Obama: You Wanna Talk About 9/11? Well, Let's Talk About 9/11!
Barack Obama continues hitting back hard today at the false McCain/GOP assaults on him for allegedly seeing terrorism as only a law-enforcement problem...
"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let's talk about 9/11."The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors -- the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we'd be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.
"Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership -- the people who murdered 3000 Americans -- have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism."
The key line there is "let's talk about 9/11." Keep in mind that this latest GOP assault is not so much about the substance of the argument as it is about trying to project a sense that the McCain campaign is the one on offense. Obama isn't playing along.
Only two years ago, some Dems were still saying, "please, please, PLEASE, let's NOT talk about 9/11." Now Obama is inviting an argument about it -- and more important, he's saying it's an argument he will win. That's the key here.
This is how you fight them. This is how only someone who didn't support the Iraq war can fight them.
June 18, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not support McCain.
It is a fiction to imply that he got us into this war. It's Bush's, Cheney's and Powell's war.
Obama is avoiding that he ignored the evidence presented and irresponsibly took a high risk gamble in not authorizing the president. That Bush turned out to be a liar does not change that one iota.
June 18, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Of course you support McCain. You'd support whomever they would have run. You're not a Democrat.
June 18, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as usual, you are wrong.
June 18, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joshua,
I agree 100%. I've always thought Foghat was a Limbaugh "Operation Chaos" / McCain troll even when he was supposedly shilling for Clinton. No one can speak that robotically about war, and have such a hateful avatar as that "black man owned" thing, and convincingly say they're a Democrat.
I don't buy his "i'm not for mccain just because i was for hillary" line. How many Republicans do you know who were sincerely for Hillary? Folks like Foghat only wanted Clinton to win so McCain could later roll out his "She was for it before she was against it" TV ads on Iraq.
June 18, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Republicans had a dog running on their ticket, fogu2 would vote for it.
June 18, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm, isn't that what Republicans *normally* do?
Seriously, ever since Nixon failed in his open bid to become Emperor, the Republicans have been fielding amiable meat puppets who are good at reading whatever speeches are handed to them.
June 19, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And...
McCain was for going into Iraq LONG before Bush II came into office. He's been pushing for this ever since Bush I left Saddam in place in 1991.
You obviously don't know your McCain history.
June 18, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is not responsible for this foreign policy fiasco.
Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld are.
It is a bogus and unpersuasive argument to objective people.
June 18, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
So was the "evidence" presented as justification for invading Iraq.
June 18, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is not responsible!? Hah!
McCain did not just "go along" with the Bush administration. He was one of chief cheerleaders and he was also one of the fabricators. He made up intelligence and asserted incorrect (and stupid) assumptions as fact.
Here are some McCain quotes in the run-up to, and early stages of, the war:
Feb 13, 2003: "Proponents of containment claim that Iraq is in a "box." But it is a box with no lid, no bottom, and whose sides are falling out. Within this box are definitive footprints of germ, chemical and nuclear programs."
November 2001: " Saddam Hussein ( is ) developing weapons of mass destruction as quickly as he can."
Jan 28, 2003: "I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks."
On Larry King September 2002: " I believe success will be very easy."
To Wolf Blitzer 2002: "We're not going to get into house-to-house fighting." ... " We're not going to have a bloodletting."
March 2003 : " There's no doubt in my mind ...we will be welcomed as liberators."
To MSNBC 2003: "There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias, so I think they can probably get along."
"Meet the Press" interview, March 3, 2003: "We're going to prevail and we will win and it'll be one of the best things that's happened to America and the world in a long time 'cause it'll reverberate throughout the Middle East."
ABC, 4/9/03: “It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.”
And even his claim that he would have done it differently, sending in more soldiers at the start is a lie:
September 15, 2002. "But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991."
And this gem from dec 5, 2001:
The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.
This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.
The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.
Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power.
McCain is not responsible. That's a good one!
June 18, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done!
June 19, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
boo_lala,
This is a keeper!
June 19, 2008 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It is a bogus and unpersuasive argument to objective people."
Well fogu2, that counts you out.
June 19, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
fogu2: Which is worse, conflating Bush & McCain or conflating Al Qaeda & Iraq? ... Thought so.
June 18, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Bush's war, but McCain among others, gave him cover. McC's voice had to have been key.
McCain has stuck to Bush like chewing gum on a theater seat. McC essentially gave all of his power over to Bush and negated his duty as an influential member of Congress. As veteran who fought in vietnam, McC should have know better than to invade a country of 35 million people, with the expectation that it would be a cake walk.
McCain has a great deal to answer for.
June 18, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the most outrageous Republican trolling I've ever seen on this site. If I ever had any doubts about you, they've been clarified now. Only a conservative Republican would even THINK about this as an excuse: "Who cares if he was right? The RESPONSIBLE thing would have been to be wrong like everybody else was."
Look, Obama was against the Iraq War from the start. So was I. So were a lot of people I know. It wasn't some "lucky guess." The truth was out there, from reputable alternative media sources that had already been proven to be more reliable than the Bush Administration. These were sources that were ignored by the mainstream media, and also unfortunately by members of congress. The fact that so many of our "democratic" representatives didn't have the political guts to stand up to the President when they already knew they were outnumbered is understandable but also unforgivable.
fogu2, you will not find any takers for your $hit here.
June 18, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second that.
June 18, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back in the drawer sock puppet
June 18, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, no socks here.
June 18, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outrageous..perhaps.
True...absolutely.
June 18, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
But trolling nonetheless (the charge was not denied or refuted).
June 19, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you know what...I was and am against the war too.
That changes nothing about what I said.
June 18, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make no sense whatsoever. If you were against the war then you should be criticizing yourself, as you criticized Obama, for ignoring the evidence and taking a high-risk gamble.
I think you're losing track of which persona you've adopted for which thread on which board. Write them out on a list and keep them handy by your monitor:
Fogu2 - TPM (HRC-supporter)
Shmegma7 - HuffPo (black female)
Dingleberry9 - ABC News (McCain-supporting Marine)
June 18, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. I am in no position of authority. Blind speculation by me has no consequence. Blind speculation by those that decide whether we go to war is disasterous.
Obama ignores facts and risks Americas future on a hunch. He should attend Gamblers Anonymous.
June 18, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your argument is that you were against the invasion and you were right; Obama was against the invasion and he was wrong.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?
June 18, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only when you fictionalize what I said.
Back in the drawer for you sock puppet.
June 18, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the one who said you were against the war, chum.
You're the one who criticized Obama for being against the war.
Please give me the example of how I fictionalized what you said.
June 18, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You brought the "right" and "wrong" aspect. That is where you fictionalize my POV.
It was and is about responsible judgment. I expect a president to make judgments about war based on facts. He made his judgments intentionally ignoring or against the facts. I would fire and employee who did that.
June 18, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kids, don't do drugs. Please.
June 18, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is Republican talking point 101 on Iraq: "We were all fooled by the bad intel. Even Bush was fooled!" And that is completely true if you ignore what Hans Blix, ElBaradei, Zinni, Scowcroft, Scott Ritter, and scores of others were saying at the time. That's one.
Two: you are making the idiotic assumption that if the intelligence were correct (Saddam had reconstituted WMD programs) that the only course of action was invasion. How fucking stupid is that? Guess what? Axis of Evil superfreak, his Grand Illness Kim Jong Il has/had a WMD program. Everyone knows it. Why haven't we invaded yet?
Only the monumentally stupid, like your dear Hillary, couldn't figure that out. Plenty of people saw the colossal goatfuck in the desert coming -- Obama among them -- and you are attempting to use that against him? Well, I guess Hillary put you in that uncomfortable little box. All you have to do is step out of it.
June 19, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Force him to kneel, General Zod!
June 19, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not blind speculation that the yellow cake uranium documents that were oh-so-persuasive were known to be frauds by several foreign governments and debunking of them was freely available to anyone with internet access.
It's not blind speculation to realize that invading Iraq would've led to civil war between three separate factions with a long history of fighting and scores to settle thanks to the Baathists.
It's not blind speculation that the majority of the world considered our actions illegal and imperialistic and urged us strongly not to invade.
The list goes on and on, in far greater length than the slapped-together mess of crap put up by the Bush administration prior to the invasion.
June 18, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, spreading hate. Just like a Republican. Only you are too much an internet coward to admit so.
You might also take time to look up the definitions of "truth" and "objective" so it is absolutely clear you have no idea what each word means.
June 18, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM needs to ban fogu's account. The trolling has gone beyond funny and impedes ability to have discussion in these threads.
June 18, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. The guy's obviously hijacking threads for his own amusement and self-aggrandizement. Wake up, TPM.
June 18, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fugo: Obama had no vote in 2002, he only expressed an opinion, which turned out to be remarkably prescient. As such, he wasn't privy to the 'evidence', but he was able to use his common sense and knowledge of the world to see that this was going to be a big mess. The complete failure of the intel to be accurate was not even in BO's calculus, only the consequences of the rush to war. He probably also sensed that there was something going on *because* of the rush to war, and the strange wording of the laws that were passed.
Might be good to get your facts straight before spewing troll...
BTW, McCain expressed another opinion with his vote and unending support for the invasion...he STILL hasn't said it was a mistake, just that it was handled poorly...
June 18, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worse still. Once presented with the now discredited evidence he should have changed his position. That would have been the responsible thing to do. That would have shown good judgment, when you realize that facts contradict your position you change your position. He did not.
June 18, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems clear to me, you don't like Obama and it bothers you he has taken over and leading the democratic party on his talking points.
You don't like war, but you don't mind defending a war-eager candidate just purely because the other guy is Barack Obama in otherwords just purely because the other guy beat Hillary Clinton.
June 18, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. I never said I don't like Obama. I've said he is not a known quantity. I've said he has not shown the qualifications to be president on many levels. Revisiting his poor judgment on the Iraq war does nothing but reinforce that.
Yes, I still believe Clinton should be president.
June 18, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the sake of Unity, let me just say I'm sorry you'll be sitting this election out.
June 18, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the sake of Unity, let me just say I'm sorry you'll be sitting this election out.
June 18, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all want things, I guess.
June 18, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The way to continue our fight now – to accomplish the goals for which we stand – is to take our energy, our passion, our strength and do all we
can to help elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States."
June 7, 2008
Hillary's Remarks in Washington, DC
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=7903
June 18, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What evidence are you talking about? What evidence was there that it was not only necessary to begin a war with Iraq but to begin one in all possible haste?
The simple truth, which has somehow gone down the memory hole for even many liberals, is that the evidence for the necessity of war never existed. Even if Saddam Hussein had ten times what we said he did as far as chemical and biological weapons, it would have still posed no real threat to us or any of our allies. We knew this and, for a variety of different reasons, we decided to pretend as if we didn't.
I maintain that the argument for war was always built more upon a kind of jingoistic conventional wisdom that deliberately obfuscated the evidence that war was entirely unnecessary.
Anyone who disagrees will have to explain:
1. What this incredibly compelling evidence of the need for war was.
2. their particular threshold for the need for war.
I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, even attempt to make such explanations.
I say the threshold for deciding to place millions of people directly in the path of your bombs and bullets is pretty high and one that didn't even come close to being met by the evidence even if we took it at face value.
June 18, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush, as McClellan not so squeamishly, doesn't think too hard. But McCain's worldview is very similar to Dick Cheney. He strongly believes it's his responsibility to bring "democracy" to middle east.
President McCain's first six weeks in office...
Week 1: Fix Iraq
Week 2: Wipeout Hamas
Week 3: Wipeout Hezbollah
Week 4: Blowup Ayatollah's of Iran
Week 5: Accept the Isreal Prize, the nation's highest civilian award.
Week 6: Go on a golfing vacation with his buddy Joe Leibermann.
You get the idea...
June 18, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a complete idiot.
"Obama is avoiding that he ignored the evidence presented and irresponsibly took a high risk gamble in not authorizing the president."
What the hell are you talking about? Ignoring what evidence? The evidence that didn't exist? And what risk? Risk from a regime that was absolutely no threat to us? And not authorizing the president to do what? Obama wasn't even in the Senate when that vote was taken! You utter moron, seriously, why do you bother broadcasting your ignorance on here?
Beyond that, this was very much McCain's war, because he walked in lockstep with Bush through all the lies and chest thumping that led up to the war, and then he remained one of the biggest supporters of the war for over five years, and then he has committed us to staying there from another 5-100 years. Give me a break, this is McCain's war, the war belongs to all of the Republicans who actively supported it and continue to lie to voters about it.
Are you one of McCain's paid trolls or what? Do they not give you less idiotic sounding talking points to use?
June 18, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Questioning Obama's competency does not equal support for McCain.
If you want to support McCain I will be happy to question his competency too.
June 18, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you aren't questioning his competency, you are talking gibberish and embarrassing yourself. If you want to question is competency, go ahead and try, but you sure as hell better actually have an example of Obama showing bad judgment instead of attacking him for being right.
June 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fellow sane people:
don't feed the trolls
Don't. Feed. The. Trolls.
DON'T
FEED
THE
F@#KING
T R O L L S !
Thank you,
Lorne
June 19, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama to cons: Bring it on!
June 18, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. Hey, voters: Want to reward the people responsible for this massive screw-up? Didn't think so.
June 18, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love Barack Obama.
