meetings in 1994. Do you really expect that Clinton would have actually seen this report on his desk? You must be stupider than we all thought. The book is available from Amazon.com
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521838347

Another broken link. Cam, if you're going to get me to read anything, you have to include real links.

Anyway, what good is this "shrub" book going to do for me?

Here's a quote from a reader review on Amazon.com:

Molly Ivins is a popular syndicated columnist who writes about political and social issues from her home base in Texas. She has written countless articles scrutinizing George W. Bush and his method of governing. She offers a good perspective, having been a Bush observer now for more than a decade. She has followed the current president from his days as a failed businessman, to his days as a failed governor, all the way to his present days as a failed president. She wrote this book and published it back in 2000, as a forewarning to those who were considering casting their vote for GWB.

Yeah. I reaaaallly wanna read this. Obviously this writer was out to influence the 2000 elections, and had an interest in seeing him not elected. Several other reviews say that outright. Why would I wanna read a book that is going to tell me things that may or not be true, with the intent of making the former Governor look bad? He was extremely popular as a governor in Texas, so I have a hard time responding favorably to a book that warns against electing a "failed" governor.

Besides, what in the world does any of this have to do with 9/11 or the current situation in Iraq? Do i have to read some Bush-bashing book to find out what it is you find so intriguing about 1994?

The fact that neither of your links worked is about the only interesting --indeed suspicious-- thing about what you are posting.

[99-1100896887]

Gee. If you have to use a search engine! Seek and ye shall find.
Try this link, as several books have appeared about the meetings in 1994. Do you really expect that Clinton would have actually seen this report on his desk? You must be stupider than we all thought. The book is available from Amazon.com
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521838347

[criddic3]

1994. Read about your history, goof. You must be the only one that didn't see this. If you read about the neo-con strategies, and see you signed on to it, then I will have a discussion with you. Also see the Rumsfeld article in New Yorker from last week.
AGAIN----newamericancentury.com

That brings me to a search engine, dopey. And when I click on any links it takes me to wierd lists of non-sites. I will do the extra research myself to see if any of it correlates to your theory that Republicans conpired to allow a 9/11 to occur or that Iraq was planned way in advance.

Your contention that Gore would not have dealt with any of that is crazy (well maybe he wouldn't have gone into Iraq, but the evidence did seem overwhelming so may he would have).

Remember, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were in office in 1994. Many of the proposals of the then-newly elected Republican majority in the House passed Clinton's desk. I don't think you grasp the way that our government works here. The president works with Congress, and occassionally might veto a bill (which may then be overturned in unusual circumstances with a 2/3 majority). So anything that passed during Clinton's term was a combination of Congress and the White House.

[99-1100896887]

1994. Read about your history, goof. You must be the only one that didn't see this. If you read about the neo-con strategies, and see you signed on to it, then I will have a discussion with you. Also see the Rumsfeld article in New Yorker from last week.
AGAIN----newamericancentury.com

[criddic3]

I know. cam's sense of 9/11 is convoluted and conspiratorial. The illogical sense of what transpired on and leading up to 9/11 requires a bit of kidding, no?

Any suggestion that Bush and/or his "people" decided to let something like what happened that day go forward just so they could gain a reason to attack Iraq is one of those tabloid-type inventions that belongs in the category of "aliens invade body of dog who eats elderly grandmother."

cam forgets how close the popular vote actually was. So close that Governor Bush won the electoral college, making him an elected president. He was popular enough that many polls before election day had Bush winning the popular vote, as well. So much so that the networks called the election for Bush on election night, whereas Gore never got ahead in all-important Florida. So, how was the world alienated? He was virtually an unknown to the international community in any important way. To them he was simply a governor from the U.S. state of Texas and the son of former president George H. W. Bush.

I don't even know how the group cam has targeted in his post would have been planning all these things before Bush ever ran, since Jeb was the one everyone thought would go on to run for higher office, until his elder brother won re-election in a landslide in 1998. And with a contentious primary election against John McCain, it wasn't for sure he would be the nominee. Add in the perceived advantage for an incumbent v.p. from a popular eight-year presidency, and you can see why I'm skeptical of cam's scenario. Gore lost based on a number of reasons, one of them including Bush's popularity. I know liberal gay guys who actually voted for Bush in 2000 (though they didn't in 2004) because they couldn't stand Gore.

So when did this elaborate planning take place?

[dws1982]

That logic is not logical.

That sentence is not logical!

[criddic3]

Yes, some of the people he has with him now were with him then, but any book that calls him Shrub is bound to have it in for him anyway. Anyhow, that doesn't mean he had anything to do with 9/11. That logic is not logical.

[99-1100896887]

How could President Bush have alienated the world BEFORE he was in office? Remember his reluctance for "nation building" statement? Remember his popularity as a governor? Remember "Compassionate Conservative
criddic

Have you read Milly Ivins' "Shrub" about Bush's "popularity" as governor of Texas? Didn't think so. Bush's cohorts were around BEFORE he became president and they were not trusted then and are still not not be trusted.
Do some reading about Your Hero and then think about what you have been saying.

[criddic3]

I don't put much stock into conspiracy theories.

Were you aware that regime change was the policy towards Iraq during Clinton's tenure?

As for 9/11, yes it could have and probably would have happened regardless of the President in 2001. Bin Laden was allowed to run amok throughout the 1990's, and his terrorist organization committed several violent acts that went virtually un-countered. So, yes, I think your theory that 9/11 happened BECAUSE of President Bush is ludicrous and frankly not very believable.

How could President Bush have alienated the world BEFORE he was in office? Remember his reluctance for "nation building" statement? Remember his popularity as a governor? Remember "Compassionate Conservative"?

Yeah, the world was sooo alienated by him.