>> deedub81

I can't say I agree with Obama's philosophy found in his observations and comparisons.

I'll share with you one of the most glaring examples: He compares the civil rights movement in the US with the Palestinian's struggle in Israel?

He doesn't compare them, he highlights the civil rights movement as a good example of what can be done without violence (in contrast to what's happening in Palestine).

For reals? I'm sure there are many Palestinians who just want peace, but a lot of the arabs and 97% of Palestinian leaders want death to Israel and death to the US. Are you going to compare the history of that movement (Hammas, The PLO, Yasser Arafat, Abu Nidal, Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine, PFLP) to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement in the US?

Where did you get those statistics? I doubt that most Palestinians want death to the US. Besides, many Israelis deny Palestinians their right for their own state.

I'm tired of all this talk about taking a neutral stance to make friends and outstretching our hand to tyrants and evil men!
To quote Dr. King himself: "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."
It's not okay to not take sides (especially when you're the President of The United States of America).

He doesn't remain neutral, he takes a definite stance against extremists and people who promote violence. He didn't say anything about any leaders, he was trying to extend a hand to the Muslim people. He takes the side of peace.

Diplomacy should not come at the expense of morality and high standards. Can we not be open and transparent in our discussions of past relationships? Do we have to pretend to have approved of past behavior in order to show that we will accept a change in future behavior?

NO! We need to have a candid discussion about mistakes that have been made. Arab leaders cannot continue spewing hate and propaganda (such as denying the holocaust) and expect us to accept them with open arms!

That's exactly what he's doing in this speech: He acknowledges mistakes made by both the US and the Arab world. He even specifically denounces people who deny the holocaust.

I can't say I agree with Obama's philosophy found in his observations and comparisons.


I'll share with you one of the most glaring examples: He compares the civil rights movement in the US with the Palestinian's struggle in Israel?

For reals? I'm sure there are many Palestinians who just want peace, but a lot of the arabs and 97% of Palestinian leaders want death to Israel and death to the US. Are you going to compare the history of that movement (Hammas, The PLO, Yasser Arafat, Abu Nidal, Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine, PFLP) to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement in the US?

That makes me ill.

Barack Obama of all people!!!

I'm tired of all this talk about taking a neutral stance to make friends and outstretching our hand to tyrants and evil men!
To quote Dr. King himself: "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."
It's not okay to not take sides (especially when you're the President of The United States of America).

Diplomacy should not come at the expense of morality and high standards. Can we not be open and transparent in our discussions of past relationships? Do we have to pretend to have approved of past behavior in order to show that we will accept a change in future behavior?

NO! We need to have a candid discussion about mistakes that have been made. Arab leaders cannot continue spewing hate and propaganda (such as denying the holocaust) and expect us to accept them with open arms!

"Don't do anything else naughty North Korea, or we will have to tell you not to do anything naughty again!"

Diplomacy at it's finest.

^ It's BaraCk.

Oh, and you are putting effort into rationalizing or justifying the use of waterboarding.

Why? Because you're in the CIA and have years of direct experience with the reliability of the practice? Because you're a member of Al Qaeda or Hamas and have been doing this for decades?

Or just because you're awash with propaganda from people who're no better than Al Qaeda or Hamas, and think there's good reason to treat people this way because, well, we're the good guys, and they're not, and that's true no matter how we behave?

This isn't about its practicality, it's not about whether other people do it, it's not about some mythical dichotomy between diplomacy and torture, and it sure as shit isn't about liberal vs. conservative.

This is about the humans vs. inhuman monsters in human-shaped bodies. Way I see it, you and Al Qaeda are on the same level of moral reasoning; torture is okay because it helps you achieve your goals.

Find another cause to fight for.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I politely disagree with your assertions as they are emotion based opinions rather than facts. America did not create 'a problem'. Hostile terrorists existed long before the US was settled. The US is not a worse people for trying to defeat terrorists. That is an value based opinion subject to debate. And terrorists hate anyone/anything that is convenient to thier cause du'jour. Pinning that sort of moving target onto ideas you disagree with politically is spurious.


I see we can add "Lacks reading comprehension skills" to your list of character flaws.