June 18, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to resist pointing out that had the Dems chosen, er, differently, we'd already be reliving 2004 instead of finally having a candidate able and willing to take this shit and calmly point out that he is and has been right and they are and have been mendaciously, disastrously wrong.
June 19, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point! Thank God for obama. Mcbush right now would be leading the clintons all over the place and the environment would be completely different. We'd be arguing about who would be the first to nuke iran or who could give the rich and corporations bigger tax breaks.
June 19, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, a Dem who'll strap on a set and face-down the Republicans. Go Obama!
June 18, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strap on a set?
Are you saying he actually is a gelding?
Or is he a transvestite?
Interesting take.
June 18, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You fail at humor.
June 18, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will previal on this argument. McFuddle is a champion of this war and spoke loudly and frequently in his support of it. He continues his nonsense of wars today, tomorrow and for the next 100 YEARS!
June 18, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. I think we may finally at a point when the rallying cries of "Terrorists!" and "9-11!" simply cannot whip up the ugly fury of rage and fear seen so often over the past several years. The price paid for colossal chicanery has been mighty and I think (hope) that the country is largely weary of war and lies. Without those fear buttons to push, McCain and his GOP coterie look like what they are -- shameless and cowardly opportunists.
June 18, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
In psychology's behavioral theory, the technical term for what we're observing is "habituation." From Wikipedia:
In otherwords, they've finally overplayed that hand.
June 18, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush gang and the Republican party ridiculed the idea that the war on terror should have a law enforcement aspect to it, yet these same cretins pushed hard for The Patriot Act.
June 18, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well, but...ummm...Look over there!
June 18, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go ahead, McCain, make our day. click.
June 18, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not really sure if I approve of the "click."
June 18, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.
June 18, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
My jaw is on the floor. I never thought I'd hear a Democrat talk this way. Just lay it all right out there.
Bush didn't catch Bin Laden.
McCain and Bush misled us into a disastrous war.
They are abject failures.
They have no right to lecture anyone.
oBAMa!
June 18, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ridiculously overdue. And oh-so-glad to finally see it.
June 18, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I openly admit that I have a HUGE man-crush on Barack Obama! And, yes, my wife is fully aware.
June 18, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's guy love.
June 18, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm still waiting to hear from all of those former Clinton supporters who whined about Obama not "being tough enough in a GE".
does anyone seriously think any of our other candidates could take it to the Republicans on national security this righteously and forcefully without putting their foots in their mouths?
he needs to hammer this from now until election day. and i'll ask again: after national security, what argument for himself for John McCain have? i say none.
June 18, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the Chiffons would sing:
He's so fine wish he were mine
That good looking boy over there the one with the coal black hair
I don't know how I'm gonna do it but I'm gonna make him mine
He's the envy of all the rest he's just a matter of time
He's so soft spoken guy oh so sweet kinda shy
Makes me wonder if I should even give him a try
But then again he can't shy he can't shy away forever
And I'm gonna make him mine if it takes me forever
Oh he's so fine gotta be mine
Sooner or later hope it's not later
We gotta get together the sooner the better
I just can't wait I just can't wait to be held in his arms
If I were a queen honey ask me to leave my throne
I'd do anything that he'd ask anything to make him my own
Cause he's so fine so fine he's so fine
June 18, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody, please, please, please, follow the link in this post and read his ENTIRE (short) speech -- it is amazing in clarity, forthrightness and a terrific offense! He is just amazing in speaking directly and truthfully -- he is Harry Truman! They think he is giving them hell, but he is just basically telling the truth -- very powerfully and in a coolly blistering fashion, but truth nevertheless.
*This* is why Hillary could not win over the educated and open-minded -- he is clearly head and shoulders above any modern day politician, in that he is not just a good democrat, but he is a terrific candidate too...
June 18, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second this - everyone must read the whole thing. It's excellent.
June 18, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to openly admit my HUGE man-crush on Barack Obama. Yes, my wife is fully aware and supports it.
June 18, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's contagious! The beginning of all this, of course was well stated by Obama Girl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU
June 18, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not an Obama supporter, but McCain just got his arse handed to him.
June 18, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goosebumps! I have goosebumps! Go, Obama!
June 18, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
God Damn! Obama has got some cajones, don't he?
Go on, tell 'em!
I am so damn proud of our candidate.
June 18, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here's McCain's response:
"AbaDabaDeebaDeeb"
June 18, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Derpa derpa, Mohammed jihad?
June 18, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Verbnounnineeleven.
June 19, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the worst of it is the continual trolling from conservative pundits that "because we haven't had an attack here since 9/11, our War on Terra strategy is working and people know that Republicans are better on national security."
They repeat it over and over again in hopes that you don't notice they're saying "we haven't had an attack since the worst one in our history which happened on our watch, but we're completely ducking responsibility for that."
We didn't have an attack between the first WTC attack in '93 and 2001, despite the GOP Congress undermining every Clinton Administration anti-terrorism effort and baying "wag the dog!" whenever he did anything. It doesn't mean that what they're doing is right.
June 18, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This shirt I'm wearing repels tigers. Don't believe me? Psh. I don't see any tigers around here, do you?
June 18, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe "I was a Congressman" Scarborough was trying to push this exact same theme this morning on MSNBC after an interview with Guiliani. He tried to bully this point to Obama advisor Susan Rice, but she completely took him down. He tried what he usually does with Mika B and talk over Ms Rice, but she was having none of that. When they panned over to Mika B after the smackdown, you could tell that Mika was so happy that Ms Rice owned him. Mika has this smug "you just got owned" look on her face in regards to Joe.
June 18, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmmm...controlling the message. Damn, it's so sweet to watch the Repugs to publicly get their asses kicked. Ha! Thank you, Sen. Obama.
June 19, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
GOBAMA smack down GHOULIANI and those hideous reTHUGS
June 18, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, I appreciate the sentiment but silly name-calling doesn't really add anything to any discussion.
June 18, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got goosebumps up my arms when I read Obama's response. This man tells it like it is. Now I know how Tweety feels when he gets that tingle up his leg.
I need a cigarette now.
June 18, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need a cold de-programmer.
June 18, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked your old avatars better. The eye thing is really creepy. Why don't you try something new?
June 18, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If thats actually a picture of fogu2 I feel bad for him. Not an attractive guy at all.
June 18, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, fogu2, I need a cold shower. It's not the first time, but I'm happy to say....you had nothing to do with the need of it.
June 18, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I would say on Balloon Juice:
Fogu:
June 19, 2008 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn blockquotes.
June 19, 2008 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
:-)
June 18, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama to McCain: I'm drinking your milkshake.
June 18, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think obama can totally win the iraq debate and i wish the mccain camp would not say that mccains right on iraq just because hes a war hero and yet not answer how he going to get us out of iraq.
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/heres-a-new-way-2-smear-obama/
June 18, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ingratitude expressed by some in here who say that the GOP policies against terrorism have been a failure really have no leg to stand on. How can you say they've been a failure if there have been no further terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11? I know you don't like that argument but it's a very difficult one to refute. President Bush will likely be remembered much the way Harry Truman was. When President Truman left office in 1953, he was very unpopular but public opinion is a very fickle thing. Today, he's looked back on as the man who made the very difficult but apparently correct and brave decision to nuke Japan.
Barack Obama is only striking back because he knows that it's one of his many weak suits. Yes, full disclosure: I support John McCain but it doesn't diminish the truth in what I just said.
June 18, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhh, there were no attacks from 93 to 2001 either, so I guess mr. bill is your hero as well. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if gore was in power. The king and his administration blew it leading up to 9/11, but ohhhh, they are protecting us. Please, what a bunch of bs.
On another note, glad you are a mcbush supporter. Keep coming back please.
June 18, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Attacking the wrong country, to waste money, lives and world standing?
FAILURE!!!
Terrorist attacks (aside from the anthrax mailings of just after 9/11) haven't happened here. Terrorist attacks in the rest of the world, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan -- both of which Bush has failed to get under control -- continue to this day.
"Ingratitude" -- oh, yes missa Bush, me so grateful for my safety and security and debt and dead and erosion of basic US principals.
June 18, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve, all Bush had do to was maintain the anti-terrorist policies that Clinton implemented after the first attack in 93 and the second one could have been avoided. Instead he focused on defensive missiles because that is what his biggest campaign contributors stood to gain the most from.
If he hadn't gratuitiously disregarded the anti-terrorism policies Clinton put in place just because they were "a Clinton thing" then we likely would have had no tragedy. Remember this is Richard Clark who says this and he served under three repub presidents, only one democrat, so you can't say he is partisan.
June 18, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve - I disagree with you but I respect that you are forthcoming about being a McCain supporter (not faking it like fogu2).
But the fact is we don't know what attacks might have been prevented if any. Since, as has been pointed out, 8 years passed between the 1st WTC attack and 9/11, and since we know Al Qaida was pretty seriously disrupted with the invasion of Afghanistan, it's really not a certainty that other significant attacks were actually intercepted. There were a lot of flimsy claims of groups planning attacks - but nothing the Bush admin ever pointed to that seemed far along or even seriously credible. And given their propensity for parading every two-bit would-be terrorist they claimed had something in the works - well, I gotta tell ya I'm a little skeptical that they ever intercepted anything real. I think they would have made sure everyone knew about it, don't you?
Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't see the evidence. And given the 8 years between the two WTC attacks - I wouldn't assume they deserve too much credit.
And btw - there was one other attack: the shoe bomber. He got onto a US airliner. The Bush admin didn't get him, the passengers and crew did.
June 18, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know this really is refreshing. I am actually looking forward to voting for obama in november. It has always been the lesser of two evils for a long, long, long time (I never liked the clintons, surprise, surprise), but this one I am definitely looking forward to. Each day he proves himself as a great leader and has the makings of a truly phenominal president. I really can't believe that we got so lucky for once in my lifetime. Wow!
June 18, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
BARACKARATE!!!
June 18, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
BarAikido!!!
June 18, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think "Kung Fu Fighting" would be a good campaign theme song? I'd like to hear the opening bars of that as he comes on the stage and the crowd roars...yeah...
June 19, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Please God -- NO! That's one of those songs that pop into your head and you can't get rid of it until you're screaming from the agony and someone bitchslaps you while yelling, "Snap out of it! It's only a goddamned song!"
Shit! Now it's in my head.
IT'S IN MY DAMNED HEAD AND IT WON'T STOP! AAARRGGH!
June 19, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Way to go Obama! All those doubters who didn't think he could go for blood can suck on that! Floating like a butterfly, stinging like a bee. McCain isn't going to last until August.
June 18, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we do know that the attack of the World Trade Center was the worst this nation has faced since Pearl Harbor, and they occurred on the watch of the same people that are now claiming to be the Party of national defense. We also know that they were given warning that these attacks might take place, yet did nothing. We also know that instead of pursuing the people who perpetrated this attack, they steered the nation into a war using lies and obfuscation which has proven to be one of the greatest foreign policy blunders this nation has ever engaged in.
How much of that is difficult to refute?
June 18, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I really love about the hidden potential of that Republican mantra of 'we've kept you safe, see ---no terrorist attacks since 9/11' is this:
let's say the desperate Republican Party gins up some kind of faux 'terrorist threat' with which to try to manipulate voters right before the election, call it an 'October surprise'.
That ginned up 'threat' will be so easy to handle by proclaiming loudly that such a threat is further proof that the Bush/Republican policies have let our real security needs slide.....proof that all along the Republicans were blowing smoke.
June 18, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only is it impossible to say that the lack of a terrorist attack proves that they are effective in preventing them, but we can look to how they responded to Katrina and other national disasters like that to see just how prepared they are for the next terrorist attack.
They had days of warning on that hurricane -- a luxury not often granted in a terrorist incident, and they still were completely unprepared to handle the aftermath.
Now, I know they couldn't have diverted the weather, and I don't expect them to, but they could have done more to evacuate the area, and they certainly could have done more in providing relief aid after the fact.
No, that we haven't been attacked is luck more than preparation, and that's an argument that's hard to refute.
June 18, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
O don't we have a lovely candidate?
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!
June 18, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
All ye who feel like that, please head on over to this diary
over at DailyKos and rec it and comment and keep it from sinking. We need as many people to see it as possible.
June 18, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
rec'd
June 18, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Muchos gracias!
June 18, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOP: "Huh? Wait a minute, we thought Obama was supposed to mumble something wishy washy and then try to change the subject. Bringing up 9/11 is supposed to make us look tough and put him on the defensive, not the other way around! He isn't playing by the rules! Waa!"
June 18, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack speaks truth, and the truth shall set us all free!!!!
Oh, this is so good to see. Yes, please, let's talk about it! Yes, please let's expose the wretched lies to the light of day and watch them squirm and die. Yes, please, let's tell the truth about the most venal, corrupt and incompetent administration in history. Thank you, Barack Obama!
June 18, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP sure isn't used to Dems throwing national security back in their faces. This could get quite interesting. Maybe even fun.
June 18, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. The only reason the R's have owned the so called security issue is because they SAID they owned it and nobody questioned them. Time to snatch that stick back from them. Me likey this rhetoric.
June 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
fogu2? Hmmm... Let's see. Bush doesn't and most likely can't read so the NIE's from the summer of 2001 might as well been flushed down your sulfurous troll hole. And as for McCain. Most likely dyslexic and probably never read summer of 2001 NIE's. I'll go with the judgement of a Harvard Law review editor and constitutional law professor.
No...FogU and the GWB shitshow third rate hack rodeo you rode in on. There's new sheriff in town and he looks a bit like Cleavon Little.
June 18, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
you know what's really astonishing? obama didn't need to read the NIE to know that iraq was no threat to us, and we needed to keep our eye on the ball in afghanistan. wait a minute, i knew that too. geez, i'm smart.
June 18, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Greg, the video is now available, thanks to a DKos commenter. Here it is. Please post video, too!
June 18, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sock puppet"? In light of recent events, not exactly subtle.
June 18, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's rebuttal was brilliant. How refreshing to see a democratic candidate leave the other side wondering what the hell just happened!
June 18, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what's even more astonishing? NO ONE needed to read the NIE to know that the "case for war" was a massive, steaming pile of bullshit.
ANYONE who has an iota of common sense knew it was a massive, steaming pile of bullshit from one very precise moment: the day the administration claimed that Saddam was a Dr. Evil character who was going to pilot remote controlled model planes over our homes to spray us with anthrax.
Uh, WHAT THE FUCK? A dude whose country had been under repeated bombardment for the previous 10 years, 6,000 miles distant from the US, was going to attack us with robotic model planes? Are you fucking kidding me?
Look, your local prosecutor wouldn't even try to slide something that lame past a circuit court judge - he'd get laughed out of the courtroom. That's why your local prosecutor goes to court with the STRONGEST evidence he has - he leaves the speculative and circumstantial stuff aside when he has a strong case.
Suffice to say, if the best case you can make is with corroded aluminum tubes, obviously forged documents and claims about using FUCKING MODEL ROBOTIC PLANES to squirt people with anthrax, you don't have a case.
And anyone who got beyond that point believing that there was the slightest reason for going to war is a total fucking moron. End of story.
I guess fogu's point is that we should only consider total fucking morons (or the whorishly politically expedient) as qualified to lead us.
June 18, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah Jenn, you have the gift of boiling things down to their essence. This does, in fact, appear to be the real Republican agenda.
June 19, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Senator Obama did not 'ignore' the evidence. The senators and congressmen that 'actually read' the intelligence did not vote to give authority. I watch the senate regularly and at the time those that read the intelligence spoke out on the senate floor pleading that others read it and that it cast clear doubt on the case for war.
The gamble in this case was taken by all of those who voted to give the president the authority to go to war without reading the intelligence that might have led them to a different conclusion.
Senator Clinton, in fact, was one who did not read the intelligence.
June 18, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am fired up that we have a leader who is going to use the facts to confront poor judgement and poor leadership and the games those weilding it will play with the media and the american public!
June 18, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! This is the way to take on this issue! Not that crap that McCain himself - during the Republican primary - said Guilliani was an idiot when it comes to foreign policy. Don't attack the attack dog; attack the nominee.
June 18, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
When historians look back on this election, they're going to marvel at how quickly and lethally Obama was able to brand McCain as nothing more than a third Bush term. McCain has come up with nothing to counter it. And every time he opens his mouth, he just confirms it.
Worst of all, the White House has gotten involved, desperately trying to prop up the old crank up with their Offshore Drilling scheme. When George Bush thinks you're flailing, you've got some serious bugs in your plan.
People comparing this to Bob Dole are wrong. Bob Dole had a chance. If the GOP was smart, they'd stage a revolt at their convention and try to draft someone who their party actually cares about. The only person I've seen with any passion toward getting McGoo elected was that old boot screaming at the cameras at the DNC meeting.
June 18, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama man-crush deepening...
GOBAMA!
June 18, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Breaking... McGoo wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors.
Memo to Obama Camp:
Pin that fool down on EXACTLY what towns he is planning to break ground in.
June 19, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, another excellent point. I guess we won't be getting any more nuclear reactors any time soon. Better concentrate on other forms of alternative energy. Too funny.
June 19, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You would fire any employee...
Only a fool would work for someone so clueless and classless.
June 19, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama does a lot of name-calling, but he's no Harry Truman. It sounds like he's trying to score a few cheap points tis all, as I read the speech.
He's going to do pretty much what every other undistinguished politician does these days: he's mostly going to say whatever he thinks will get him elected.
He really should be willing to be lectured on foreign policy because he's obviously completely naive and inexperienced.
Anybody who was watching during the '90s knew we were already in a de facto long-term border war with Iraq before we invaded. It's also abundantly clear that Saddam was working with all sorts of terrorists in a variety of ways, and he was trying to work up whatever weapons he could. After all, he mad no secret about his desire to create an Arab empire centered in Iraq. Even so, it's debatable whether invading was the right thing to do. I think it was, because he needed to be taken down.
It's also clear though, that the post-invasion process was a major blunder - We should have put the Iraqis in charge right away, it was foolish not to.
But until the Middle East sheds their tyrants for *some sort* of democratic polity, the region will continue to threaten the entire civilized world.
Although Obama doesn't have Truman's wisdom or experience, and he doesn't speak like Truman, or share many of Truman's views, there is one probable resemblance: it's very likely that if Obama is elected, he will be the first President since Truman to order the use of nuclear weapons.
Well, maybe we'll get "lucky" and he'll only screw up like Jimmy Carter. Then the Republicans will be back in the White House for the next 30 years.
June 19, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
...riiiiight.
June 19, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You see a lot of things as abundantly clear and given that are not.
And your dog is laughing at you.
June 19, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama is avoiding that he ignored the evidence presented and irresponsibly took a high risk gamble in not authorizing the president."
Not exactly. The American people took a high risk in supporting a completely inexperienced ex-alcoholic egomaniac as President. The Supreme Court took a risk in intervening in the elections. And the shithead himself took a risk by turning over the process to lunatics like Paul Wolfowitz, without bothering to question the reasoning or the potential downsides. *ANY* competent manager looks for downsides in his potential decisions, but Bush is not a minimally competent manager, as we all know. All Obama did was look for a rationale for the war, and finding none (as there so extremely obviously was none), reject the idiotic option. And you, my friend, have really drunk the Kool Aid.
June 19, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
remember the troll name ffarkle
think to onesself "sparkly troll, here troll, here fear-mongerer, c-mon, sparkly farkly, you'll just LOVE the
'bomb bomb bomb iran' guy"
---
while we adults
1: discuss policy [as I do in other threads but here merely enjoy reading excellent adult discussions]
and
2:
skim quickly past that
bs
June 19, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
ps:
excellent short analysis,
Ibrillante
thanks!
June 19, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is really tough! I love it! What can McCain say to this?
June 19, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
liberal congress paid for the iraq /afghan conflict again and again....
who's war is it .....follow the money
June 19, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Hussein Obama wants to fly this 747 we call America.....he's never even soloed in a cessna or even driven a cab.
you would board a plane with a pilot that has never even co-piloted before?
June 19, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That's your argument? Really?
June 19, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I only ask 'coz it's McCain that has a history of crashing planes.
June 19, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
He also has a history of getting shot down.
June 19, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
my favorite line so far:
My approach is guided by a simple premise: I have confidence that our system of justice is strong enough to deal with terrorists; Senator McCain does not.
June 19, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey dsalexan -
I'm no fan of McCain.
He only looks good when you compare him to Obama.
If you study history, you'll notice that Democrats got us into WWI, and Democrats got us into WWII, And Democrats got us into the Korean War, and Democrats got us into Vietnam.
Republicans mess around with these limited wars like Iraq and Afghanistan and generally do it pretty badly - but if you want a REAL disaster, get yourself a Democrat and hold onto your hat!
So if you have anything lucid to say - other than lame name-calling - go ahead and address the issues.
I'm no fan of either the left or the right; and all politicians are more of a curse than a blessing.
Obama seems smart, but he clearly is not wise. He has no management experience, no executive experience, no leadership experience, and almost zero legislative experience. He's been running his mouth for pay for decades and he's become very good at agitating a crowd. That's ALL he's got.
If you agree with Saul Alinsky, you'll agree with Obama. I don't.
Alinsky's ultra-socialist views are bad for America. They didn't work too well in the Soviet Union either. Socialist Europe is sinking, too. You may not like capitalism - but it provides more freedom and prosperity for more people than any other system ever devised.
I don't agree with John McCain on a lot of stuff either - both these candidates are a sad reflection on America and the choices we've made.
I am old enough to have voted for Jimmy Carter, and he had a wealth of experience compared to Obama. And he was terrible for America, economically, socially, and militarily. And the blame for the Iranian revolution can and should be be placed squarely on his shoulders.
If all you want is an echo chamber - to assuage your massive insecurities and help reassure your matching self-righteousness - all that shows is how unserious and unwise you are, too.
Ideas have consequences. Obama's socialist ideas are all old failures. They have been tried repeatedly around the world and they always fail. They have to fail, because they idealize the perfectibility of man and his institutions and they don't take into account how people actually are. Following them will be destructive for America and the world.
The only Democrat president in living memory who was economically beneficial for the people was Bill Clinton - and he governed from the middle, like a Republican. You can forget that sweet memory if Obama is elected.
June 19, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink