ot... Watch her first interview - Palin w/ Charley Gibson

[leisuremuffin]

PS: do look forward to your war in Iran though. regardless of who wins.

yeah, pretty much.


.lm.

[b0unce]

*yuk*

googled 'robert fisk obama' to get rid of the bitter aftertaste of michael 'useless shit' moore.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 83270.html

Robert Fisk: New actor on the same old stage

If Obama is elected he will be enmeshed in the Middle East tragedy and forced to take sides
Saturday, 2 August 2008

I was in the studios of al-Jazeera – the Qatar satellite channel so democratic in the eyes of Colin Powell that Bush later wanted to bomb it – while Barack Obama was performing his theatricals in the Middle East. "Theatre" is what I called it on air while the anchor desperately tried to suck some Arab hope out of the whole ridiculous fandango. No such luck, I told him. It isn't going to make the slightest difference to the Arabs whether Obama or McCain wins.

Westerners believe that Obama appeals to the Arabs because of his middle name or because he's black. Untrue. They like him – or liked him – because he grew up poor. Like them, he understood – or rather, they thought he understood – what oppression was about. But they quickly found out where they stood in the food chain. Forty-five minutes in Ramallah vs 24 hours in Israel was the Obama equation. Yes, I know the old saw. Every US presidential candidate has to make the pilgrimage to the Wailing Wall, to Yad Vashem, to some Israeli town or village that has taken casualties (albeit minuscule in comparison to those visited upon the Palestinians), to talk about Israel's security, etc. That doesn't mean, we are always told, that Israel is going to have it easy once the US president is elected. Wrong. Israel is going to have it easy. Because no sooner is he elected than he will be enmeshed in the Middle East tragedy and be forced to take sides – Israel's, of course – and then it will be time for the next election, so the president's hands will be tied again and he'll be talking about Israel's security (rather than Palestinian security) and we'll be back on the same old itinerary.

It's like the Lebanese, who keep believing that a Labour government is better than a Kadima or a Likud government in Israel; a clever idea, but – whoever runs Israel – the bombs keep falling on Lebanon. It's not that US presidents shouldn't understand the immensity of Jewish suffering during the Holocaust – it's a pity the Arabs still won't acknowledge it – but the Second World War is over and, right now, Israel continues to build colonies for Jews and Jews only on Arab land. Of course, Obama made the usual references to Jewish settlements not being helpful to peace, just as Gordon Brown did a few days earlier. And the Israelis showed what they thought of both men by announcing further colony-building within 24 hours of Obama's departure.

But hasn't anyone realised that Obama has chosen for his advisers two of the most lamentable failures of US Middle East policy-making? There, yet again, is Dennis Ross, a former prominent staff member of Aipac, the most powerful Israeli lobby in America – yup, the very same Aipac to which Obama grovelled last month – and the man who failed to make the Oslo agreement work. And there is Madeleine Albright who, as US ambassador to the UN, said that the price of half a million dead children under sanctions in Iraq was "worth it", and who later announced that Israel was "under siege". This must be the only time – ever – that a US politician thought Palestinian tanks were on the streets of Tel Aviv.

But this dreary old stage play doesn't end there. No one follows the narrative any more because it is so repetitive. Take Nouri al-Maliki, the PMIGZ – Prime Minister of the Iraqi Green Zone – who's suddenly gone from being the Democrats' favourite target to being their election buddy-buddy, as Max Boot sagely noted in The Washington Post. Maliki suggested to Obama that Iraq will be ready to assume responsibility for its own security by 2010. Bingo. This chimes in perfectly with Obama's promises.

But wait a minute. In May, 2006, Maliki announced that "our forces are capable of taking over the security in all Iraqi provinces within a year and a half". Five months later, the PMIGZ said that it would be "only a matter of months" before Iraqi security forces "take over the security portfolio entirely and keep some (sic) multinational forces only in a supporting role". Then in January, 2007, Maliki boasted that "within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down".

Four months later, he was at it again, claiming that Iraqi forces would control all security "in every province" within eight months. Quite apart from the idea that there is a security "portfolio" in Iraq, his own military chums don't agree with any of this bumph. The PMIGZ's own defence minister claims his forces can't assume responsibility until 2012, while the Iraqi commander in Basra wants US troops to stay until 2020!

Even if we ignore all this drivel, what does Obama want to do with his soldiers once he withdraws them from Iraq? He's going to send the poor devils back to Afghanistan, that graveyard of foreign armies where the Taliban were so utterly defeated in 2001 that they are now stronger than ever. I would recommend that Obama glance through Appendix XXIV of the official British account of the 1878-80 Second Afghan War where he will find the British announcing victory over a massed Afghan force which included a fierce group of fighters known as "talibs". These men would choose a particular soldier in the British ranks and make a suicidal attack to seize him and cut his throat in front of his comrades.

And I am "minded" (as Jack Straw used to say when he was showing off his English) of the bleak conversation I had with an adviser to the Taliban "elders" of Kandahar, a certain Mullah Abdullah, in the last days of the dark militia's rule in 2001. "If our people return and take back this lost land, it's a success," he told me. "If we are killed trying to do so, we have received martyrdom and this will be a great success for us too... If we are thrown out of Kandahar, we will go to the mountains and start the guerrilla war as we did with the Russians." The Taliban would fight on, he said. They would ambush the Americans in ever greater numbers. And so today Obama is also going to reinforce his soldiers to fight on in another Muslim country. If he wins.

kinda makes your little hopenosis fueled Obomba campaign shrivel up a bit, don't it KK ?

[weeddigger]

I believe that if either Hilary was the nominee, or if Barack picked Hilary as his running mate, the elephants would simply lose, and lose big.

But by picking an old white dude (no offense to Biden), he left the door open for Palin to come in and be the VPILF. Sure no one expected it, but the elephants were ingenious by picking her.

Immediately all the talk about this being an election for the history books kind of got diluted for the asses cause the elephants also had a historical ticket. Palin kind of cancelled out Obama's race card...

Race is a big issue here, and I'll say that cause it was only fifty years ago that Obama and Palin would have had to drink out of seperate fountains here in the US. There are a lot of people that won't vote Obama just cause of the color of his skin. And then you get all the talk about him being a Muslim, wether it's true or not, many people only read headlines, not the whole story.

Dream ticket would have been nice, but no matter who I vote for now, I say McCain wins, maybe even by a landslide...




And what the fuck does it make a difference who is shooting off their opinions, wether it be Michael Moore or Michael Jackson?

They each have a vote, and neither really count.

[Angstrom]

jesus christ, michael moore is actually being quoted here. Not noam chompsky or robert fisk etc. Michael fucking moore. A fucking entertainment mogul.

it makes a difference?

I just remembered seeing an article saying "the democrats are great at throwing it away" and went to find it. Didn't matter if it was by Jenna Jameson because the fact is - they so love to throw it away.

I actually just want one of these 'Democrats' to stand have some balls and stand up and shout : "you calling me LIBERAL, FUCKING LIBERAL .. you have no idea buddy. Right , here we go then ... I want workers farms, right, and all corporations dissolved if they fuck with people, and the directors get to go to some shit hole prison for fucking ever, four : any cunt with a single share in Oil does NOT get to tell me SHIT .. right, right, any of you Nazi Republican fuckers here got a fucking problem?!?!? "
now that would be fun.

but instead they say .. "er, yes sir Mr republican, lets invest in the war, no sir I am a patriot, no sir I did say that there might not be a god, please sir, please can I be like you."

would some one please shoot me in the face ?

I assume that is a rhetorical question.

[b0unce]

And what the fuck does it make a difference who is shooting off their opinions, wether it be Michael Moore or Michael Jackson?

One markets himself as a political activist, the other is a drugged up insane-o child molester.


But your question is a poignant one none-the-less, considering.

[rhetorical question]
what the fuck does it make a difference who is the u.s. president? Whether it be democrat or republican?
[/rhetorical question]

Try and answer without employing the words HOPE/CHANGE/OPTIMISM ....or any other equally meaningless esoteric promises.

[b0unce]

would some one please shoot me in the face ?

I assume that is a rhetorical question.

A rhetorical request actually




PS: it does matter who wrote the article you read, and found interesting. It matters because the author is buying into the illusion that it makes a difference if democrats or republicans occupy the president's chair. It compounds the illusion that a righteous, friendly, nice U.S.A was within reach...if it wasn't for those republicans. Like sheep, they are herded to vote democrat and feel that is a move in the right direction. And blame republicans/democrats for all their problems, for another 8 yrs. repeat ad infinitum until americans are disarmed and neutered.

you don't find the hugely respected intellectuals, activists, journalists buying into the bi-partisan bullshit.

[weeddigger]

Race is a big issue here, and I'll say that cause it was only fifty years ago that Obama and Palin would have had to drink out of seperate fountains here in the US. There are a lot of people that won't vote Obama just cause of the color of his skin. And then you get all the talk about him being a Muslim, wether it's true or not, many people only read headlines, not the whole story.

I meant to say that with Hilary in the pic, the Race issue is also less of an issue.

Why?

Forgive me but, I believe if Obama were to be elected, the Vice Pres pick is extremely important because...

I don't think Obama would last 3 months...

There is a lot of hate still in America...

[b0unce]

Obomba is in on the game, his role in this farce is predestined. I reckon he'd be well protected from rednecks.....uh oh, I'm taking the premise quasi-seriously



Doesn't matter how this show turns out - it's business as usual.

and you know this.

[Meef Chaloin]

There are a lot of people that won't vote Obama just cause of the color of his skin.

theres a lot of people who will vote for him because he's black as well

[weeddigger]

I agree with you, but if it came to race, I think he'd lose. I think there are more white people out there, who would rather marry white people, who would rather have white kids, who would rather have a white president...

[pilcrow]

There are a lot of people that won't vote Obama just cause of the color of his skin.

theres a lot of people who will vote for him because he's black as well

And then there are (I assume) some like me. I don't want O to win, but if he does, his race will be the one positive thing I'll see in it. I'm a white, middle-aged middle-American middle-class male who thinks the election of a black (or even half-black) president would have many positive repercussions for our country. But that's certainly not sufficient reason to vote for this one, in my book.

[andydes]

Doesn't matter how this show turns out - it's business as usual.

and you know this.

If you're right, then people will only realise it if Obama gets in. Otherwise they'll keep on blaming the reps and think that everything will be OK once the dems eventually get voted in again.

Good enough reason to vote for obama in, I'd say. It's not like a third party stands a chance.

[b0unce]

Doesn't matter how this show turns out - it's business as usual.

and you know this.

If you're right, then people will only realise it if Obama gets in. Otherwise they'll keep on blaming the reps and think that everything will be OK once the dems eventually get voted in again.

Good enough reason to vote for obama in, I'd say. It's not like a third party stands a chance.

Ya, I'm aware of this....but like I said - it's BUSINESS AS USUAL regardless. Voting for Obomba on that premise wouldn't even be level 3 stooge behaviour. More like level 4 or 5.

You don't challenge a system by reinforcing it.





And you're forgetting the rednecks who'd think that everything will be OK once the republicans are back. And remember, it's the rednecks who are up for kicking ass for their shitty beliefs. Douchebag hipster coast dwellers are too busy getting vasectomies and going for long bike rides to do anything.

[fatrabbit]

"Victory in the war?"

Hmm. Whether she means Iraq or the 'war on terror' - you can't 'win' either.

[b0unce]

"Victory in the war?"

Hmm. Whether she means Iraq or the 'war on terror' - you can't 'win' either.

you're right, but don't single her out. Obomba/McPain + VPs are ALL throwing around meaningless 'war' rhetoric.