I said "we created this problem", an obvious reference to the current rash of so called "islamofascist" terrorists, not terrorism in general. Throughout the 1980's this country covertly spent one billion dollars to fund the Afghanistan Mujahideen in order to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. And then when they succeeded the US cut off all ties to the Afghani people, refusing to provide even one million dollars in aide to rebuild schools. And because of it, a power vacuum formed that allowed the Taliban and al-Qaeda (the CIA assets led by Osama bin Laden) to seize control and turn hundreds of thousands of young men against the US. Or as the man behind the money for Operation Cyclone, Charles Wilson, once said, "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame." So yeah, the US created this problem. Try getting your history from somewhere other than Faux News.


As far as 'reaching out' being the solution to 'the problem'? In a remarkably short period of time, Barak Obama has very effectively proven that reaching out is an incredibly ineffective tactic. Reaching out efforts from Barak Obama have been rejected by France, Germany, England, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Hamas, Al Quieda, and Somali pirates. Why should I ascribe to the notion that 'reaching out' is going to decrease hostility when all factual examples contradict that concept? For example, Clinton 'reached out' to terrorists and a fat lot of good it did him in Mogudishu.


Actions speak louder than words, and sadly diplomacy is really just a lot of empty words. But with the current economic climate, we're really at a loss to be able to do much more than talk. Regardless the damage done to diplomacy by the previous administration will be a constant burden for years to come.

In the not too distant past we have had it within our power to improve the quality of life for millions of people in third world nations. But whenever we make an effort, we do the least we can and often leave places in worse situations than we found them.

Umm. But bush was fascist like... Not hitler, but he said himself he would prefer a dictatorship.

In one fell swoop the Patriot Act stole more freedoms from Americans than any administration had previously done. The Bush administration unrepentantly approached all national and international activities unilaterally without debate or diplomacy.

The difference is: People protested Bush because he DID remove freedoms.

There hasn't been one single clamp down on freedom's since Obama was elected. Not agreeing with the policies is not the same thing.

"... solution that doesn't involve effort and doesn't involve risk"

yeah, dude. its called diplomacy

What an outstanding, decisive leader. He understands that it takes an entire globe to root out the terrorist threats in the world. We must change our tone towards Muslims, while also leading the world against those of them with a twisted ideology. We must encourage diplomacy while also adding a military component to the effort.

We must conduct ourselves so the rest of the world wants to join in, and we should not let them have an excuse not to. This is the voice of the new world. This is the voice of hope.

He still has the air of a scientist, and is no smooth talker.

He may not appear "smooth" but he weighs his word carefully, and I find him to be crystal clear if you actually listen to what he says, instead of what you think he is going to say. That being said he is a scientist, and not a PR person or politician by profession. He readily admits that his "cause" might be better served with a gentler or smoother and more politically correct presentation,, but his style is simply to present his case as he sees it, and leave the gentle diplomacy to others.

Personally, I think that is a better approach. We've got more than enough politically correct airheads filling the airwaves with empty, meaningless platitudes, filtered beyond recognition so as not to offend or shake anyone's already firmly held beliefs and opinions.

I give him a B.

On the economic questions, he gets an A overall. He showed a pretty solid command of the subject, without letting himself get in over his head. Good mix of sound bites and substantive answers. Same with the issues of bipartisanship and changing the culture of Washington.

On the foreign policy questions, he gets a C. He kind of stumbled on the question of Iran a bit, and said a couple of things he probably shouldn't have. But overall, he kept the right tone and sense of openness to diplomacy that he's promised. He also skillfully avoided any entrapment in regards to Afghanistan troop deployment and overall strategy (military and diplomatic). I would like to have heard some more comprehensive and substantive replies on the issues regarding central Asia.

On Helen Thomas' question. They both get an F. He was clearly upset by the question, cutting her off at the end, and didn't give her a straight answer (which would not have to have been compromising). But WTF was she thinking asking that second question, "Do you know of any countries in the middle east that have nuclear weapons?" Are you fucking kidding? Even if he knew for certain, had seen the weapons with his own eyes, did she really think he would, could, or should acknowledge that? What possible purpose would be served by the President not only compromising our intelligence, but outing an undeclared nuclear power? I have immense respect for Helen Thomas, but what an inane question.

Theres time for pacifism and diplomacy, and theres a time for bullets and missiles.

Hitler (Godwin invocation well acknowledged), would not of been stopped with words. Vietnam was a mistake and should of never happened, same with korea. Both could of been taken care of the same way we took care of cuba re: missile crisis.

