Funny no comments when someone says Obama is exactly right, where are all you republican John I don't know where I am McCain fans.  Nothing to say now!!!

Richard, Washington State -

“If you succeed in turning your back on them, and them on us in turn, we will really have troubles.”
_________________________________

You don’t believe they haven’t turned their backs on us?

The republicans want the government to stay out of our lives. I maintain it is because they are greedy. And they are using their money and buying mansions and yachts and airplanes so they can keep up with each other.

And they have made their money exploiting their labor force.

The republicans complain about our illegal immigration problem.  Including Mitt Romney. He's against illegal immigration right?  He had no problem hiring them to keep his lawn looking great.

When did they stop hiring Americans?

His sons did not fight in a war they supported.

Even Ronald Reagan, everyone's favorite republican, was no friend to labor.

There have been no regulations on anything. In the meantime, everything is falling apart. Everything.

How many pictures do we see of our soldiers who were killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? How many of these soldiers are African American?  Quite a lot. Yet McCain supporters want to condemn them, when it is the white collar crime in this country that’s killing us.

How many of these rich corporate thieves that have their kids serving? I don’t know but I doubt it is many.  

Bush and Cheney. Oil and Halliburton.

They wanted to win for power and to get richer. It had nothing to do with America and its citizens or its future. The Founding Father’s vision was always the furthest thing from their mind.

They are greedy. And everyone knows it. And I have yet heard any of them stand up and say something against this Administration.
_________________
Angelo Lopez
February 17, 2008

(From the end of an article he wrote about the Founding Fathers and their dark legacy with slavery):

“It may seem strange, given such ruminations, that I consider myself to be enthusiastically patriotic, but here I am, raised and aged in the midst of the American reality. To be human is to live with moral complexity and existential ambiguity. I don't need for this nation to be perfect in order for me to love it; I love it because it is home, and because all of the touchstones of my life are here. More than anything else, though, I suppose I love the opportunity this nation affords me to engage in struggles for decency. That, in my view, is the greatest legacy of the founders. The governmental system, wrapped in the aura of freedom and limited by a devotion to rights, has created the field on which so many of us of different races, genders, and sexual orientations have been able to grow into full and potent citizens. Whereas some people view America primarily as a place of economic opportunity, I see it as having afforded me the chance to make something of myself by exerting relentless energy in the effort to hold up my end."
__________________________
"The government was set to protect man from criminals -- and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government -- as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power."
               Ayn Rand

Up to 16 articles today either positive for Obama or negative for McCain.

Now we know why someone else has the Fair and Balanced label.

I wonder if Reed approves McCain's plan to create an Afghan war czar. Probably not, because Reed understands military chains of command, and also knows the concept failed in Iraq, when Bush couldn't find a retired general to take the job.

But don't blame McCain for not knowing that. It happened after the break-up of Czechoslovakia, so its within his period of near-term memory loss.

In fact, McCain should use his candidacy to promote greater rights for the disabled. Voting against him because he can't remember things is probably a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Jack Reed is West Point graduate. US Army Ranger. Memeber of Senate Armed Servcies,Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. He is considered an expert on defense and the economy. He is going to Iraq with Obama and Hagel.

He is just one of a growing number of economic and military experts climbing onboard the Obama Express.

The only down-side to this story is that he says that he does not want to be VP.

In Jan. 2007 Obama was appointed Chair of a Senate committee on Afghanistan (to boost his foreign policy cred) - but he's NEVER held a hearing because he was "too busy campaigning."
And NOW he's griping about forgotten Afghanistan?!?

Obama is a con and will say and do anything to dupe the people.

http://www.FormerObamaSupporters.com

This whole thing drives me nuts.  McCain will "turn around the war in Afghanistan" as we have turned around the war in Iraq.  It is not a war, it's an occupation.  We never should have been there at all.  Now he wants to move troops to Afghanistan where the real terrorists are.  Sounds vaguely familiar.  All the news articles say that just moments before McCain stated this Obama said the same thing.  No, he said it a couple of years ago.  Why is McCain given credit for this line of thinking when Obama has had this stance the whole time.  Why do none of these articles state that Obama already said this?  The commanders on the ground told McCain this, and it becomes a great McCain idea.  Obama comes up with this himself and he's naive and unfit to be CIC.  Screw the media.

Then Andrea hugged Reed, and said "We're pulling for you all the way!".

I have the same feeling listening to Sen. Reed as I had listening to the testimony of the very competent Republican U.S. Prosecuters the Bush administration fired to make room for Bush loyalists: our country is so rich in smart, effective people but, boy, they have faded out of public view, or been booted out, in the last seven years. Bush was the absolute worst judge of character and he rewarded loyalty over competency. May the Obama administration promote folks of Reed's caliber in the coming years. I'd like to respect my government again.

Going Through Withdrawal
It speaks volumes about Obama that his plan comes before going to Iraq.

By Pete Hegseth


As someone who monitors the Iraq-war-policy debate closely, I was puzzled to open the New York Times and see an oped authored by Sen. Barack Obama entitled “My Plan for Iraq.” Besides the seemingly moderate tone — and calling for an Afghanistan “surge” (an idea I agree, and one proposed by Sen. Joe Lieberman in March) — not much in the piece is new or newsworthy. In the final analysis, the oped is another dogmatic addendum to Obama’s “withdrawal at any cost” position.

In fact, just one question entered my head when I finished reading: Why now? Why would Sen. Obama — or any legislator, for that matter — write such a piece before visiting the country for himself, seeing the situation with his own eyes, and speaking with commanders and troops who actually know what’s going on?

It strikes me that only someone who is signaling no interest in consulting with commanders on the ground would spell out his “plan” for Iraq just one week before he visits the country for the first time in 918 days. Only someone who is arrogant enough to believe he always knows best would outline his Iraq policy before once meeting one-on-one with General David Petraeus.

The only conceivable answer to the question is that Sen. Obama believes he can capitalize on Prime Minister Maliki’s recent comments about a timeline for U.S. withdrawal. Maliki’s comments, important primarily because they demonstrate increased Iraqi strength and confidence, have been diluted by the fact that he didn’t actually call for a timeline after all. All withdrawal talks will be tied to conditions on the ground.

Maliki’s strong statements do provide the opportunity for withdrawal — a withdrawal based on the improved security brought on by the surge, improvements Senator Obama admits in his Times oped. What Sen. Obama fails to say there is that he adamantly opposed the surge, predicting last September on the basis of scant evidence that “It is a course that will not succeed.” Sen. Obama should admit his error in judgment in opposing the surge, and not compound that error now by once again announcing plans for Iraq without full knowledge of the facts on the ground — collecting the evidence that would enable him to develop a commonsense, conditions-based approach for troop withdrawal. Admitting mistakes, however, is something Obama does not do well.

Sen. Obama’s piece once again perpetuates the fallacious notion that the Iraqi government “has not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.” This assertion — backed up by wishful thinking — runs directly counter to reports from the ground; reports which Sen. Obama will himself receive in just one week.

Obama has said repeatedly (here & here) that if congressional benchmarks are met, the hasty withdrawal he desired could be slowed. Not so now, however. Even though the Iraqi government has met 15 of the 18 benchmarks set before it by Congress — and is stamping out Sunni terrorism and Shia militia activity within its borders — this still does not constitute political accommodation, according to Sen. Obama. It seems that nothing short of a Whole Foods in every village will stop the perpetuation of this falsehood.

Underlying the Left’s persistent pessimism on Iraq is the idea, as Sen. Obama says, that our mission in Iraq should be to “end the war.” As president, this would be his first directive. This was also the prerogative of Sen. Obama — and many of his Senate colleagues — in January 2007 when the surge was proposed. Surge proponents wanted to succeed in Iraq, while Sen. Obama & Co. wanted to “end the war.” Where would we be today if “ending the war” had been the mission then? And where will we be tomorrow if it becomes the mission now?



Without the surge, which induced countless positive developments across the military and political spectrums in Iraq, Maliki would not be making the bold and promising statements he is making today, and the U.S. wouldn’t be contemplating an even faster draw down than previously planned.

Yet despite the undeniable — and transformational — progress that has been made, it looks like Sen. Obama has no plans to actually modify his Iraq stance. This would indeed be a shame.

Six weeks ago, Vets for Freedom ran two ads (here & here) calling on Sen. Obama to visit Iraq for the first time in two-and-a-half years and finally meet, face-to-face, with General David Petraeus. The intent of the ads was to pressure Sen. Obama to visit the country; a trip which we believed would go a long way in moderating his position.

Soon after, Sen. Obama announced that he would visit Iraq before the election, and we sincerely applaud his willingness to do so. As veterans, we have no desire to see Obama moderate his Iraq stance so we can say “we told you so” or call him a “flip-flopper.” We want to see him change his stance because reality demands it, and our sacrifice compels it.

Unfortunately, Monday morning’s oped calls into question Sen. Obama’s willingness to objectively review the situation on the ground and make decisions based on what’s best for our nation’s security, rather than what’s best for his candidacy. We will continue to monitor his position, as well as those of his colleagues, to ensure they reflect the facts on the ground.

— Captain Pete Hegseth, who served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from 2005 to 2006, is executive director of Vets for Freedom.

>> Reed said the administration should “put more combat forces on the ground” -- American forces, not just NATO troops. He also said there needs to be a reorganization of the chain of command there. <<

Don't you just love it when back benchers like Reed babble on and on? They somehow think they're playing a video game.

Obama needs to IMMEDIATELY release an ad thanking McCain for moving to his position on Iraq and Afghanistan by asking for troop reductions in Iraq to support our efforts in Afghanistan.  Maybe Obama shouldn't go over there because he's been smarter on this issue than McCain who has exercised poor judgement time and time again.

Reed will not become the VP nominee. Sen.Obama has his hand full defining himself to the country, the last thing he needs is an unknown Senator as his VP.

On Afghanistan, Reed said the administration should “put more combat forces on the ground” -- American forces, not just NATO troops. He also said there needs to be a reorganization of the chain of command there.

-Senator Reed
***********************

McCain is 'open' for Nato to send more troops to Afghanistan. Isn't that like 'defense welfare'? Isn't our begging from China 'borrowed welfare', especially since it will be a long time coming before the Chinese are repaid?

Shame on us. Shame on Bush for having brought us to this.

Why is the media always asking guests if they want to be VP. It's a stupid question so stop asking it. But then again, you can put up the headline that someone else has refused to be Obama's Veep. You have no idea who has been asked or even who is on a short-list so stop making up headlines just to make Obama look bad.

Would you ever say no, to me, Senator Reed? If you know what I mean?

Obama is cramming on foregin policy.  The USA does not have time to give Obama an internship.  We need someone who is strong on national defence and in foreign affairs.  

Vote McCain

First Read: "Reed, as he has in the past, called for a “conscious, steady redeployment” of troops from Iraq"

As opposed to Obama, who wants unconscious herky-jerky redeployment of the troops. (Gosh, its so good that Reed will be there to tell Barack what to do).

http://home.comcast.net/~nw-fla/tribute_flag_B_thompson.htm

Check this web site out---and vote McCain----he will defend it and the USA to the end.

I agree that Obama has been right on the strategy all along. It's McFossil/Bush/Cheney that have been WRONG. We need to get out of Iraq because they've asked us to and McFossil said we would leave if they asked......where's THAT little news items? Teflon-John just keeps getting protected, doesn't he?

Jack Reed for Vice President.  

For a credible ticket with military experience AND congressional experience that can claim pure purity on the war.  

You got this one right, First Read.  He didn't say no.


Obama 08/12

Realistically, how much can he learn when he can't even leave the green zone?  Is that reality?  Is he going to take a stroll in the market like mccain - just a nice stroll with 100 of his closest body guards, and don't forget the helicopters.  It'll be just like strolling down the streets of Indiana, right?

You have to think an Army ranger would have more "boots on the ground" credibility than a navy fighter pilot whose only experience on the ground was in prison camp.  I'm sure McCain attended his strategy and diplomacy classes like a good little boy, but that's not quite the same.

Another VP contender for obama shoots him down !

Though clearer, of course, would have been, “If Sen. Obama asked me, I would say no.”

- sure it would be clearer, but probably not true. just b/c someone is not actively seeking a position does not mean they would not take it. I am not currently looking for another job, but if someone offerd me a better one I was qualified for, with higher pay where my skills could be effectively utilized I would accept it.  I think that is what the majority of VP prospects mean when they say what Reed said!

donna, same question.

Why should the mere possibility that a presidential candidate be fair toward the Israel-Palestinian conflict make Israelis fear that candidate?  Could it be that they don't have a fair cause?  Seems to me if you're confident in the fairness and justness of your cause, you'd be confident enough to accept a fair arbitrator!

Their fear is unfounded anyway.  They can rest assured that an Obama adminstration would be pro-Israeli just like any other.  Besides, all but 4 US Senators have signed a pledge to be support Israel (don't worry - Obama signed the pledge!).  I thought the only thing they were supposed to pledge support to was our own country and the Constitution - not a foreign country!

REED VP nope, HAGEL VP yes

mccain lies about voting record on veterans issues
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/mccain-lies-about-his-voting-record-for-veterans/
or

http://sensico2.blogspot.com/2008/07/my-blogs.html

Yeah but jack reed's military credentials pale next to bush's 2 years in the air national farce and dick cheneys experience avoiding the draft or mccains career of being last, losing aricraft and screwing other mens wives while an active naval officer but tha's just my opinion of course

i would like to comment on Obama's strategic position. obama is an oracle, a visionary, a window to the gods. obama is not the second coming, but is a prophet sent to us by the lord. he has magical powers that should not be ignored. obama is glowing ember that should lead the masses of earth and all believers to the promised land. all that fail to see obama for who he is shall perish, and perish by a thousand deaths. obama will become the leader of the world, but only for a short time, until the real messiah arrives. then the glorious resurrection of the body and the mind will come together as one. i have spoken.

Sen. Reed is an invaluable ally for Obama as is Sen Hagel.  Their military acumen compared to Lieberman, makes Lieberman look like an idiot.  I'm so glad to have Senator Reed going on Iraq/Afghanistan trip with Obama.

Hey Guys you didn't post my comment from yesterday on this, Obama has been saying the same thing about Afganistan all along, now McCain has jumped on his bandwagon with it.  McCain needs to just admit Obama was right all along!!!!!

In the beginning of the primaries I was so shure that obama had to take tom daschle as his vp because of all what he owed him(protection, connections, campaign managers, first 50'000 donors, advices etc etc etc). Then as barack was fighting the Billary's it seemed that kathleen sibelius as vp would be the best way to overcome the wall of angry women. Looking at the polls today and seeing peace again at the women front tom daschle with his leading place on obama's credit side will be the next vp.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):