Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1508481 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.

John Galt

Temecula, CA

#975134 Sep 3, 2013
Del. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA): I happen to believe there has to be a response. I do, I do believe in crimes against humanity need to be addressed, and I am, I canít believe that the only way to address it is a slight bombing which will somehow punish somebody or deter somebody. I donít know if thereís some way other than a military way to address this.

BILL PRESS, HOST: Youíre kind to join us this morning, Congresswoman. Let me just ask you one final question before we let you go. If, as you said, if the vote were held today, the president would probably not win it. If he doesnít win it, a week from now, do you think the president will be justified in taking action on his own, you know, unilaterally with Congress having voted against it?

HOLMES NORTON: No, oh boy, no. I think itíll be like the red line trap. He said if the red line you cross it. I think once you say, "Iím going to Congress," you canít say,ďOkay, Iím going to do it anyway.Ē

PRESS: Yeah, yeah, I donítÖ

HOLMES NORTON: So I think heíll be in real trouble if he then does it anyway. No president has done that.

PRESS: Itís not an easy decision for any of you, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

HOLMES NORTON: Oh, and Iíd like to say, Bill, that if he gets saved at all, I think itíll be because, itíll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just donít want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage.

PRESS: Yeah, right.

HOLMES NORTON: At the, at the moment, thatís the only reason I would vote for it if I could vote on it.

New York, NY

#975135 Sep 3, 2013

And shouldnít a credible enforcer of the rule of law obey the law? Under no possible conception is it legal for the United States to send missiles into Syria. The Kellogg-Briand Pact bans any such action. The most common excuse for ignoring that ban is the U.N. Charter and its loopholes for wars (wars that are defensive or U.N.-authorized). A U.S. attack on Syria is not defensive, and the White House isnít seriously pretending it is. A U.S. attack on Syria is not U.N. authorized, and the White House isnít pretending it is or pursuing such authorization in any way. Other U.S. wars carried out in violation of these laws have put up a pretense of internationalism by cajoling some other countries to help out in minimal ways. In this case, that isnít happening. President Obama is proposing to uphold international norms through an action that the international community of nations is against. France looks like the only possible, and at this point unlikely, partner ó not counting al Qaeda, of course.

A president also cannot go to war without Congress. So, it is encouraging that President Obama has now suggested he will try to rise to the standard of George W. Bush and bother to lie to Congress before launching a war. But if Congress were to say yes, the war would remain illegal under both the U.N. Charter and the Kellogg-Briand Pact. And if Congress were to say no, President Obama has indicated that he might just launch the war anyway.

If you look at the resolution that Obama has proposed that Congress pass, it doesnít grant permission for a specific limited missile strike on a particular country at a particular time, but for limitless warfare, as long as some connection can be made to weapons of mass destruction in the Syrian conflict. The White House has made clear that it believes this will add exactly nothing to its powers, as it already possesses open-ended authorizations for war in the never-repealed Afghanistan and Iraq authorizations, which themselves added exactly nothing to White House war powers, because the president is given total war power through the Constitution in invisible ink that only the White House can see.
No Surprize

Saint Petersburg, FL

#975136 Sep 3, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! I'm still looking for white doggie coat fen phen!
With age comes multi-tasking... Yeah Gilligan... can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart, shit and pee all at the same time...

It's the culture...

New York, NY

#975137 Sep 3, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>isn't that what the bushie boy supporters said for iraq son?
Obama is a clone of Bushie boy he just uses his dark complextion to get over thats what the CFR and the BILDBERGS put him in place for hands of he can get away with murder

Honolulu, HI

#975138 Sep 3, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
...used car dealers are lower than porno actors...
I've seen businesses that are worse son.

However, since you're for more capitalism, perhaps you'd like to push for deregulation of that market? And while you're at it, add the new car market too!

Scottsbluff, NE

#975139 Sep 3, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
The point was that you implied it was the major reason. It was not.
"Implied" is that the new buzz word for "I misstated your comment than argued and ranted for hours against a straw man"?

Honolulu, HI

#975140 Sep 3, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot Yeah doesn't think the American voter should have a say.
Tell your congressman your vote on the Syrian war.
lol! Have you convinced yourself yet?


Then keep repeating it to yourself son!

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#975141 Sep 3, 2013
Dem O Whiner wrote:
<quoted text>You tell them. Now, if the 20 babies were killed by abortion, that'd be different. We Democrats would make sure tax dollars paid for the murders.
You're not a democrat, Jane, hell, you're not even human. I make a deal with you: I'll never go into a school repeatedly shooting an assault weapon until I've killed twenty babies and six adults and you can go on with having your twenty abortions and just keep lying about it. Seems fair for a condumb mentality, no?

New York, NY

#975142 Sep 3, 2013

All of the above remains the same whether the Syrian government used chemical weapons or not. The way to end a war is to arrange a cease-fire, de-escalate, disarm, cool tensions, and start talking. Pouring gasoline on a fire doesnít put it out. The way to uphold the rule of law is by consistent example and through prosecutions by courts, not vigilantism. This remains the case whether the Syrian government has done what President Obama claims or not.

It is important, however, that so few people around the world and in the United States are willing to take Obamaís word for it. If Obamaís goal is to ďsend a message,Ē but most people in the Middle East disagree with him on the facts, what kind of message will he possibly be sending? That is, even if his claims happen to be true, what good is that if nobody believes U.S. war justifications anymore?

The super-healthy skepticism that has now been created is not all attributable to Iraq. The world has been flooded with false claims from the U.S. government during the wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and even Syria, as well as during the drone wars. Past claims that the Syrian government used chemical weapons have fallen flat. And the current claims come packages in lies, including lies about the Syrian governmentís willingness to allow U.N. inspections, and the speed with which it allowed them. The U.S. government discouraged the use of inspectors, seeking to rush into war on the basis of its own assertions. The White House has produced a dodgy dossier lacking in hard evidence. Analysts see little basis for confidence in White House claims. Insiders are risking ďespionage!Ē accusations to voice their doubts.

And should it be true that someone in the Syrian military used chemical weapons, the White House clearly has nothing but its own suspicions and desires to suggest that the order came from the top, rather than from some rogue officer with an interest in provoking an attack. Circumstantial evidence, of course, makes that more likely, given the bizarre circumstance of the incident occurring less than 10 miles from the U.N. inspectorsí hotel on the day they arrived.

Maybe itís just too difficult to hold a proper investigation during a war. If so, that is not something to be deeply regretted. Obamaís proposed response would be disastrous. Our priority should be avoiding it and ending the war. Creating a better climate for criminal investigations is just one more reason to bring the war to an end.

New York, NY

#975143 Sep 3, 2013

While hawks and profiteers within and without the U.S. military favor bombing Syria and just about any other military action one might propose, many are resisting. They include the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous officials risking Edward Snowden / Chelsea Manning treatment by talking to the Washington Post, and others to the New York Times. The military does not clearly understand its new proposed role as punisher of a crime that it itself regularly commits, and it does not share in Obamaís claimed confidence that a limited action will remain limited.


House Speaker John Boehner asked President Obama these as-yet-mostly-unanswered questions:

∑ What standard did the Administration use to determine that this scope of chemical weapons use warrants potential military action?

∑ Does the Administration consider such a response to be precedent-setting, should further humanitarian atrocities occur?

∑ What result is the Administration seeking from its response?

∑ What is the intended effect of the potential military strikes?

∑ If potential strikes do not have the intended effect, will further strikes be conducted?

∑ Would the sole purpose of a potential strike be to send a warning to the Assad regime about the use of chemical weapons? Or would a potential strike be intended to help shift the security momentum away from the regime and toward the opposition?

In fact, the White House has been clear that it has no intention to shift momentum in the war.

∑ If it remains unclear whether the strikes compel the Assad regime to renounce and stop the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or if President Assad escalates their usage, will the Administration contemplate escalatory military action?

∑ Will your Administration conduct strikes if chemical weapons are utilized on a smaller scale?

∑ Would you consider using the United States military to respond to situations or scenarios that do not directly involve the use or transfer of chemical weapons?

∑ Assuming the targets of potential military strikes are restricted to the Assad inner circle and military leadership, does the Administration have contingency plans in case the strikes disrupt or throw into confusion the command and control of the regimeís weapons stocks?

∑ Does the Administration have contingency plans if the momentum does shift away from the regime but toward terrorist organizations fighting to gain and maintain control of territory?

∑ Does the Administration have contingency plans to deter or respond should Assad retaliate against U.S. interests or allies in the region?

∑ Does the Administration have contingency plans should the strikes implicate foreign power interests, such as Iran or Russia?

Since: May 11

Aspers, PA

#975144 Sep 3, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
What is moronic is that you don't know who the Rebels are.
What is moronic is you thinking another political group would run the country other than the rebels with Assad's fall.
What is moronic is you cannot named ONE country that we attacked immediately after a chem attack.
What is moronic is your statement that "Obama will get his way" as if that is the most important thing right now.

This tells you who they are & ho is likely to run the country if they can defeat Assad.

The last time chemical weapons were used in large quantities was Iraq in the late 80's. There were doubts as to who used them & Ronald Reagan did nothing.

Obama says we should punish Syria. Looks like Congress will agree.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#975145 Sep 3, 2013
leosnana wrote:
<quoted text>That's a lie--no matter where you heard it or how many times you repeat it.
Really? What have they done except to pass meaningless gun control legislation?

New York, NY

#975146 Sep 3, 2013
THE LOW LIFE LIBERAL GLOBALISTS SOUNDS LIKE CONSER-REPUBLICANS The proposed limited strikes, using Raytheonís $3-million Tomahawk missiles (tastefully named for a weapon of a people the U.S. military ethnically cleansed) is expected to cost many millions and possibly $1 billion, should nothing go wrong. That money, spent on aid for victims of this war, rather than on escalating the violence, could save a large number of lives. Failure to so spend it is an immoral act.


Over 40,000 people already chose to click here to tell Congress and the president not to attack Syria.

Already itís making a difference. Our actions so far have helped compel President Obama to seek Congressional authorization before any attack.

Now we have a week to work with. We start with a majority of the public on our side. We have to hold off a flood of pro-war propaganda, and we have to compel Congress to represent us. And we can do this.

The first step is to click here and add your voice.

Second, please send this to everyone you think might add their voice as well.

Third, organize locally to pressure your Congress member and senators, while they are in their districts and states this week, to commit to voting ďNoĒ on a U.S. attack on Syria.

We who reject arguments for war are a majority now. We are a majority in Britain, where Parliament has already voted ďNo.Ē We are a majority in Germany, which will not take part. We are a majority in France, where Parliament will be heard from soon. And we are a majority in the United States. Let Congress hear from you now!

The terrible and widespread killing in Syria will become even more terrible and more widespread if the U.S. military launches an attack. The White House has no proposal to win a war, only to inject greater violence into a war, prolonging and escalating it.

Contrary to White House claims, Congress cannot authorize war and support a peace process at the same time. Escalating the violence will block, rather than facilitate, peace. Congress is going to have to choose.

Albert Camus summarized the choice now before us:ďIn such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners.Ē

Click here to oppose a military attack on Syria, and to urge Congress and the president instead to work for a ceasefire, to pressure Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Turkey, to halt the flow of weapons, and to pressure Russia and Iran to do the same.

Starting September 9th, if you can, be in Washington, D.C., to prevent this war.

New York, NY

#975147 Sep 3, 2013
THE DEMOCRATIC president obama is now the war monger with all the support from the MORANS lololololhahahahahaah

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#975148 Sep 3, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
"Implied" is that the new buzz word for "I misstated your comment than argued and ranted for hours against a straw man"?
The distinction between than and then does you in every time, there, JJ. CEO Strawman Unlimited.

Since: May 11

Aspers, PA

#975149 Sep 3, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
"Implied" is that the new buzz word for "I misstated your comment than argued and ranted for hours against a straw man"?
Implied is like lying when you word a statement with the intent of misinformation.

"40, 000 Longshoremen quit the union over Obamacare" Is the same as a lie because:

1) 40,000 Longshoremen are still in the same union they have always been

2) The main reason for ending their association with the AFL-CIO was not Obamacare. If not for the actions described in the first 5 paragraphs of that letter, they would likely still be associated with the AFL-CIO because they were associated for 3-4 years after the Obamacare support was made known.

Get ot yet.


New York, NY

#975150 Sep 3, 2013
NEXT TO WAR OBAMAS NEXT FAVORITE AGENDA Obama to meet with gay activists in Russia this week close second

Since: Feb 08

Spokane, WA

#975151 Sep 3, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you ignore the US Constitution.
"John Galt"
While I am definitely not in favor not in favor of American action in Syria does not the war powers act give the president the authority to act?

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#975152 Sep 3, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? What have they done except to pass meaningless gun control legislation?
I've been in a school for fifteen years that has closed circuit cameras at many locations on campus, an armed resource officer, metal detectors, monthly code red drills, etc...What have you freaks done besides sell a few mo' biggah weapons with the "Obama's gonna' take away your guns" lie and shoot a few more fat ass guns-for-gonads at "training."
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#975153 Sep 3, 2013
What happened to the McDonald's protests for $15 per hour?

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 Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 16 min Cute 71,272
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 43 min JRB 239,385
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr SweLL GirL 10,497
Obama has LEAK under sink. 11 hr TROY the Plumber 36
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 12 hr Raymond 63,546
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 12 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 8,066
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 12 hr CrunchyBacon 105,055

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages