Peters on Obama on Videotaped Interrogations

Bet I get some folks’ attention with that headline. But it turns out it’s not CIA videotaping, but police videotaping in Illinois, that the story refers to. Apparently Barack Obama was a key player in passing legislation requiring law enforcement in Illinois to videotape interrogations and confessions. At least in Charles Peters’ view, the story says something about Obama’s skills, and (by extension) how he might lead as President: Judge Him by His Laws.

50 Responses to “Peters on Obama on Videotaped Interrogations”

  1. ymatt Says:

    Great article on my man, Obama. I agree — when we’re talking about “experience”, don’t just settle for how many years the candidates have spent marinating in politics, look at what they’ve gotten done. Obama has had a lot more meaningful accomplishments, even if many of them aren’t headline-grabbers, that make me feel like he’s both a man of principle and practice.

  2. jbc Says:

    I liked this piece, too: It’s from Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings, posting back in October of 2006 about Obama’s record during his first two years in the Senate: Barack Obama.

  3. ymatt Says:

    Good reading.

  4. enkidu Says:

    posts don’t go thru (unless I am being censored here yet again)

  5. jbc Says:

    I’m pretty sure you’ve never been censored here, at least not in the sense of a human censor explicitly blocking your comments. The moderation queue sometimes holds onto posts (if they contain 2 or more links, basically) until I notice and approve them, but that should be the only thing stopping you from posting comments.

  6. enkidu Says:

    Well, perhaps you aren’t aware of this jbc, but yMom has been repeatedly removing my comments and others. I just don’t seem to measure up to his strict standards of decorum (which have served our nation SO well these last 7+ years…. /snark)

    I am not sure why this comment is so out of bounds or whatever… but here it is again

    While I am not withdrawing from the lies.com You’08 candidacy, back here in reality I am going to be voting in the real-world primary for Obama. Yes, you heard it here first, I have switched my party alignment to be a Democrat after a lifetime of Ind/NA. I would also like to point out that in Iowa (despite the Dem caucus being a much more involved time commitment) more than twice as many Dems showed up to the polls than Rs.

    However, I want to point out that this article has a very weird deja vu quality that took me a few minutes to pin down. In 04, John Kerry was lauded (very quietly really) for working hard to crack BCCI (you know the corrupt ‘bank’ that laundered Reth…err Republican dirty money? ‘loaned’ money to gwb’s failed business Harken? funded trrrrrists?)

    go to washington monthly -> sirota (mb link keeps sinking this post?)

    While I like that Obama can get things done, I wonder how long it will be before the punditocracy declares him just too black to be presidential (or not black enough). The dog whistle racism is already as loud as a fog horn (Hussien Osama fer prezident? pshaw!) Remember, the R’s are the ones who described bipartisanship as d a t e r a p e. I say let us bury conservatism in the same dustbin that holds communism, nazism and that whole sun goes around the earth thing (which 25% of Americans currently believe).

  7. jbc Says:

    Oh, yeah; I’d forgotten that I don’t see comment emails for posts not-posted-by-me. Well, work it out with ymatt.

  8. knarlyknight Says:

    LOL, good luck Enk working that out with yMom, she’s got rules (kind of like signing statments one makes up as as they go along) and remember, she’s the Decider.

    If this were yMom’s thread, he would delete this post due to the following link describing the recently discovered AMAZING fact that NIST reports the WTC 1 and 2 floors that underwent extensive fire-proofing upgrades just happened to be the same floors hit by the planes. Fits the coincidence(?) that the Pentagon got hit in the recently re-inforced section.
    Story developing, here:
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272

  9. shcb Says:

    I haven’t been posting for a few days because, well, Matt pissed me off. At the bottom is a link explaining what he deleted. But I’m not here to bitch too much, you are all doing fine there. But as a free market kind of guy I was wondering if a possible solution might be to have a thread that is kind of a potpourri. If a discussion on a thread starts to get off topic, move to the “open lines Friday” thread (Rush Limbaugh). Every few weeks when that thread gets pushed toward the bottom of the home page, start a new one. This thread would get pretty messy at times with people leapfrogging over each other, but… And if it doesn’t work we just stop doing it and let the last potpourri link run off the bottom of the page. Just a thought.

    http://shcb.blogspot.com/2007/12/what-matt-deleted.html

  10. knarlyknight Says:

    more censorship please.

  11. NorthernLite Says:

    Go Obama Go!!

  12. enkidu Says:

    knarly
    You know what is the most convincing ‘evidence’ of 9/11 being something of an inside job? It isn’t all the wacky, unlikely, airtight jujitsu that the obviously incompetent bush regime would have had to pull off to make 9/11 happen entirely from the inside. No. It is the simple fact that Dick Cheney was in charge of a eerily similar NORAD drill on 9/11 that put dozens of false blips on radar screens, fake hijackings, and had all the fighter aircraft diverted away from defending our cities on just that particular day.

    What an incredible coincidence eh?

    These guys wanted this to happen, pined for it like they dream about being (insert famous 20th century dictator here), and they damn well made sure it happened.

    try asking the Great Goog about “Northern Vigilance”

  13. enkidu Says:

    and yes, go Obama go!

  14. knarlyknight Says:

    enk,
    Yes, 9/11 is all that and more.

    btw, has Obama provided an explanation for how he can remain independent of the health industry lobby considering:

    http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/sickos-for-sale/candidates/

    ?

  15. shcb Says:

    Or it could be that our enemy picked that day because of the exercises, they may be evil, but they are also quite intelligent.

  16. knarlyknight Says:

    Hey Enk, there’s a live one on the line.

    Yes shcb, exceptional cunning.

  17. shcb Says:

    They are, when you are planning a military action you use every available advantage. You’ve read enough Sun Tzu to know that.

  18. knarlyknight Says:

    Yes shcb, but Osama’s cunning is far superior to Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu is merely about using Form, Shih, the nine grounds and nine transformations, spies, etc. to one’s advantage.

    Osama did all that PLUS he changed the laws of physics.

    Even Sun tzu would have been awed by that.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

  19. shcb Says:

    Physics haven’t changed, but the world has progressed since Sun Tzu and his concepts have been refined, though the basis of those concepts have not. We are fighting a classic guerrilla war. The attacks on New York and Washington were the dau tranh vu trang elements of the war and you and your fellow useful idiots have fallen for the classic dich van section of dau tranh chinh tri, propaganda. He hasn’t had to work very hard at it since you all have been so willing, but he hasn’t let his ego get in the way enough to correct you all and say “wait a minute, I did that, not Bush!”

  20. enkidu Says:

    what i love is rwnj ascribes magical powers to a bunch of cave men in Dumf!kistan (ie they knew months/years in advance that NORAD was having a drill on 9/11, that the fighter cover would be removed for the duration of the exercise etc etc etc).

    Ummmm you don’t think they might have had some sort of info passed to them or from them or worked in coordination with some radical elements who wanted to subvert the established order and seize extraordinary powers/profits? Which do you think more likely? That a bunch of pissed off cavemen had the skinny on classified NORAD plans or that radical elements assisted them in carrying out a pretty damn improbable plan?

    Those radical elements have names: Cheney, PNAC, shrub, Halliburton and KBR etc etc etc. They should be in fucking jail. Now.

    The “useful idiots” would have to be ‘conservative’ Duhmurkkkins who believe the current US regime is legitimate, competent, innocent etc.

  21. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,
    I am still laughing at your scenario of Hani Hanjour recklessly arcade game instead of a sophisticated multi-engine jet, so you must excuse me for saying that I find the author of this article far more credible than you:

    http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2818.shtml

  22. knarlyknight Says:

    *** “…recklessly aiming flight 77 into the Pentagon like he was piloting some arcade game instead of a sophisticated multi-engine jet, so…”

    * some text was mysteriously deleted, was that also the work of that cunning Osama utilizing “dich tan” (wtf?) strategies?

  23. shcb Says:

    Boy, you call me racist and yet you don’t think the Arabs have the mental capacity to research an annual event that would enhance their chances of success. With the hundreds or thousands of people involved in an exercise like this I doubt the date is a well kept secret.

    When you not only reject the obvious but reality itself, you are often left with only conspiracies.

  24. shcb Says:

    In a recent episode of Mythbusters both Jamie and Adam were able to be talked safely to the ground in a commercial simulator on their first try. This after both crashed without assistance.

  25. knarlyknight Says:

    nothing to do with mental capacity.

    nothing to do with “enhancing their chances of success”

    Everything to do with ENSURING full success.

    Boss, da plane da plane!!!
    “Sir, it’s 50 miles out. its 40 miles out. its… 10 miles out does the order still stand?” “OF COURSE THE ORDER STILL STANDS, HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY??!” Cheney per Mineta testimony.

  26. enkidu Says:

    yes – cavemen
    who literally… live… in… caves… Tora Bora ring a bell? no? Pakistan border? hello?

    ‘Cavemen’ who fervently believe in a fanatical interpretation of a mumbo jumbo ‘religion’ enough to hate 99% of the world’s population. Please stop empowering such criminal psychos by pretending these dolts are as dangerous to civilization as the (( insert right wing totalitarian ideology here ))s.

    (also… how is my observation as to their savagery and stupidity racist? That just doesn’t compute… europeans lived in caves 10, 20, 30,000 years ago. Is it racist to make this scientific observation?)

    So you now ascribe magical powers to these cavemen who had the foresight to plan their attack on – gee shucks! – exactly the day that Dick Cheney has ordered the interceptors to be bombing the new jersey pine barrens instead of say, protecting NYC? Wow, you DO live in a magical place beyond reason and logic. Excuse me while I back slowly away towards the door…

    So if they had this info, how do you think they got it? Other than magic.

    knarly
    that Mineta testimony is pretty damning
    but he could be talking about the “no fighting in the war room” rule
    ;-)

  27. knarlyknight Says:

    or “no one gets to go for their coffee break / washroom break until we deal with this plane” rule. Or, I like this one better: “no whiskey for anyone but me until we figure out what the hell is going on” rule.

    Unfortunately, Mineta, head of the FAA was convinced it could mean only one thing.

    But it’s not damning, what’s damning is that everything since then has stunk to high heaven of a cover-up. If the perfume smells like bullshit I sure ain’t buying it.

  28. shcb Says:

    Well, I don’t know where to go with that, I just don’t understand the thought process that if you ignore a problem it will go away, that has never worked for me, the problem just gets bigger. The terrorists lived in America for what, a year or two before the attack.

    What do you think they were doing during that time, they were reconnoitering, they were gathering intel, they were planning. They had a window of time for the attack, when were they going to be ready to fly the planes, when was weather going to be good, that type of thing. In that window was a day that these operations were going to be held. They may or may not have known what was all involved in these exercises, but any distraction was an advantage so that was the day they picked.

    911 was just a well planned, well executed guerrilla attack. They used our stuff to attack us, they used our weaknesses to their advantage. Why is that so hard to understand? And pretending they aren’t dangerous won’t make them not dangerous.

  29. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,

    Let’s begin with the LAPD detective’s story, who’d become a research writer after leaving LAPD. Not long after 9/11/2001, researcher Michael C. Ruppert, a former LAPD detective, smelled something not quite right about the events of 9/11.

    His nose eventually led him to call on sources he’d developed over the years as a researcher and author, with military and intelligence insiders, and discovered that mysteriously there had been many multiple war games . . . war games which do not happen that often . . . but coincidentally all were ordered by “someone” to be held on 9/11/2001. Yes, the same day as the infamous 9/11 attacks.

    [Many people] personally became aware of Ruppert’s work when he did what the US media failed to do, he followed up on mainstream media’s initial insight that there had been mysterious “insider stock trades” in the days leading up to 9/11 that signaled that someone with “insider knowledge” of the coming attacks had profited obscenely by betting “against” United and American Airlines “before” 9/11, by placing put options (bets that a stock will fall) on those ill fated airlines in trades that vastly eclipsed activity on other airlines in those days. Ruppert’s research found that $5 million in “winnings” were made at a known CIA-connected financial institution called AB Brown Trust. AB Brown had been headed by the man who was the current Executive Director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, on 9/11. The current head of AB Brown, a friend of Krongard’s, mysteriously resigned with no explanation immediately after the attacks on 9/11, and oddly $2.5 million of the winnings made against United and American Airlines by bets made the day before 9/11 . . . were never claimed.

    As far as I know the man was never questioned about that, and the 9/11 Commission, led by Bush Admin. confidant Phil Zelikow, refused to look into the insider trades with any enthusiasm.

    However, it was Mike Ruppert’s research into the mysteriously timed multiple war games of 9/11 that eventually evolved into his riveting research book entitled, Crossing the Rubicon. His book asks why were war games which had the effect of causing a US Air Force stand down all scheduled for 9/11/2001? Who ordered them? Was it Vice President Cheney, who appeared to have been in charge of a stand down order for our Air Force which allowed an aircraft to hit the Pentagon on 9/11, when there was still time to take it down and save many lives?

    Transportation Secretary Norm Minetta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission, for any investigator worth his/her salt, would have called for detailed questioning of Cheney, which never happened. Even more oddly the Transportation Secretary’s testimony was left out of the 9/11 Commission report. Left out by a Commission headed by Philip Zelikow a Bush Administration confidant, and co-author of a book with Condaleeza Rice, before his being forced down the throats of 9/11 family members who avidly protested a Bush Admin insider like Zelikow heading the Commission.

    and at the risk of appearing off-topic, there is this explanation as to why YOU are so mis-informed:

    As Ruppert’s work dug into the underbelly of a web of intrigue regarding US intelligence connections, insider stock trades, war games, etc., the attacks on him became furious . . . but what is odd, is that many of these attacks came from a small but VERY VOCAL group of people purporting to be “9/11 truth activists.” Although the overwhelming majority of those seeking a new 9/11 were eager to hear what Ruppert’s research revealed, there were a very small , but again very LOUD and very AGGRESSIVE, number who slashed and tore at Ruppert’s reputation.

    Which brings us back to the now publicly known cointelpro operations of the Vietnam War era, where undercover FBI agents pretended to be activists, in order to rip apart a movement that had much valuable information for Americans. They were used to create chaos within the peace movement, but also to spur it on to lunatic actions that would alienate the movement from the mass public. That effort in the 1960’s will seem increasingly familiar to the last few years, as you read on.

  30. shcb Says:

    But Knarly your sources have no credibility. Even in this instance the author starts out with “war games do not happen that often”. On every site I read when I was looking into this, and most were on your side, they said these were annual exercises. They happen often enough they have names and acronyms. The odd part was a couple of them were lumped together. That itself isn’t a conspiracy. Maybe they just wanted to break up the routine to keep those being tested on their toes. It wouldn’t matter to the guerrilla, the date of either test would be reason enough to plan for that date, having both tests on one day was just a bonus, one they may or may not have known they received until we told them months later. Even if they didn’t have the exact date they would plan for the most logical, if they missed it, oh well. That was the reason for the redundancy. Of the maybe six planes they planned on hijacking two didn’t get off the ground because we ordered all planes grounded immediately (masterstroke by that idiot from Texas) one has knocked out of the sky by a service cart and 3 hit their targets, not a bad day’s work.

  31. enkidu Says:

    ok, so can you please tell me when and where the next set of NORAD exercises are to be held? I am especially interested in the flight times and load outs of interceptor aircraft. (crickets) now try to research the same thing from 2000, 1999, 1998… and you will find… nothing (prior to the actual exercise)

    what’s that? they are secret? no details made public?

    guess those cavemen just got super duper ultra wavy gravy double mega lucky huh?

    Similar NORAD exercises are perhaps semi-annual and you know they don’t publish a timetable in advance.

    Last question, so if they planned on hijacking 6 planes, how did we do on rounding up the other two planes worth of hijackers? (more crickets)

  32. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks Enk, but please let me finish him off.

    shcb, it is you who has no credibility. Point by point:

    1.
    “war games do not happen that often”. On every site I read when I was looking into this, and most were on your side, they said these were annual exercises. They happen often enough they have names and acronyms.

    Annual excercises are not frequent events. Events that happen a lot are things like refuelling fighter jets, backing up computer systems, or you wiping your drool off your shirt. Here are some other things that happen often enough to have names and acronyms: “The 19th Century”, “Y2K”, “The Olympics” etc. Those are not frequent events, yet they have names and acronyms. You lose credibility with your first words.

    2.
    The odd part was a couple of them were lumped together. That itself isn’t a conspiracy.

    ”a couple” means two. There were more than FOUR: Global Guardian, Vigilant Guardian, Vigiliant Warrior, Amalgam Warrior, and the Defence Department’s National Reconnaissance Office (“provides our nation its eyes and ears in space” was evacuated [!!!] September 11 just before the hijackings as part of a pre-planned “drill”. (And curiously, FEMA had deployed to New York City on September 10 to set up a command post at Pier 29, (near WTC) supposedly in preparation for a biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12.)

    “that itself isn’t a conspiracy.” Well, Duh. What in all probability points to a conspiracy is that there are dozens (hundreds?) of extremely strange coincidences that day and in the cover-up that follows that make the official narrative as credible as Alice in Wonderland. So tell me, who lumped the exercises together, leaving Eastern North America extremely vulnerable to any sort of attack, and how were they held accountable for that outrageous lack of judgement and utter dereliction of duty? You can’t because this enormously important question was not investigated and no parties were held responsible.

    As an aside, Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, a private firm on contract to the London Metropolitan Police, described in a BBC interview how he had organized and conducted an anti-terror drill on behalf of an unnamed client (sounded to me like Scotland Yard, reading between the lines of Mr. Power’s description of the client), which was being held at exactly the same time, and at the same public transit stations as the actual attacks of July 7, 2005 in London. That’s quite a coincidence, or given that there are other documented examples of “drills” taking place at the same time and mirroring actual terror events, it is more fitting to say that it is quite a good indicator of the modus operandi of conspirators, whoever they are. Mainstream news sources don’t investigate that side of the story much, if at all.

    3.

    Maybe they just wanted to break up the routine to keep those being tested on their toes. It wouldn’t matter to the guerrilla, the date of either test (SIC) would be reason enough to plan for that date, having both tests on one day was just a bonus, one they may or may not have known they received until we told them months later.

    Enkidu addressed part of this already, so I won’t get into it much except to point out that your statement “…until we told them months later.” is horribly misleading. We all have Michael C. Ruppert to thank for investigating and bringing public awareness of the multiple war and terrorism drills occurring the morning of September 11 that were eerily similar to the actual attacks. That information was far from public knowledge and there was a long time between when he was making those claims (and being ridiculed for them) and when officials admitted that there were in fact multiple war games taking place at the same time.

    4.

    That was the reason for the redundancy. Of the maybe six planes they planned on hijacking two didn’t get off the ground because we ordered all planes grounded immediately (masterstroke by that idiot from Texas) one has knocked out of the sky by a service cart and 3 hit their targets, not a bad day’s work.

    ”…two didn’t get off the ground…” I’ve heard that mentioned before but am having trouble verifying it, perhaps I missed it in the 9/11 Commission Report. What two planes were those and which Arabs (I’m assuming Saudi Arabs?) were charged or accused of planning to hijack those two grounded planes?

    ”…(masterstroke by that idiot from Texas)..” No, you are the idiot. Bush did not order the planes down, that was done by, and under authority of, Norman Mineta. Mineta was in charge of the FAA at the time and he is from California.

    ”…not a bad day’s work.” No shcb, regardless of what conspiracy theory you subscribe to the common element is that the conspiracy took many, many days of planning, preparation and travel to get all the actors and or conspirators in place.

    That ends a point by point evaluation of why you shcb, have no credibility based on what you wrote. Now let’s look at a few things that you failed to comment upon.

    Remember that for the attacks to have succeeded, it was necessary that actions [by Cheney, etc.] be taken in the middle of the war games and the actual attacks which would thwart the normal military response.

    There is this:

    … AB Brown had been headed by the man who was the current Executive Director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, on 9/11. The current head of AB Brown, a friend of Krongard’s, mysteriously resigned with no explanation immediately after the attacks on 9/11, and oddly $2.5 million of the winnings made against United and American Airlines by bets made the day before 9/11 . . . were never claimed…

    this:

    Transportation Secretary Norm Minetta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission, for any investigator worth his/her salt, would have called for detailed questioning of Cheney, which never happened. Even more oddly the Transportation Secretary’s testimony was left out of the 9/11 Commission report.

    and this:

    Left out by a Commission headed by Philip Zelikow a Bush Administration confidant, and co-author of a book with Condaleeza Rice, before his being forced down the throats of 9/11 family members who avidly protested a Bush Admin insider like Zelikow heading the Commission.

    If Enkidu or anyone is wondering where those quotes came from, here is the article about “… the now publicly known cointelpro operations of the Vietnam War era, where undercover FBI agents pretended to be activists, in order to rip apart a movement … to create chaos within the peace movement, but also to spur it on to lunatic actions that would alienate the movement from the mass public. That effort in the 1960’s will seem increasingly familiar to the last few years, [re: 9/11 truth efforts] as you read on…”

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_bill_dou_080110_what_do_a_renowned_9.htm

  33. shcb Says:

    Well let’s see, there is this thing called a spy, it’s kind of their job to find information like this. Just because you can’t find a piece of information in a 5 minute google search doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I would think air traffic controllers would be advised of these exercises along with many others, people talk to their wives, barbers, neighbors. If you knew Cheney was involved you could find a hole in his schedule, match that to other information, like when the exercise was held in previous years, a sympathetic dishwasher in the mess hall of an Air Force base overhears a conversation. Who knows. Information gathering, it’s what reporters, detectives, spies and spooks do for a living. Point is that is more plausible that this conspiracy of the VP committing treason.

    The six planes. There were reports right after 911 of two other flights that had Arab men in the boarding areas that briefly got very agitated when they found out their flights were being cancelled. Maybe they were legitimate businessmen that were upset they weren’t going to make it to a meeting, but it would seem plausible there were more than 4 flights targeted. They only needed one to reach it’s target for the mission to be a success, they got 3, kind of like firing a pattern of torpedoes, you know right off the bat they aren’t all going to hit the ship.

    The other hijackers simply blended into the crowd and left the airport. Provided there were more than the 20 we know about.

  34. shcb Says:

    Knarly,

    I just don’t have the time to go through all your points and all the points to come, it is just rehashing stuff we’ve been over a million times. The pattern I see in all your stuff is there is always one little detail that doesn’t fit, but that little piece is vital for the whole thing to work, and then you pile on a bunch of these things, none of which is completely true or possible. Either that or one major item is so dependent on another that is totally implausible that the first is rendered impossible by the second… it just gets too convoluted. I mean, for God’s sake we’re back to the stock brokers and the cast of thousands.

  35. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,

    Pot, meet kettle. Everything you said applies 100% to your silly conspiracy theory (spit out by your News media literally on the day of the attack) which relies on unbelievable luck by the conspirators and disgraceful performances by (otherwise honorable) pilots (some ex combat vets), utter failure of the trillion dollar NORAD defense structure, a suspension of basic physics in the collapse of the buildings, etc.

    I notice you did not attempt or have the courtesy to answer any of Enk’s or my questions. Your subsequent comments are classic misinformation sleaze I’d expect from Fox news perhaps but not you.

    $2.5 million in unclaimed put options on United / AA stock with no official explanation provided… I am not saying that is a smoking gun but rather that it is just one more anomaly (and clue not followed) out of many hundreds that have gone uninvestigated or for which we’ve been given silly explanations.

    “cast of thousands” ? You mean the cast of thousands who were duped by folllowing orders or instructions that seemed genuine (except for the orders that the officer questioned Cheney about, whilst flight 77 was tracked right into the Pentagon.)

    Orders like performing “fireproofing upgrades” specific to the floors where collapse initiation took place. *If* that was how Thermate made it into the buildings do you think that most of the people carrying “fireproofing” materials up to those floors knew that their activity was a cover for setting charges? Did the 911 commission or NIST look into the strange coincidence of floors upgraded aligning with floors failing?

    Of course not, both their orders were to investigate security failures that enabled Arabs to crash planes into buildings to make them collapse, and they constructed a “theory” that would fit the foregone conclusion. Well, the foregone conclusion may have been much, much less than 100% correct. And their “theory” is full of holes.

    Saying that alternative theories must involve a cast of thousands is a lot like saying there were a cast of thousands conspiring to establish a base of American military control in Iraq. The sad fact is that your troops were duped, just like so many other Americans, into believing in imaginary weapons of mass destruction. Your troops could be relied upon to follow orders and were not part of a “conspiracy” to set up permanent, huge, military bases in Iraq. (Kinda like construction workers could be relied upon to carry boxes of “fireproofing” materials up to the 90th floor.

    Here’s a little more about the flawed attempt to set up an explanation that would put to rest further enquiries into what really happened on 9/11:

    9/11 Commissioners Kean and Hamilton NYT January 2, 2008 Op-Ed Article: “Stonewalled by the C.I.A.”

    by Elizabeth Woodworth, January 11, 2008.

    On January 2, 2008, the New York Times carried an op-ed article entitled “Stonewalled by the C.I.A.” by 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean and Vice Chair Lee Hamilton…

    It is difficult to understand why there has been so little follow-up to Kean and Hamilton’s emphatic charges that the CIA wilfully obstructed their investigation.

    The tapes in question were destroyed in 2005, long after the Commission had collected its evidence in 2003 and early 2004.

    This revelation constitutes a new and highly visible public schism between the Chairs of the 9/11 Commission and the CIA……”What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one [of] the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.”

    In their 2006 book, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission,” Kean and Hamilton went further, reporting that their greatest difficulty lay in “obtaining access to star witnesses in custody….who were the only possible source for inside information about the plot.” They were “receiving information thirdhand” through a CIA “project manager” who a…

    According to constitutional law attorney Glenn Greenwald, author of “How Would a Patriot Act?” (2006): “It’s hard to imagine a more serious scandal than this….It is a confirmed fact that Alberto Gonzales and David Addington — the top legal representatives of George Bush and Dick Cheney, respectively — participated in discussions as to whether those videotapes should be destroyed. The White House refuses to disclose what these top officials said in those meetings. Did they instruct that the videos should be destroyed, or fail to oppose their destruction? The NYT previously quoted one ‘senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter [who] said there had been “vigorous sentiment” among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes.’”

    The bottom line is that first the Commission was limited to investigating the above presupposition, and then it was denied access to the very sources that it had been charged to investigate. The whole inquiry now appears to have been a circular, self-defeating, window-dressing exercise.

    It is clear that both the CIA and the White House have foiled a full investigation into an event that has, in our resulting ignorance, profoundly damaged … We have all been stonewalled.

    The need for a new and thoroughly independent inquiry should now be abundantly clear. This time the scope of the inquiry should be expanded to include not only al-Qaeda, which was immediately named and then studied to the exclusion of all else, but all public offices that have obstructed our knowledge of what happened on that horrendous world-changing day.

    Elizabeth Woodworth

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/13336

  36. shcb Says:

    I think I answered Inky’s post thoroughly, I just looked quickly and found a site that said there were 6 military exercises that day, who knows, it probably depends on what you classify as an exercise and which are normally packaged together.

    I guess I just don’t agree with you that a group of say 20 or 30 men couldn’t have pulled this off. This is classic small unit and guerrilla warfare. They used our stuff, lived among us gathering intel for some time before the attack. They obviously had help from others in and out of this country. They blended into the fabric of our society. They didn’t break laws or raise suspicions much, they made a couple mistakes but got buy with it. One would imagine they carried out numerous tests to see what kind of weapon would be allowed on the plane. They picked a time of year when there were least likely to be delays, after the vacation rush but before winter weather set in. They did their homework, they trained, they probably were never with more than two or three or each other at one time, they probably didn’t communicate with cell phones much, and once the order to attack was given by Bin Laden they had no communication with him.

    You need to study guerrilla warfare more. It has its limitations and its attributes. This type of operation is perfect for the tactic. Which gets to my point that if you ignore the obvious… You are jumping through all these hoops because reality is just too painful. You don’t want to think you may have to kill millions of Arabs to fix this problem so it is just easier to impeach a couple guys, but if you don’t fix the problem, it will still exist after you impeach these guys and the next and the next… but you’ll feel better and that is really what is important.

  37. knarlyknight Says:

    You sound paranoid. Better start up some McCarthy type hearings soon to find all them Muslim spies.

    Never mind, you don’t need new McCarthy hearings because you got terrifying police powers, wiretaps and sophisticated surveillance techniques, secret prisons, and etc., now, since 911, that even Putin would find highly satisfactory.

    And you are wrong, to say it is too painful to believe you had to “kill millions of Arabs” (by the way, you can also call them people in case you did not know that, they have lots of funny characteristics just like us). At least you finally agree with the Lancet study and recognize the true cost of this war in terms of lives lost.

    Jeez, now I have to start again. … you are wrong, to say it is too painful to believe you had to “kill millions of Arabs” to fix this problem (what problem, do you mean your “war on terrorism” -nonsense, terrorism is a tactic best dealt with by law enforcement and the phrase does not compute- or your war on Islamofascists” – another utterly nonsensical phrase, let’s try “war on extremism”, which makes more sense but if so should be applied to a whole lot of your own so called Christians and a few Zionists too who are all just as extremist or more so than any Muslim.

    Shit, okay, one more time: … you are wrong, to say it is too painful to believe we had to “kill millions of Arabs to fix this problem” because really, I got enough things in my own life to think about and normally don’t pay very much attention to wars, famines or even genocides like Rwanda. What is painful to me is being lied to by people who are supposed to looking after our best interests, and being lied to in ways that end up making their “business” associates, or themselves, immensely wealthy at the expense of the people (in your case, “We the People”) who they are supposed to be serving. Serving, not raping.

    Look, if Bush went on TV in 2000 and said, “We’re in deep shit. The world is running out of oil and we need to secure some supplies fast to keep our Western civilization as we know it from suffering greatly or even falling apart. It looks like the Chinese and Russians are getting the Iraqi oil industry under their control so we’re going to use America’s overwhelming military might to take out Saddam (before he starts selling Iraqi oil in something other than US dollars), and it is going to be ugly over there with a lot of Iraqi deaths, but we can do it quickly and then we can allow Western international oil companies to secure Iraqi oil for world markets (i.e. US), and place a strong American military presence in the middle east to keep watch over this situation for as long as needed and to take care of any resistance fighters from that region.” – If Bush had said all that, well then, I’d have said to myself, Now THAT is a Commander in Chief, and while I hate the fact that a lot of people are going to die and I bet there might be less risky ways to solve the Western energy/strategic crises, the POTUS has far better information about these things than I do and he’s being honest with the people and if we need to engage in some resource wars, well, thank God (sic) that we (the USA) has the military to get the job done. That would have been scary, but a part of me (the dark evil part) would have approved.

    As it is, it appears that criminals are in charge of Iraqi operations, at least when you look at where the $ Billions of money goes, so you, my dear US taxpayer are being robbed blind. And me, what pisses me off is how much I’ve been lied to by the psychopathic mobsters.

    Now, back to your 9/11 comments. “Hoops” you say?
    It might look like the scientific based theories require some hoop jumping. That is because it has been a long, labourious investigative process by people working on shoestring budgets, and some theories (loonies or counterintel) had to get tossed aside or radically refined. That’s part of a scientific investigative process, you whittle away the things that don’t fit until you get something that does. Molten pools of steel (for once thging) does not fit with airplane crashes, kerosene/office fires and building collapses, so a smart person looks to see what does fit.

    Compare that to the millions of dollars spent on 911 Commission and NIST reports and expensive press releases to rationalize and explain THEIR FOREGONE CONCLUSIONS; well, with that kind of money no wonder they could make huge hoops so big that ya’ll could stroll through them together in your pathetic ignorance without even realizing you are living in world of make believe. And liars.

  38. shcb Says:

    McCarthy was right, there were communists in the Army and throughout the government, just as his investigation showed.

    I’m not endorsing the Lancet study, the Lancet study is about people who have been killed already, a fact, I’m talking about people who may be killed in the future, a guess.

    I call them Arabs because that is who they are, not a Swede amongst them.

    Have you ever checked the validity or one of your sources? For instance if they say the Downing street memo says… have you went to the text of that document and read a page or two in either direction of the quote?

  39. knarlyknight Says:

    Wow, you sure pick the most inconsequential points to address: Your respose was to 1. Support McCarthyism, 2. Disavow your acceptance from an internationally accepted study, 3. continue an insistence that to fix the problem of terrorists we have to kill millions of Arabs (even assuming your assumption that “killing” is the only or the best solution -0 which I reject, what about the Chechnyns, + aren’t there still sleeper cells of Irish terrorists in Britain (?), Spain’s got seperatists who set off bombs every once in a while, there are Pakistani’s who are freedom fighters and they are not Arabs, plus the Tamil Tigers, African terrorists, etc., 4. and to ask a dumb question about checking sources.

    I’ll address your 4 silly responses first in a random order and then highlight the issues you failed to address.

    4. Yes, not only do I check sources but I often look at what the other point of view, opposite spin, or in your confrontational language “what the other side” has to say about something. From that I decide what makes sense. I’ve been lazy of late and relying on you to provide me with the other (usually more right wing) perspective, but I’m going to have to find my own mainstream / right wing references more in future most of your points are ridiculous.

    For example about your ridiculousness, your response to #1 (McCarthyism). So what if there were a few people who sympathized with communist ideas in the 1950’s, that was no threat to Western civilization as we know it. But McCarthy did tremendous damage in trying to root them out and if he was allowed to continue he could have made your whole country look even more like Salem c. 1600 than it did already.

    2. . Of course you are not endorsing the Lancet study, it is based on sound scientific principles, internationally accepted sampling methods, and administered by professionals.

    3. Are you saying there are no Swedes in the middle east, or that somehow the Swedes are immune from being killed in shock and awe bombing like we witnessed in Baghdad or Fallujah if they happened to be there?

    Now, what did you try to ignore?

    1. you got terrifying police powers, wiretaps and sophisticated surveillance techniques, secret prisons, and etc., now, since 911, that even Putin would find highly satisfactory.

    2. “war on extremism”, which makes more sense but if so should be applied to a whole lot of your own so called Christians and a few Zionists too who are all just as extremist or more so than any Muslim.

    3. Shit, okay, one more time: … you are wrong, to say it is too painful to believe we had to “kill millions of Arabs to fix this problem” because… . What is painful to me is being lied to by people who are supposed to looking after our best interests, and being lied to in ways that end up making their “business” associates, or themselves, immensely wealthy at the expense of the people (in your case, “We the People”) who they are supposed to be serving. Serving, not raping.

    4. If Bush had said all that, well then, I’d have said to myself, Now THAT is a Commander in Chief, …

    5. As it is, it appears that criminals are in charge of Iraqi operations, at least when you look at where the $ Billions of money goes, so you, my dear US taxpayer are being robbed blind. And me, what pisses me off is how much I’ve been lied to …

    6. your 9/11 comments. “Hoops” you say? … the scientific based theories require … a long, labourious investigative process … shoestring budgets, and some theories … [rejected as] …part of a scientific investigative process, … Molten pools of steel does not fit with airplane crashes, kerosene/office fires and building collapses, so a smart person looks to see what does fit.

    7. Compare that to the millions of dollars spent on 911 Commission and NIST reports and expensive press releases to rationalize and explain THEIR FOREGONE CONCLUSIONS… ya’ll could stroll … in your pathetic ignorance without even realizing you are living in world of make believe. And liars.

    So shcb, instead of juvenile and transparent tactics like trying to slander me for not checking sources, why don’t you try taking a fresh look at a different perspective? Not because I claim it is 100% correct, as I am sure there are a few inaccuracies in the following article, but – because it might open your mind enough to let some of the bullshit out.

    http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2818.shtml

  40. shcb Says:

    Well I don’t think there is much hope for you if you think there is no danger in communism and you think the Lancet study was done professionally.

  41. knarlyknight Says:

    I’ll look into the Lancet further, but from the people I’ve heard interviewed who were involved in the McCarthy hearings they or their friends were absolutely no threat to America.

    Communism in the 20th century was a huge threat, absolutely.

    However, McCarthyism was a bigger threat to America than the supposed communists McCarthyists were hunting and thankfully it was dealt with swiftly – and shut down hard – before it further corroded the fabric of society.

  42. shcb Says:

    Thanks, you will find the Lancet study was very sloppy. They extrapolated numbers from samples taken by simply asking people how many people they knew had died, they didn’t really check to see if there were duplicates in the numbers. I heard last week that Soros funded it through his normal backdoor ways so it is probably corrupt just from that. You could probably google Soros and Lancet and get something on that angle.

    Don’t believe everything you have heard of McCarthy either. Rosen had a guy on last week that has written a book on him and read every page of all the hearings he was involved in, thousands of pages. He said that he could be combative and a bully but he was fair in the hearings always insisting legal representation was present and letting the accused say what ever they wanted. As far as I know he never accused anyone of being a commie that wasn’t.

  43. shcb Says:

    Knarly,

    here is a piece from Fox news today about the Lancet, Soros study

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

  44. knarlyknight Says:

    Gee that was nice of Fox to present only one or two half facts so that we can all hate Soros more.

    Unfortunately, that is not my agenda. I am willing to read more than one or two half-facts in order to form my own opinion. So after reading the Fox article, I found another source and skimmed most of it.

    I find their comparison of the two studies far more compelling, as a partial list of what it covers aptly demonstrates:

    Issue one: the bias (or potential bias) of both studies.

    2. The key difference between the two studies: the Lancet study compared death rates before the invasion to that occuring after the invasion (e.g. if a newborn dies because medical equipment was looted from a hospital during the fighting, that is counted as a death) and required death certificates to back uup the claim, the other study only looked at violence related deaths and did not require death certificates to be provided.

    3. Methodology:

    3a. Superficially at least, both the Hopkins team and the new study followed the same survey methods: interviewing a random sample of households drawn from randomly selected “clusters” of houses around the country, and interviewing the head of the household. While the Lancet study required death certificates as confirmation of deaths and their cause, the NEJM study had no such requirement.

    AND THE BIGGIE –

    3b. However, the Lancet study maintained that random sampling, while the new study did not maintain the most important aspect of such a research project (maintaining the random nature of the sample): “As the authors themselves admit, they did not visit a significant proportion of the original designated clusters: “Of the 1086 originally selected clusters, 115 (10.6%) were not visited because of problems with security,” meaning they were inconveniently situated in Anbar province, Baghdad, and two other areas that were dangerous to visit, (especially for Iraqi government employees from a Shia-controlled ministry.) While such reluctance is understandable–one of those involved was indeed killed during the survey–it also meant that areas with very high death tolls were excluded from the survey.

    So much for the new study being better indicator than the Lancet Study, and so much for any claim that Fox is “Fair and Balanced.”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew01122008.html

  45. shcb Says:

    :) I’m sorry, I forgot how the rules in conspiracyland work. You only have to find one way off base web site that validates your view to cancel out legitimate pundits with many years of reputation to uphold.

    I stand corrected. The Lancet study is above reproach, I mean who could argue with Bob’s Blog and Barbeque Shack.

  46. knarlyknight Says:

    No, I am sure there are many other articles we can look at which provide a fair comparison of the two studies, both published in prestigious publication.

    I stopped at the second article because it showed a more balanced view of both studies and demonstrated, point by point, how the two surveys compared. At that point ist was blatantly obvious, to all but the most myopic rwnj mole like creatures, that the Fox news article was UNFAIR and UNBALANCE. And I mean mentally unbalanced.

    In comparing the analysis, the Fox article appears to be written for people of reasoning skills below that of a kindergarten student.

    If you have a better side by side comparison, by all means present it, because your previous response has no substance (unless you call your appeal to believe what the kindergarten teacher says because she is authoritative and she says it is so “substance”) and it reeks of sour grapes and a juvenile temperament.

  47. shcb Says:

    This is pretty old news, the only new part is the Soros connection. They aren’t going to go into detail something that has been so discredited in the past but..

    here’s one-

    • Suspicious cluster. Lafta’s team reported 24 car bomb deaths in early July, as well as one nonviolent death, in “Cluster 33″ in Baghdad. The authors do not say where the cluster was, but the only major car bomb in the city during that period, according to Iraq Body Count’s database, was in Sadr City. It was detonated in a marketplace on July 1, likely by Al Qaeda, and killed at least 60 people, according to press reports.
    The authors should not have included the July data in their report because the survey was scheduled to end on June 30, according to Debarati Guha-Sapir, director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters at the University of Louvain in Belgium. Because of the study’s methodology, those 24 deaths ultimately added 48,000 to the national death toll and tripled the authors’ estimate for total car bomb deaths to 76,000. That figure is 15 times the 5,046 car bomb killings that Iraq Body Count recorded up to August 2006.
    According to a data table reviewed by Spagat and Kane, the team recorded the violent deaths as taking place in early July and did not explain why they failed to see death certificates for any of the 24 victims. The surveyors did remember, however, to ask for the death certificate of the one person who had died peacefully in that cluster.

    The Cluster 33 data is curious for other reasons as well. The 24 Iraqis who died violently were neatly divided among 18 houses — 12 houses reported one death, and six houses reported two deaths, according to the authors’ data. This means, Spagat said, that the survey team found a line of 40 households that neatly shared almost half of the deaths suffered when a marketplace bomb exploded among a crowd of people drawn from throughout the broader neighborhood.

    http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

  48. knarlyknight Says:

    Now that was a mature reply, and also a pretty good article. A little biased, but it showed both sides, for example:

    “Dr. Burnham and his colleagues are confident that the data presented in the 2004 and 2006 are accurate, and they fully stand by the conclusions of their research,” according to a November 27 statement from the Bloomberg School of Public Health. “The findings of independent surveys of Iraqis conducted by the United Nations in March 2005, by the BBC in March 2007, and by the British polling firm ORB in September 2007 support the conclusions of the Hopkins mortality studies.”

    And I liked the ending:

    Today, the journal’s editor tacitly concedes discomfort with the Iraqi death estimates. “Anything [the authors] can do to strengthen the credibility of the Lancet paper,” Horton told NJ, “would be very welcome.” If clear evidence of misconduct is presented to The Lancet, “we would be happy to go ask the authors and the institution for an official inquiry, and we would then abide by the conclusion of that inquiry.”

    (Note that to date clear evidence of misconduct apparently has not been presented to the Lancet.)

    In any event, your new article gives a much fairer picture than the (mentally) unbalanced Fox news article you previously provided, dontcha think?

    So if we assume the Lancet II was very wrong , that suggests say about 200,000 dead Iraqis due to the American invasion between 2003 and 2006. That is a conservative estimate supported by the latest study:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL10731034
    FYI, it is now 2008 and last time I checked violent deaths, and deaths due to insufficient medical resources, in Iraq are still horrifically high. Yep, that’s one heckuva job.

    Let’s see, 200,000 dead out of Iraq’s 24 million pre-invasion population works out to eight percent of the population being wiped out in three years. Yikes! Probably nearly everyone in Iraq knows at least three people who died needlessly due to the invasion and continued occupation. Yep, that’s one heckuva job.

    And by the way, from wiki:
    “As of November 4, 2006, the UNHCR estimated that 1.8 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighboring countries, and 1.6 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month.[36] A May 25, 2007 article notes that in the past seven months only 69 people from Iraq have been granted refugee status in the United States.”

    Anyway, we’re going way off topic so I’ll leave you to have the last word on this thread, shcb.

  49. shcb Says:

    War is hell

  50. olynn Says:

    Speeches and Reality.

    JOhn E keeps posting articles about McCains connections to lobbyists but just ignores that Obama has his own connections to lobbyists and uis lying about not taking their money. he takes it and they call it bundling. It is the same thing. here you go John E. Not all of us are as naive as you.
    Obama’s registered lobbyist bundlers
    By Artificial Intelligence on January 11, 2008 at 11:54 PM in Uncategorized
    “While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Senator Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation’s capital,” Dan Morain wrote April 23, 2007, in the Los Angeles Times.
    Stephen Weissman of the nonpartisan think tank Campaign Finance Institute said Obama “gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different … But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists,” Morain wrote.
    Public Citizen (WhiteHouseForSale.or) lists nine of Sen. Obama’s fundraising bundlers as registered lobbyists who have collected in the neighborhood of $1.5 million for his campaign—in addition to their own personal contributions.
    Frank M. Clark is chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corporation. As an Obama bundler, Clark raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on January 26, 2007, he personally contributed $2,100 to Obama for America.
    Scott Blake Harris is the managing partner of the Washington, D.C., firm Harris Wiltshire and Grannis, which handles such legislative issues as Communications/Broadcasting/ Radio/TV, Science/Technology, Telecommunications, and Trade (Foreign and Domestic), as well as representing the Computing Technology Industry Association. As an Obama bundler, Harris raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on March 15, 2007, he personally contributed $2,000 to Obama for America.
    Allan J. Katz is a shareholder and chairman of the Policy Practice Group at Akerman Senterfitt in Tallahassee, Florida. Katz is a Member of the Florida Democratic Committee and Democratic National Committee, and Tallahassee City Commissioner. As an Obama bundler, Katz raised $200,000+ with Marilyn Katz of MK Communications (who personally contributed $1,000 to Obama for America on January 21, 2007).
    Robert S. Litt is a partner at the Washington, D.C. firm Arnold & Porter, a regulatory and public affairs firm which represents multiple clients in a variety of industries. As an Obama bundler, Litt raised unknown amount of money. FEC records show that Litt personally contributed $2,300 on February 26, 2007 and $2,300 on May 2, 2007 to Obama for America.
    Thomas J. Perrelli is managing partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Jenner and Block, a Chicago general practice law firm, which includes among its clients the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and Time Warner Inc. As an Obama bundler, Perrelli raised $200,000+. FEC records show that Perrelli personally contributed $2,100 on January 16, 2007 and $200 on March 5, 2007 and $2,300 on March 21, 2007 to Obama for America.
    Thomas A. Reed is Of Counsel at Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP K&L Gates), which represents multiple industries and multiple clients. As an Obama bundler, Reed raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on March 20, 2007, Reed contributed $2,300 to Obama for America.
    Paul N. Roth is a partner at the New York firm Schulte Roth & Zabel, which represents financial institutions, investments, securities, including Cerberus Capital Partners. As an Obama bundler, Roth raised at least $50,000. FEC records show that on March 20, 2007, Roth personally contributed $2,300 to Obama for America.
    Alan D. Solomont of Solomont Bailis Ventures in Massachusetts represents Health Services/HMOs. As an Obama bundler, Solomont raised $200,000+. FEC records show that Solomont personally contributed $2,100 on January 26, 2007; $2,500 on March 30, 2007 (Rebecca Solomont at the same address made two $2,300 contributions on the same day); and $2,300 on March 30, 2007 to Obama for America.
    Tom E. Wheeler is managing director of Core Capital Partners, a private equity fund in Washington, D.C. As an Obama bundler, Wheeler raised $100,000+. FEC records show that Wheeler personally contributed $2,100 on January 16, 2007; $2,500 on May 2, 2007 and an additional $2,300 on May 2, 2007 to Obama for America. (Note: another $2,300 was added then removed also on May 2, 2007.)
    UPDATE: Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank wrote July 4, 2007, in the Dissident Voice.
    “Barack, for the second quarter in a row, has surpassed the fundraising prowess of Hillary Clinton. To be sure small online donations have propelled the young senator to the top, but so too have his connections to big industry. The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator.
    “The Illinois-based company also helped Obama’’s 2004 senatorial campaign. As Ken Silverstein reported in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s, ‘[Exelon] is Obama’s fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.’”

    One of the key arguments in Mr.Obama’s speech is that he has better judgment on issues. Well, I am finding more and more on this topic.
    a) He gave a speech saying no to war but when it did mattered like his senate campaign he was for war. It’s easy to vote no when you don’t have responsibilities and facts in front of you.
    b) He was for NAFTA when he ran for senate now he wants to re-negotiate it.
    c) One of the biggest possessions an average person has is his/her house. It’s where you raise your family and watch your kids grow. In Mr. Obama’s case the purchase was subsidized by Mr.Rezko’s and his wife and also got help purchasing the adjacent property next to it. Talk about judgment, he knew Mr.Rezko was under federal investigation when this happened.
    d) He did took money from lobbyist when he ran for senate
    e) His association to the Trinity church
    All these are coming out this late because I don’t think he was tested on his campaign for his senate seat. The original candidate dropped out due to some personnel issues, and then they have to bring in another candidate from out of state at the last minute. If the Rep’s can derail a decorated veteran and less liberal than Mr. Obama, personally I think he has no shot in November as more and more things comes out.
    States which have not voted yet please do the right thing.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.