Molosovic couldn't be stopped with words either...there are times when war is an evil necessity. You cant sit there and pick and choose as a soldier, its not a democracy, the military would not function if it was. So you have no choice but to justify that you are the man on the killing end of the politicians sword, so murder isnt murder. Its a sanctioned mission in the defence of your own nation.

That is justification, whether the mission is justified or not.

Mr. Reich never was charged with any crime...the line about convictions does need to go under poindexter.. but hey, if I say it enough it will become true anyway, right.. but I'm ok with just this info:

From 1983 to 1986, Reich established and managed the inter-agency Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean. He was accused by Congress of engaging in "prohibited, covert propaganda activities" in his efforts to promote the Reagan administration's policies toward Nicaragua.

The OPD declassified Central Intelligence Agency information and disseminated it to influence public opinion and spur Congress to continue to fund the Reagan's administration's campaign against Nicaragua's Sandinista government.

The OPD was highly controversial and was criticized by numerous government sources, including a staff report by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which characterized it as a domestic political and propaganda operation.

The OPD also violated “a restriction on the State Department’s annual appropriations prohibiting the use of federal funds for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by Congress.”

He also helped terrorist Orlando Bosch gain entry into the U.S. after being imprisoned in Venezuela for bombing a Cuban airliner, killing its 73 passengers. Bosch spent time in a U.S. prison for attacking a Polish merchant vessel bound for Cuba. Thirty countries have refused Bosch asylum because of his criminality.



You saw the part of : "Abrams was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush " .. not too shabby a deal. then his son could hire him!

and re: Poindexter "The convictions were reversed in 1991 on technical grounds ". which means what it says... technicality, not that he wasnt actually a scumbag liar.

So, go ahead and apologize for these liars. I'm sure they can't get enough republican hugs and free jobs.

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Central_America/Iran-Contra_Felons_Get_Good_Jobs_from_Bush

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-bush-appoints-former-criminals-to-key-government-roles/

http://www.libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/iran-contra-us-criminals.htm

Now, remember, my mistake immediately means GWBUSH never appointed any criminals. That's logical. I guess not getting caught = good behavior in your book, too...

This is totally missing the point. The politicians say those things because they are axioms. Everybody wants peace, everybody wants to defend our way of life from those who seem to want us to change.

The difference is their tactics in accomplishing these goals. Do we roll over random countries with our military and openly torture foreign citizens? Or do we use diplomacy and non-violent negotiations?

The substance of the inauguration speech was basically a bitch-slap in Bush's face, putting the responsibility for ruining the reputation of the US squarely on the previous administration. The coming changes were made very, very clear.

Sigh. I hope the Daily Show doesn't completely implode now that Bush is gone.

Irishman, I don't think Ron Paul's blimp was designed for transcontinental flight.

The point is that Obama has said a great many things to a great many people, some of which are good things, others not so much. He has also said things that are evasive, deceptive and contradictory. (So has Ron Paul and just about every politician who has ever lived btw) Am I happy about this? No. Do I have some worries? Yes. Have I given up hope already? Fuck no.

To get elected to office, you have to jump through a great many hoops, and keep the power mongers and money men from tearing you to shreds and leaving you in the dust bin of history with Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.

Will he cave to power? Will he wage war against them? I don't know, and neither do you. Most likely, he'll do something between these two extremes.

Perhaps, when Obama speaks about fighting terrorism, he is referring to 'actual' terrorism (remember Al Queda), as opposed to Iraq. He has said a great deal about communication, diplomacy and negotiation, which sounds like a step in the right direction to me. Perhaps he will be another raging neo-con, but it's all speculation at this point.

Have some patience, I'm sure there is a world of fresh new conspiracies for you to indulge in right around the corner. If Obama turns out to be George Bush #3 (#4 if you count Reagan), then I'll hit the streets and protest with you*. Cut and paste this paragraph if you like. Until then, it's just speculative, fringe hysteria.


*Said protest must take place within 100 miles of my residence in beautiful, sunny, southern California unless you want to pay airfare and travel expenses elsewhere.

Happy Comment #27 or so: This year, we're gonna have a President who believes in:

The Constitution
Diplomacy
Science
Global Warming
Helping people who don't agree with him (or give him money)

What a change that'll be! If the other party decides to adopt those beliefs, we might be in for some really, really good times.