<p>Speaking of Al Gore…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801u/gore-obama-endorsement[/url]”>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801u/gore-obama-endorsement</a></p>
<p>Wouldn’t that be sweet?</p>
<p>"Question is, are we any more secure? "</p>
<p>That is the great unknowable, isn’t it? And aren’t we glad that it actually is a question because we have been secure for 6 1/2 years? As far as Saddam’s weapons, the gentleman on 60 Minutes this (past) weekend believed that Saddam had the intent and the ability to reconstitute those weapons. I absolutely, positively believe that when there’s not so much political mileage for democrats on this issue, the truth will come out. What that will be, I don’t know. It may be that Saddam was only a threat in his personal aggression, but it’s much too soon to think that the final chapter has been written on a war that is ongoing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on polling done in Iraq several times after the war, the people said that despite the hardships of the post-invasion era, conditions WERE better there than under Saddam. These results were consistent for the first several years. It wasn’t until al Qaeda was finally successful in kick-starting the ethnic strife with the bombing of the Golden Mosque in 2006 that the ethnic strife began and people started to feel that the war made their lives worse. Now that much of the ethnic strife has been muted and security is improving, a new poll will probably show that things are once again better than under Saddam.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, you discount the latest NIE which said that in 2003 Iran actually stopped its development of nuclear weapons? Hmmm … Libya stops its program in 2003; Iran stops its program in 2003. What else happened in 2003 that might have precipitated those reversals?</p>
<p>
I have seen no such evidence. Perhaps you can share the link? </p>
<p>
No, we know now that those were his PLANS.</p>
<p>So, we’re supposed to feel justified in invading any sovereign country on faulty intelligence and then rationalize our error by crying, “But they INTENDED to develop WMD. Their scientists said so!” </p>
<p>Really?</p>
<p>“So, we’re supposed to feel justified in invading any sovereign country”
Iraq was not just “any” country - just ask the 99 Senators who took the unprecedented action of voting for regime change. I don’t think we have done that for any other country.</p>
<p>You could also ask the candidate that you most recently supported who was one of the few so hawkish about Iraq that he deemed them “an imminent threat”</p>
<p>“I think blacks should all vote for McCain as a protest vote. He certainly is no more unkind toward us than the Clintons.”</p>
<p>I now see your brilliant plan–your whole argument is a ploy to get votes for Republicans! Anybody who can argue that any Republican will do more for American blacks than Clinton will deserves some kind of prize.</p>
<p>“You could also ask the candidate that you most recently supported who was one of the few so hawkish about Iraq that he deemed them “an imminent threat””</p>
<p>If you’re speaking of John Edwards, FF, my response is that between Bill Clinton and George Bush, the great majority of Congress had been well-conditioned to buying the imminent threat propaganda. His words were substantively no different at the time than those of Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.</p>
<p>“the great majority of Congress had been well-conditioned to buying the imminent threat propaganda. His words were substantively no different at the time than those of Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.”</p>
<p>Except that GWB never used the term imminent threat and the NIE included all of the caveats. </p>
<p>I do agree that Edward’s rhetoric regarding Iraq was not that much different than Kerry, Gore or Clinton.</p>
<p>Creating jobs is the best thing you can do for blacks or anyone else. And not government make-work jobs. While Presidents really don’t control this they can encourage or impede it. Bill Clinton’s saying that we may have to shed jobs to save the environment would do no favors to anyone’s jobs.</p>
<p>But we never “shed jobs to save the environment” - under Clinton/Gore we “shed jobs to ruin the environment”, by sending them to unregulated locations abroad. Indeed, that was built into the entire neo-liberal agenda.</p>
<p>The LA Times will endorse Obama in the Sunday edition:</p>
<p>"On the Democratic side the editorial board “strongly endorsed” Obama, admitting there are two strong candidates but adding it’s not difficult to choose between them.</p>
<p>It calls Obama “an inspiring leader who cuts through typical internecine campaign bickering and appeals to Americans long weary of divisive and destructive politics.” It notes that Hillary Clinton is “an accomplished public servant” whose election would provide familiarity but that she failed a test of judgment and leadership by voting for the iraq war and then accusing President Bush of abusing the authority she helped give him.</p>
<p>Obama, the editorial says, “demonstrates as well that he is open-eyed about the terrorist threat posed to the nation, and would not shrink from military action where it is warranted. He does not oppose all wars, he has famously stated, but rather “dumb wars.” He also has the edge in economic policy, less because of particular planks in his platform than in his understanding that some liberal orthodoxies developed over the last 40 years have been overtaken by history. He offers leadership on education, technology policy and environmental protection unfettered by positions taken by previous administrations.”</p>
<p>The editorial concludes: “Obama’s candidacy offers the Democrats the best hope of leading America into the future, and gives Californians the opportunity to cast their most exciting and consequential ballot in a generation.”"</p>
<p><a href=“http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog[/url]”>http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog</a></p>
<p>“But we never “shed jobs to save the environment” - under Clinton/Gore we “shed jobs to ruin the environment”, by sending them to unregulated locations abroad. Indeed, that was built into the entire neo-liberal agenda”.</p>
<p>Which is worse --“unregulated” ( although I am sure India, China and others would dipute that) jobs or billions of people in a weak economy going nowhere? I prefer several billion Chinese and other south asians working making T-shirts and TV sets than sitting around with nothing to do except pick through trash for food. It may not be perfect but it’s a step in the right direction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Looks like you got me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps. But of course the prize could never be awarded to me because I’ve said no such thing.</p>
<p>Oprah is back and with two additional lovely ladies to help persuade women to give Obama a second look. While men are distracted with the Super Bowl, women should definitely fine this interesting.
*******
"LOS ANGELES – Barack Obama won’t be in California again before the Tuesday primary here–but he is sending in a powerful team of surrogates–Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy and wife Michelle, all to appear at a rally here. Oprah hosted a fund-raiser for Obama at her home near Santa Barbara last year and stumped with Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.</p>
<p>We’ll see. I dont share that view," said Obama who probably knew that an Oprah visit was in the works. I think this is gpoing to be very competitive. But weve got 22 states, Obama said. And just from a purely strategic perspective, I think everybody understands that if we are spending all of our time in one state and not spending time in the other 21, then that might not lead to the most delegates"</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/772793,sweet020208.article[/url]”>http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/772793,sweet020208.article</a></p>
<p>“Except that GWB never used the term imminent threat and the NIE included all of the caveats.”</p>
<p>Wait a minute. I listened to George Bush address the UN Security Council, The United States Congress, and The American people numerous times in an attempt to build a case for military action against Iraq. In every one of those instances, his rhetoric seriously suggested that Saddam was a continuing and immediate threat, not only to his neighbors, but to Israel and The United States, that he possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the ability and willingness to supply such weapons to terrorist organizations, that Iraq had a viable nuclear weapons program, and most alarmingly, was providing safe haven to Al Queada. All Lies.</p>
<p>If Bush never worked to give the impression that Iraq was an imminent danger, how in the world was he able to convince the American people that time was of the essence, and we would be justified in invading a country that had never attacked The US or it’s allies?.</p>
<p>Well, it was made easier by the fact that, as a result of the Clinton/Tenet Big Lie of 1998, the “experienced Democrats” - Dodd, Biden, Lieberman, Levin, Gore, et al. – were already calling for military action against Iraq. And it resulted in massive military action in December 1998, after Bill Clinton threw out the weapons inspectors.</p>
<p>Mini, there was no big lie.</p>
<p>You have read what the “experienced Democrats” said in January/February 1998, based on not a single intelligence report whatsoever (and every single claim challenged by the U.N. weapons inspectors). Would you like me to post them again?</p>
<p>Mini, we never found weapons in 1997?</p>
<p>Hey Dstark, best go easy on the KoolAid. I hear it rots the brain’s ability to think objectively.</p>