Osama Obama

[International Machine Consortium]

Yeah, Ted is obviously to blame for his nephew being an a-hole. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big Ted fan. I just think a lot of the nastiness directed at him is undeserved.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I wouldnt vote for either one!

oh, wait, this wasnt a poll? doh...

ps: Obama shows some promise... but 2008 is too soon for him. He needs more time to develop alliances and to get his arms around the way that Washington operates. (that way, maybe he can fix it!)

I have a not-so-sneaking suspicion that after a certain point more time spent in Washington is not necessarily a good thing...

I thought the same thing about him.. it's awfully romatic to think that the naive new guy can come in and just lead with his brains and heart.. then, however, reality kicked in and I realized that he'd get eaten alive if he tried to go for it too soon! I know how badly the other side wants change, and like i said, Obama shows promise; but it would be a very bad move to have him blow his proverbial wad too early... i just think it would waste his potential.

Good things (and change) come to those who wait...

Yeah I don't necessarily think that someone too green should be in the White House, just that there is probably a fine line between "not enough time in Washington" and "too long."

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I wouldnt vote for either one!

oh, wait, this wasnt a poll? doh...

ps: Obama shows some promise... but 2008 is too soon for him. He needs more time to develop alliances and to get his arms around the way that Washington operates. (that way, maybe he can fix it!)

I have a not-so-sneaking suspicion that after a certain point more time spent in Washington is not necessarily a good thing...

I thought the same thing about him.. it's awfully romatic to think that the naive new guy can come in and just lead with his brains and heart.. then, however, reality kicked in and I realized that he'd get eaten alive if he tried to go for it too soon! I know how badly the other side wants change, and like i said, Obama shows promise; but it would be a very bad move to have him blow his proverbial wad too early... i just think it would waste his potential.

Good things (and change) come to those who wait...

Yeah I don't necessarily think that someone too green should be in the White House, just that there is probably a fine line between "not enough time in Washington" and "too long."

i agree completely!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The problem is that Kennedy waited for 10 hours after the accident before telling authorities. Also before telling the police he talked with his lawyer. Some very poor decision making on his behalf.

And Bush didn't even bother to wait for 9-11 to start planning to invade Iraq. What's your point? :roll:

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

?From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,? says O?Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

?From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,? says Suskind. ?Day one, these things were laid and sealed.?

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ?Go find me a way to do this,?" says O?Neill. ?For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.?

And that came up at this first meeting, says O?Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. ?There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ?Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,?" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

?It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,? says Suskind. ?On oil in Iraq.?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Red Dawn, can you offer one or two facts whatsoever in the last 15 years to justify that attack? One single drinking embarrassment, one single sexual indiscretion?

If not, back off. The man has changed his behavior and 20 year old attacks are a bit excessive.

Kiss my ass, that fat POS has gotten away with things the average Joe would have done time for just because he's a Kennedy.

So, no, you can't back your comments up with one fact. But you sure did expose him as being overweight, I think, the height of (your) discourse.

You can kiss your own ass, since your lips are right there anyway.

OK you got me, the last one I remember was 15 years ago when he and his nephew William Kennedy Smith went out and about drinking and philandering right before Smith allegedly raped a woman. So I guess he's learned his lesson from multiple instances of being a drunken lout or more than likely learned how to do it out of the public eye

This has exactly ZERO to do with Ted Kennedy.
You take some broad to your uncle's mansion, rape her, it's your Uncle's fault because...well, just because, apparently....

He asked me to point out "offer one or two facts whatsoever in the last 15 years to justify that attack? One single drinking embarrassment," and I did so.

That was over 15 years ago. You lose.