Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1482205 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

Jimmy

Hamden, CT

#891400 Apr 22, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
So, we invaded because of "perceived requirements"?
perceived???
Shouldn't we know for sure???? Shouldn't we have found any bit of nuclear activity?
Oh lookie - it's Johnny one subject Dumb Dave blathering about Iraq, the war we won, yet again.

Like whoa man, far out man. WMD's man.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#891401 Apr 22, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, they are his parents. They're not capable of being objective.
Parents still love and protect their children even if they are killers.
I think the father should be detained if he comes here.
well, as long as we're already ignoring the Constitution in relation to....then yes, detain him.

i'm siding with the libertarians on this one.

Since: Apr 13

Orlando, FL

#891402 Apr 22, 2013
Iraq Survey Group Final Report:

"Saddam’s initial approach under sanctions was driven by his perceived requirements for WMD and his confidence in Iraq’s ability to ride out inspections without fully cooperating."

"Iraq engaged in denial and deception activities to safeguard national security and Saddam’s position in the Regime. These surveillance activities and the suspect vehicle movements in and around sensitive sites made it difficult for Western intelligence services to distinguish innoculous security-related measures from WMD concealment activities which added to the suspicion of Iraqi actions."

"Senior military officers and former Regime officials were uncertain about the existence of WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent mixed messages. Early on, Saddam sought to foster the impression with his generals that Iraq could resist a Coalition ground attack using WMD. Then, in a series of meetings in late 2002, Saddam appears to have reversed course and advised various groups of senior officers and officials that Iraq in fact did not have WMD. His admissions persuaded top commanders that they really would have to fight the United States without recourse to WMD. In March 2003, Saddam created further confusion when he implied to his ministers and senior officers that he had some kind of secret weapon."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/rep...

He was sending mixed messages to the entire world, not just his generals.

“wake up”

Since: Jan 10

utica ny

#891403 Apr 22, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
These are the Christians
http://www.google.com/imgres...
no. Its crazy people who call themselves christians.
TSM

United States

#891404 Apr 22, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Only Dumbass FloriDUH thinks 9-11 had anything to do with Iraq.
Hey… Pee Brain what trigger the Iraq invasion?
WOW

New York, NY

#891405 Apr 22, 2013
IT'S FUNNY WE BLAME MUSLIM TERRORISTS WHEN MOST OF THE WESTERN LEADERS HAVE BEEN STUDYING ISLAM AND CONVERTING SLOWLY AS TONY BLAIRS WIFE AND MANY MORE wake up people ISLAM THE WORLDS LARGEST RELIGION IN A FEW MORE YEARS IN THE WEST CHRISTIANS WILL BE THE FACE OF TERRORIZM the world is being transformed before our eyes
Jimmy

Hamden, CT

#891406 Apr 22, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Only Dumbass FloriDUH thinks 9-11 had anything to do with Iraq.
Clinton had a chance to take out Bin Laden, but you week DemocRATS sat like a deer in headlights, your M.O.

You leftards always ignore the 1993 trade towers bombing.

The only Dumbass here is you, nitwit. Go smoke another joint, spaceshot freak.

We just had our first terrorism event that was successful and killed/maimed people and Obama/Your Giberment was warned a year ago. You have brass kahonas, lowlife. If I were you, I'd STFU as your moron had this occur on "his" watch, douchebag.

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#891407 Apr 22, 2013
Aunt Bettie Lou wrote:
<quoted text>
The Iraq Survey Group put out a 1,000 page report saying Saddam Hussein intended to resume production of banned weapons when UN sanctions were lifted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/371815...
Isn't that all we - and you - need to know?
You might actually be a dumber bitch than Fenny Bate and Eediot. Can you not comprehend this section from your source: ""The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."

"There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted... "

"The problem of discerning WMD in Iraq is highlighted by the pre-war misapprehensions of weapons which were not there. Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions."

Since: Apr 13

Orlando, FL

#891408 Apr 22, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
but don't you find this a bit disturbing?
The Iraq War, the 2007 troop surge there, the 2008 financial meltdown and the response to Katrina in 2005 are featured in an interactive exhibit called "decision points theater" where visitors can assess "the decisions that I had to make and the recommendations I received," he says.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/g...
it's like...'It might not be my fault that I screwed up. You decide.'
as i said....LOL
That's the case for any president.

Decisions are made based on the information received.

The debacle after Katrina was directly linked to the mayor not evacuating the citizens when hoards of school buses were sitting on standby UNUSED as well as the Governor refusing to give the federal government permission to send in ARMED national guardsman until the liberal media made sure Bush was blamed first.

Bush was not going to send in the National Guard UNARMED and Governors are, BY LAW, required to give any president permission.

Everyone knew Saddam was a threat. Only Democrats became weasels for political gain when the tides turned.

The surge was the best decision Bush made. Even Obama was forced to admit that.
lily waxman raton fl

Pompano Beach, FL

#891409 Apr 22, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that plan backfired, who got the oil?
probably lily boca, who gets well oiled, especially during Happy Hour

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#891410 Apr 22, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, Mighty Dumb Builder, is that you said nothing while Reagan & Bush gave Egypt piles of money & built up that military that they now control. It goes to your hypocrisy & immense dumbassedness.
Mubarak was a friend, regardless of how Obama felt about him. Radical Muslims orchestrated the Arab Spring, Obama, "the most informed president on earth" knew this. He helped facilitate Mubarak's overthrow, thus choosing a radical Islamist over a moderate friend. He was also briefed on Morsi's political history and knew everything about his leadership role in the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi even tried to usurp dictatorial powers that would have given him Mubarak-like control, the same control Obama railed against. It was Morsi's fellow brotherhood pals who talked him back, Obama was conspicuously, silent. The players, circumstances and obligations, in Egypt, have changed and Obama helped change them. A prudent American president would NEVER have assisted an avowed enemy of America and Israel (most likely, that's why Obama did it).

LOL...I can't say I'm surprised you prevaricated Obama's responsibility with the standard, childish, Bush/Regan line - again.
WOW

New York, NY

#891411 Apr 22, 2013
THE ELITE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED IDEOLOGY AND RELIGION IN ORDER TO KEEP POWER and CONTROL THE PEOPLE THEY WILL be THE FIRST TO CALL YOU NON BELIEVERS and send you to the GALLOWS as they did in GERMANY so if you THINK OBAMA IS YOUR SAVIOUR HE ALREADY TOLD YOU HE IS NO PRESIDENT OF BLACKS HE IS THE PRESIDENT FOR THE POWERFUL NOT YOU YOU ARE NOT JAY Z, MAGIC JOHNSON NO YOU ARE JUST BLACK NOT IMPORTANT TO THE POWER ELITE DO YOU REALLY THINK MAGIC JOHNSON WANTS TO PAY FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE lololololololol

Since: Apr 13

Orlando, FL

#891412 Apr 22, 2013
Aunt Bettie Lou wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people were wrong about the necessity of the Korean War in the immediate aftermath.
South Koreans and history judge it very differently today.
President Truman (D) was sinking in the polls then too.
Fortunately for Truman, he didn't have an Obama undoing everything that was accomplished in the Korean War.

Since: Apr 13

Orlando, FL

#891413 Apr 22, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
So, we invaded because of "perceived requirements"?
perceived???
Shouldn't we know for sure???? Shouldn't we have found any bit of nuclear activity?
You should probably read the entire report before focusing on just one word.

I understand connecting the dots is very difficult for most liberals but I know you can do it.
Jimmy

Hamden, CT

#891414 Apr 22, 2013
Oh lookie - the vile lazy beast devoid of a shred of common sense calling someone else dumb!

Priceless!!!!

Baawwaaahhhh!!!!!
leosnana wrote:
<quoted text>You might actually be a dumber bitch than Fenny Bate and Eediot. Can you not comprehend this section from your source: ""The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."
"There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted... "
"The problem of discerning WMD in Iraq is highlighted by the pre-war misapprehensions of weapons which were not there. Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions."
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#891415 Apr 22, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that plan backfired, who got the oil?
[chuckle]

Since: Apr 13

Orlando, FL

#891416 Apr 22, 2013
leosnana wrote:
<quoted text>You might actually be a dumber bitch than Fenny Bate and Eediot. Can you not comprehend this section from your source: ""The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."
"There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted... "
"The problem of discerning WMD in Iraq is highlighted by the pre-war misapprehensions of weapons which were not there. Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions."
I have provided the entirety of the Iraq Survey Group's Final Report.

Like RealDave, perhaps you should read it too.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/rep...

UN Inspectors confirmed and agreed Saddam would resume his WMD program as soon as the world wasn't watching.

If you think he was just going to play nice if the UN gave up on their ongoing and neverending resolutions, you're cuckoo.
WOW

New York, NY

#891417 Apr 22, 2013
OBAMA IS NOT DOING OR UNDOING ANYTHING HE IS OVERSEEING THE MASTER PLAN GIVEN TO HIM OBAMA CANNOT STOP ANYTHING IF HE COULD WE WOULDNT HAVE SANDY HOOK, BOSTON, WHAT DID HE PREVENT WHAT DID THEY STOP NOTHING THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE PEOPLE ARE DEAD AND TERRORISM STILL CONTROLS THE PUBLIC MINDS ..TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT FREEDOMS TAKEN AWAY OUT OF FEAR, OUR RIGHTS ARE BEING GIVEN AWAY BY COWARDS, NO MIRINDA RIGHTS BECAUSE OF WHAT the US GOVERNMENT WERE TOLD ABOUT THESE GUYS and they did nothing and why did the FATHER SAY ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE that was deep confidence and he looks MAFIA or GOVERNMENT
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#891418 Apr 22, 2013
Aunt Bettie Lou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the case for any president.
Decisions are made based on the information received.
The debacle after Katrina was directly linked to the mayor not evacuating the citizens when hoards of school buses were sitting on standby UNUSED as well as the Governor refusing to give the federal government permission to send in ARMED national guardsman until the liberal media made sure Bush was blamed first.
Bush was not going to send in the National Guard UNARMED and Governors are, BY LAW, required to give any president permission.
Everyone knew Saddam was a threat. Only Democrats became weasels for political gain when the tides turned.
The surge was the best decision Bush made. Even Obama was forced to admit that.
Even author Bob Woodward, who had published best-sellers that praised Bush’s early war judgments, concluded that the “surge” was only one factor and possibly not even a major one in the declining violence.

In his book, The War Within, Woodward wrote,“In Washington, conventional wisdom translated these events into a simple view: The surge had worked. But the full story was more complicated. At least three other factors were as important as, or even more important than, the surge.”

Woodward, whose book drew heavily from Pentagon insiders, listed the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar Province and the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a cease-fire as two important factors. A third factor, which Woodward argued may have been the most significant, was the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders.

Beyond the dubious impact of the “surge” on the gradual reduction in violence, Bush’s escalation failed to achieve its other stated goals, particularly creating political space so the Sunni-Shiite divisions over issues like oil profits could be resolved. Despite the sacrifice of additional American and Iraqi blood, those compromises did not materialize.

And, if you’re wondering what the “surge” and its loosened rules of engagement meant for Iraqis, you should watch the WikiLeaks’“Collateral Murder” video, which depicts a scene during the “surge” when U.S. firepower mowed down a group of Iraqi men, including two Reuters journalists, as they walked down a street in Baghdad. The U.S. attack helicopters then killed a father and wounded his two children when the man stopped his van in an effort to take survivors to the hospital.

However, in Washington, the still-influential neocons saw an opportunity in 2008 when the numbers of Iraq War casualties declined. The neocons credited themselves and the “successful surge” with the improvement as they polished up their tarnished reputations, badly stained by the blood of the long and disastrous conflict.

As the neocons pushed the “successful surge” myth, they were aided by the mainstream news media, which also had promoted the ill-fated war and was looking for a way to bolster its standing with the public. Typical of this new conventional wisdom, Newsweek published a cover story on the “surge” under the title,“victory at last.” To say otherwise brought you harsh criticism for not giving credit to “the troops.”

http://truth-out.org/news/item/14020-the-iraq...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#891419 Apr 22, 2013
Thus, the myth grew that Bush’s “surge” had brought Iraqi violence under control and the United States to the brink of “victory.” Gen. David Petraeus, who took command of Iraq after Bush yanked Casey and Abizaid, was elevated into hero status as a military genius. Also, Defense Secretary Robert Gates received the encomium of “wise man” for implementing the “surge” after Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld in November 2006 for standing behind his field generals and suggesting a faster U.S. troop drawdown in Iraq.

With the new conventional wisdom firmly established in 2008, media stars pounded Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama for his heresy regarding the “surge.” In major televised interviews, CBS News’ Katie Couric and ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos demanded that Obama admit he was wrong to oppose the “surge” and that his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, was right to support it.

For weeks, Obama held firm, insisting correctly that the issue was more complicated than his interviewers wanted to admit. He argued that there were many factors behind Iraq’s changed security environment. But ultimately he caved in while being interrogated on Sept. 4 by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama confessed to O’Reilly.“It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

Much as Hagel is likely to do, Obama judged that continued resistance to this Washington “group think” was futile. But candidate Obama’s surrender on the “successful surge” myth had long-term consequences.

For one, it gave Gen. Petraeus and Defense Secretary Gates inflated reputations inside Official Washington and greater leverage in 2009 to force President Obama into accepting a similar “surge” in Afghanistan, what some analysts now regard as Obama’s biggest national security blunder.[For details, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]

The Iraq War’s “surge” also did nothing to change the trajectory of an eventual American defeat there. Perhaps the only real accomplishment of the “surge” was to let President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney enjoy a decent interval between their departure from government in early 2009 and the unceremonious U.S. departure from Iraq in late 2011.

In the final accounting of the neocon adventure of conquering Iraq, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had died; some 30,000 were wounded; and an estimated $1 trillion was squandered. What was ultimately left behind was not only a devastated Iraqi population but an authoritarian Shiite government (in place of Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian Sunni government) and an Iraq that had become a regional ally of Iran (rather than a bulwark against Iran).

The hard truth is that this bloody folly was not “salvaged” by the “surge” despite what the likes of Michael O’Hanlon and George F. Will claim. The “surge” simply extended the killing for a few more years and bought Bush and Cheney their “decent interval.”

But none of this reality has persuaded Official Washington to rethink its “successful surge” orthodoxy – and more likely than not, Chuck Hagel will be forced to genuflect before this conventional wisdom to win his Senate confirmation.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/14020-the-iraq...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min Dr Phil 234,308
Cong. John Lewis is a worthless black dem. hack... 23 min Well Well 12
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 53 min Lovey794 62,964
Are democrats destroyed? 2 hr Genl Forrest 244
FRIDAY 1/20/17 PRESIDENT TRUMP. Democrap Tota... 2 hr Genl Forrest 11
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 4 hr SweLL GirL 10,092
BENZOS and others available 10 hr Meds 1

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages