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