Jason Linkins obviously has a problem with Maria Bartiromo. We just can't figure out what it is.
In the opening sentence of his recent column the political columnist for the Huffington Post, Linkins attacks CNBC's Bartiromo on the grounds that she is getting older. At least that's what we think he's saying with his crack about her "collagen injections" being "widely reputed to be a key market bellwether." The odd thing is that we've never heard this reputed, widely or otherwise. In fact, as far as we can tell, no one has ever accused the star of having received collagen injections except Linkins.
But that was a throw-away line that Linkins probably imagines is funny. And harping on off-hand sexist remarks is hardly our thing. What was Linkins real objection? Oh, here it is: Bartiromo said some critical things about Barack Obama's tax plan.
After the jump, Linkin calls the female anchor "hysterical" (oh those hysterical women!) and then forgets to actually disagree with her.
Still, on matters of tax policy, you'd sort of like the anointed experts to have their facts right, and not indulge in misleading characterizations of the impact of that policy. Unfortunately, Bartiromo can't resist getting a little hysterical..
So did Bartiromo get something wrong about the tax plan? If so, Linkin doesn't know it. Instead, he objects to her characterization of people earning over "$200,000" as not rich. He calls this "flatly false." But that's because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Now in some places in America, $200,000 will go a long way. It may even qualify you as rich. But in many of our biggest cities, that will barely buy a family with two children their way into the middle class.
Sorry, Linkin. Best stick with dissing Bartiromo's looks and calling her hysterical. When you start talking about reality it just gets embarrassing.
CNBC's Bartiromo Misleads On Impact Of Obama's Tax Plan [Huffington Post]
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 9:40AM
First, this person writes for the HuffPo. They are still down with Red Russia.
Then, it seems like as long as you are a liberal supporting Obama - you get a free pass on sexism, discrimination, absolutely ANYTHING.
This post was nothing but a sexist rant that, had it come from some non-Obama supporter, would have sent all Obamidiots hyperventilating.
So if you are an Obama supporter, you can mock old people, you can attack women, I am guessing even talking about hobos and midgets is ok. But damn you if you try to infer ANYTHING about the good people at Trinity church, or the weather underground and anything else related to the messiah!
Posted by girl , Jun 11, 2008 9:53AM
@ 9:40
False. Not only was it poorly written and poorly researched, but the Botox comment was entirely out of line (particularly as an introductory statement) and had no place in the article. I'm rather shocked that Huffington herself allowed for this to be posted on a site bearing her name. I would be ashamed were it ascribed to mine.
Furthermore, the majority of Obama supporters aren't blind to his shortcomings, but simply identify with his vision and prefer him to the alternative. This in no way means that we forgive all liberals (and my is this a broad title) for their misgivings, false truths, and offensive statements.
In fact, both the statements he makes and you make only perpetuate the name calling that is diverting us from the crux of the issues and policy which should be our primary focus in determining our votes.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 9:56AM
@9:53 Well said
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 10:11AM
Thanks for your post, Girl.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 10:14AM
@ 9:53, thanks for the pontification. You say "Furthermore, the majority of Obama supporters aren't blind to his shortcomings, but simply identify with his vision and prefer him to the alternative.... crux of the issues and policy which should be our primary focus in determining our votes "
Had that been so, Obama would never have landed the Democratic nomination. How exactly is his vision different from Hillary's, Bill Richardson's, Chris Dodd's or Joe Biden's?
If anything, those folks back up their 'vision' with some track record of actually working for that 'vision' and putting themselves in the middle defending that 'vision.'
The only 'difference' with Obama was that he was stylistically wayyy better than either of them AND he claimed to be some sort of post-modernist uniter.
If you bought into the hype becuase of the first, then any further talk is futile. If you bought into the second then once again, I dont know where you do your research. Even in his very brief political career, he has been decidedly partisan - never opposing his partisan base to support any 'unity' measures.
So given that his whole nomination is based on 'style' issues, it is hillarious that 'policies' have become important to you all of a sudden. I dont agree with any of the Dem policy positions but even if I did, I would be hard pressed to justify why I chose Obama from amongst the others.
And if the 'shock' over the post real? Really? You think this is the first such think posted on HuffPo? And if not, they why would Arianna Huffington have an issue with this? Is that the level of naivette with which you analyze people?
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 10:19AM
"Then, it seems like as long as you are a liberal supporting Obama - you get a free pass on sexism, discrimination, absolutely ANYTHING."
Shit, i'd better switch to Obama
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 10:19AM
9.53, When was the last time you were so circumspect about some right-wing commentary? Lets see..... never, right?
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 10:25AM
Obama hasn't done anything.
Anything.
Posted by HAM05 , Jun 11, 2008 10:27AM
carney, are you trying to get into bartiromos pants?
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 10:27AM
As Barack Obama’s campaign becomes defined by a series of embarrassments — his assessment of what small-town residents cling to, a mentor who believes the government created HIV, a friend of 20 years who takes to the pulpit and demands whites give up 401(k) accounts to atone for their ancestor’s racist sins, a wife who pledges to take away some people’s pie and give it to others, an associate who expresses no regret over planting a bomb in a Pentagon women’s bathroom, etc. — it seems mind-boggling that this candidate was once promoted as a healer, a unifier, and a groundbreaking, post-partisan leader.
Posted by strangebrew , Jun 11, 2008 10:34AM
10:27,
let's add typical flip-flopping for politcal convenience to the list:
http://patterico.com/2008/06/09/stunningly-charismatic-and-honorable-presidential-candidate-prepares-to-discard-his-pledge-to-accept-public-financing-like-a-three-week-old-big-mac-found-stuck-to-the-carpet-underneath-the-car-seat/
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 10:49AM
Hey 10:27, dont you dare say that about Michelle! The liberals (I am assuming that 'girl' will pardon my classification of the NYT as such) have already explained that away!
As Maureen Dowd says today "Michelle has not always hidden her jangly opinions so well."
So Michelle just has 'jangly' (I didn't even know that was a word!) opinions, Wright is just being taken 'out of context', black liberation theology is 'misunderstood,' Bill Ayers is 'harmless and respectable' (Stnaley Fish from NYT again).
Sigh.... the right-wing wishes its views were ever analyzed with such devoted obsequence to the forcibly extracted positive implication of the underlying message. For example just mention the slightest reservation regarding gay marriage and you are instantly satan's knuckle dragging incarnation. No 'what he means is...' there.
Posted by ab , Jun 11, 2008 10:50AM
@10:27
not one of those is a substantive issue.
i'm not an obama supporter, but these are all meaningless things. who gives a shit what he calls rural people in PA or what his pastor said at some point? i don't understand why people who have a college education (i'm assuming you do) get riled up by this tabloid crap. challenge him on an issue or shut up. we actually have a chance to bring the campaign out of the gutter this year with both these candidates, so don't pull it back in.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 10:51AM
Lincoln didn't have a track record either. Anything would be better than what we have now.
Posted by Bugs Meany , Jun 11, 2008 10:55AM
Girl, this part is CLASSIC:
"In fact, both the statements he makes and you make only perpetuate the name calling that is diverting us from the crux of the issues and policy which should be our primary focus in determining our votes."
Obama Rule #1: If presented with inconvenient truths, just call them a "distraction from the real issues" (bonus points for adding "divisive") and move on.
Examples:
-Obama's shady and/or unpalatable associates. Obama is running on character and judgment, so clearly these topics are irrelevant.
-The flag pin. Obama made a point of announcing to all that he wouldn't wear one. It was not a distraction for him to bring that up, but it is for you.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 10:58AM
ab, its a substantive issue because obama's campaign and whole appear is based around pretending he is not in the gutter, which is just blatantly untrue. the guy is a skinny myth. substantively, he has nothing new to say outside of the standard party dogma on policy. unless you know some secret planks in the obama platform i do not? please share.
Posted by girl , Jun 11, 2008 10:59AM
@ 10:14
I certainly appreciate your interest in my vote. To partially answer your question, the particular policies with which he has been concerned in the Senate and throughout his campaign (Civil Rights, combatting Employment Discrimination, Increasing our Investment in renewable fuels, and long standing and vocal opposition to the Iraq war) are what ultimately swayed my vote. I also find his plan to support a market based cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions both an interesting solution and a viable one.
I am probably in the minority here not being to concerned with the tax issue. As I am at the start of my career, I am far too poor to care.
I won't ask whom you are voting for nor do I care, but I thought I would speak to my personal viewpoint since you so pressingly inquired.
@ 10:19, I have made it a habit to challenge the administration and never those who make a living on commenting upon it.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 10:59AM
I am a RIGHT WINGER and I am agin LIBERALS because of PETA's involvement with tha ARKANCIDES effect on the lie called GLOBAL WARMING and because the LIBERALS are secretly gettin all our bank account numbers and copies of our trailor house papers to REDISTRIBUTE what I werkd fer to ILLEGAL IMMERGANTS who get everythang fer FREE. Over my 2 broken TVs is a picher of KARL ROVE and JESUS and there is my motivation agin LIBERALS.
~Karl Luggummer, Boise, Idaho
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:04AM
Hitler didn't have a track record either. See, it cuts both ways.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:07AM
ab @ 10:50, look at 10:55 above.
The point is - Obama's main resume point (in the absence of any other) is that he was a 'community organizer' in Chicago affiliated mainly with Wright's church. He literally wore is 'faith' on a sleeve all through his rise in politics and early in the campaign - attributing his 'beliefs', 'compassion' and what not to a great extent on his association with Wright.
So why then would you think that the Wright issue is not fair game? Take out his association with Wright and all the related benefits he has derived from it (politically) and what is left? And if a 'uniter' cannot unite his church, how can he unite the nation?
Also, the 'guns' thing is an issue NOT because he made it but how and where he did. He chose to say this at a closed fund raiser to rich SF liberals. On the other hand, he strikes separate note when he is in rural communities.
Given that he does not have much political history for others to look at and tally his positions, one has to go by his utterings. But then he says different things at different places, how does one know where he stand?
Who is he lying to - the rural folks or the SF folks? And what will he do once elected? We all know where Pelosi, McCain etc stand on these issues. Where does Obama stand? You dont think those are fair questions?
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:14AM
He also owes his rise to affiliation with some of the most corrupt practitioners of chicago machine urban politics, so that at least is a point in his favor
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:20AM
@ 10:59, I never inquired and even if I did, you never answered!
All the policies that you listed are generic liberal Democratic positions. You could pick up any Dem and there is probably an 80% probability that he/she will support those.
The question is - why Obama over Biden/Dodd/Richardson/Clinton - when they have longer track records supporting the same, as opposed to Obama whose stand on these (and a lot other issues) itself is not even clear?
Why are you struggling to accept? The fact that he is the political equivalent of Miley Cyrus and Obamafans are the 10 year old girls hyterically running behind him? That includes journalist who find it 'difficult to remain objective'.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:25AM
@ Karl
Are you the same Karl who posts all over the Business Week comment boards?
Posted by ab , Jun 11, 2008 11:28AM
@11:07
"We all know where Pelosi, McCain etc stand on these issues. Where does Obama stand?"
are you asking where he stands on rural people? who gives a shit. does that even mean anything anyways? for sure it was a stupid move to say that in SF, but 1) probably true and 2) meaningless.
more importantly, i agree he's got no track record. but why not attack him on that instead of his pastor or his flag pin? (probably because it didn't work too well for hillary when she tried the whole experience vs. hope thing). the best way to challenge obama, for everybody involved, is on the issues.
Posted by girl , Jun 11, 2008 11:33AM
@ 11:20,
I provided evidence of my choices, given your claims that I only voted for his "style"... and you retorted with foundationless blanket insults . Very typical of someone who is incapable of crafting a viable argument.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:35AM
Sound familiar?
"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials (Commander of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Police Gestapo, Hitler's 2nd man in the Third Reich & Marshal of the German Empire)"
Posted by Lowly Assistant , Jun 11, 2008 11:39AM
Not a fan of either candidate...however, the hysterics and white fear of you fucking retards is becoming hard to stomach. Bill Ayers will not gather the weathermen for another shot at the "Revolución." Whites will not be thrown into sweatshops, forced to work slave wages for "retribution." Rev. Wright will not be sitting on the judiciary committee, observing policy.
This is why our government doesn't trust citizens to decide on leadership. The electoral college, at least, has the decency to take a somewhat "objective" look at what each candidate is bringing to the table (albeit, while lining their pockets). Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, not a fucking oracle.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:40AM
@11:35--very clever. Did Randi Rhodes or Keith Olbermann point you to that choice quote?
By the way, we can now invoke Godwin's Law.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:40AM
Here's how well educated the neo-cons are. Hope McCain shys away from the dude Mathews is interviewing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMMklhX74_w
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:41AM
@ 11:04
Hitler did have a record and a book "mein kampf". BAD ANALOGY!
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:41AM
11:33, you actually provided no 'evidence.' And you still havent! If those issues were the only things, why Obama (unproven, unknown, even stand on those very issues unknown) vs Biden/Dodd/Clinton/Richardson.
If those issues were the only ones you cared about, and given that all the candidates were in favor of the same AND given that the other candidates has something extra (proven track record) - something else must have been tremendously in Obama's favor (in your mind) to have tilted your decision towards him.
In the absence of evidence regarding anything else, I would attribute it to style. Feel free to correct me.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:44AM
@ 11:40.....Ha ha ha ha...."He's an appeaser!"....Hilarious!!
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:54AM
girl,
Nobody really gives a shit about your vote persay. It is concern about the votes of the millions of koolaide-drinking numbskulls out there who have bought into obama's 'change' bullshit, just as you have.
Just the same, you are an idiot.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:56AM
If it wasn't for right wing "neo-cons" as you refer to them, our sales of Confederate battle flag mud flaps an white sheets as part of GNP would have been at 10 year lows.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 11:59AM
It's "per se".
"Persay" is what Inspector Clouseau (apologies to our "Cluzo") was trying to get off of Elke Sommer in the Pink Panther movies.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 12:01PM
@ 11:35,
Look familiar?
- We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.
- In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
- We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
- We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
- We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
- We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
Democratic talking points? Actually these are extracts from the 25-point programme of the nazi party.
See, stupid games can be played both ways!
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 12:04PM
Um, if I may, in the event of a redistribution of wealth (ROW) during the next administration, my partners and I would like to offer our services handling the paperwork and logistics. Our firm, "Redistribugen Capital Partners, LLC" has a long track record of providing overarching multi-locational redistribution strategies and tactics for a fee. We are as entrepreneurial as America and have won many awards for our visionary capital aquisition vision.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 12:08PM
@11:35.....I know you're out of school for the summer but you should have never written the last sentence as it defines you. That's OK...mistakes while young are survivable.
Posted by american bandersnatch , Jun 11, 2008 12:08PM
lowly assistant
You lost me on the electoral college comment. "The electoral college, at least, has the decency to take a somewhat "objective" look at what each candidate is bringing to the tabl"??
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 12:09PM
@11:41 Touchee. Obama has a book too.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 12:10PM
@12:04--what's your carry fee?
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 12:11PM
Oh, and the book is inspired by one of Wright's sermons - 'Audacity of Hope.' Anyone have a videotape of that sermon? Something tells me all copies may have already been destroyed!
Posted by lowellfield , Jun 11, 2008 12:11PM
A) $200k puts you in the top 5%. If being in the top 5% in the richest country in the world isn't rich by your definition, then your definition is stupid.
B) The capital gains tax is going up anyway, according to the law that was passed by Republicans. Obama would have it go up more and sooner, but it's not as though this 15% nonsense is here to stay in any event.
C) Bartiromo, to the extent she comments on politics, is known to be a right wing flack. That's pretty customary for CNBC personalities. She's also a moron, which is less customary, but I guess it's sexist to say as much.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 12:13PM
@12:04pm,
Yes, I'm all for "Democritization of Capital" a la Jesse Jackson. Bring it on obama. The guys from RCP,LLC need some work.
"Per se" that is. Thank you @11:59am.
Posted by girl , Jun 11, 2008 12:25PM
@ 11:41
From the get go I never really thought Richardson or Biden had a chance, which left me with Hillary and Obama. Given the similarity of their stances on many an issue (which you rightfully point out) one of the reasons I ultimately discarded Hillary was on account of her vote in favour of the Iraq war, (as opposed to Obama, who very vocally opposed it during his 2002 Senatorial campaign and consistently thereafter). I am vehemently opposed to the Iraqi occupation so its rather natural that this would sway me.
You aren't mislead though in appreciation of his style. He avoided petty insults far longer than his rivals in the campaign, is incredibly charismatic, and has veritably engaged an entire new generation in the political process. I won't lie and say this isn't a compelling enough reason to vote for him, as in the end, we are all aware the presidency is far larger than one person. It just doesn't entirely speak to my reasons.
Back to work...
Posted by Lowly Assistant , Jun 11, 2008 12:33PM
HotWetAmericanSummerBandersnatch,
I was kinda/sorta/maybe being a smartass regarding the electoral college comment. I believe the general public's opinion should override our representative force de la electoral college. However, after reviewing this thread (amongst many others), I've come to terms with the U.S. government carrying little faith in allowing direct votes to count for something. I'm extremely apathetic when it comes to presidential elections, as I've found very little change from term to term (save obvious occurrences that arise during individual years in office). However, I do not find fear mongering to be a constructive way to discuss presidential campaigns. Sharing a smoke with Bill Ayers or listening to sermons in a colorful, emotionally driven church does little to my nerves. Although the idea (as mentioned yesterday) of a new rendition re: the U.S. flag (see: panther leaping through the stripes) seems highly enticing to me, I believe both candidates will be very similar in practice at the beginning and end of their potential term(s). Few things change, particularly at the pace we believe they will.
Posted by strangebrew , Jun 11, 2008 12:36PM
girl wrote: 'favour'
how are you even eligible to vote here you limey bint? Don't go getting all 'chuffed' on me again.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 12:48PM
12:25, if my memory serves me right, Obama announced that he was running for Senate in early 2003. Most of the campaigning happened in 2004 - by when the war was in the crapper and no WMDs had been found. Also, half the country was opposing the war then. That counts for zilch.
However, when the Iraq vote happened in 2002, EVERYONE (including Pelosi, Wesley clark, Jay Rockefeller, IEAE, international community) was convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was a threat. Now these were people who had access to more information than Barack Obama - an IL senator would have had.
And they also pointedly made sure everyone understood what they were doing. On top of that, like 90% of the country supported that. These people DID NOT have an option of voting present. So some genuinely believed it, some were covering their political asses by voting for it.
Now Obama did not face the situation. And NOTHING in his recent behavior suggest that he will not cover his political ass as and when required, if anything he will go to any extent to do it.
Hence, you have provided a 'reason' for selecting Obama - the Iraq War - but on closer scrutiny, there exists no basis for that selection.
On top of that you say you dont care about economic policies (primarily tax policy) because you are 'too poor yet.'
If I were on such a boat, I wouldn't probably try to pontificate and sermonize on 'issues and policies' as you did in your first post.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 12:52PM
Valiant effort, girl.
I have never voted for Obama, although I have been elbowed by Obama supporters!
Give the man his due. He wrote two books, both best-sellers, neither of them bad. He is a poised, eloquent speaker. He got himself elected to the Senate from Illinois. He ran a smart campaign against a diverse and well-funded field of opponents. He's going to be the Democratic nominee.
Yes, Obama's short on foreign policy experience, military experience, and economic experience. He's moving too far left too fast, but will probably correct that when he sees he's hurting his independent support.
I doubt Obama has a clue about the extent of the federal bureaucracy or how to staff and run it.
The good news is that he's a quick study. We also have checks and balances in our system that slow down the most ambitious change-makers. The right may be down in this country, but they're certainly not out.
Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson both had a wealth of experience, but fatal personality traits hampered their presidencies. Gerald Ford had plenty of experience, but still was a poor president. George H.W. Bush probably had the best qualifications in America, but was unable to connect with the electorate and only lasted one term. Bill Clinton was roundly criticized for his lack of experience, particularly in foreign policy, prior to his election. He managed to rebuild the economy and keep the peace for eight years. In retrospect, how much experience did George W. Bush really have?
Obama is busy getting himself elected president. I don't feel anyone really knows how he'll do as president. I think the nonsense about "reparations," Bill Ayers, and selling out to Ahmahdinejad and Hugo Chavez, are just that: nonsense. People can wail and tear at their hair about the Obamas in the White House, but I suspect that Barack Obama's presidency is going to be way more ordinary than people imagine.
Posted by lowellfield , Jun 11, 2008 12:57PM
@ 12:48
Most Senate Democrats opposed the AUMF. Colin Powell's presentation was a joke. There were lots of people, including Barack Obama, who thought that the Bush administration was desperate to invade Iraq, was manipulating the intelligence to make its case, and that the ensuing invasion/occupation would be a disaster.
What a fool!
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 1:04PM
@12:52, There's not going to be an obama presidency.
@12:57, "What a fool!". What a good name for you. I like it.
Posted by girl , Jun 11, 2008 1:08PM
@ 12:48,
I just double checked and he did in fact initiate his senatorial bid and rejection of the Iraq War in 2002. So I was correct.
Furthermore, I won't excuse an idiotic decision simply because 90% of idiots in this country agreed with it. How can you possibly say that our own Senator did not have an option to oppoe the vote?! The day the vote was passed for the war I was protesting in Washington DC and there were countless others at my side. We knew, a they did, that there was an utter lack of evidence aligned with the claim that WMD's existed in Iraq yet in their puruit of maintaining power, they exercised unparalleled cowardice in handing Bush their vote. Whether Obama was in the right place at that time is completely situational- he did, however, risk going against that 90% during hi election and did in fact voice his opposition quite clearly.
Posted by girl , Jun 11, 2008 1:11PM
and, my "S" button is being feisty- sorry for abundance of errors in above post.
Posted by american bandersnatch , Jun 11, 2008 1:14PM
Lowly
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 1:17PM
12:57 - "Most Senate Democrats opposed the AUMF."
Really?
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
What is it that Obama knew that Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Pelosi, Reid, Dean did not know?
The bigger question is, did he say anything at all? His opposition came was once the war turned sour. That was easy. The difficult thing was fore-telling that the war would turn out disasterously. And given Obama's judging regarding his preacher and associates (whom he could never 'know' in over 20 years till his Presidential bid)), I wouldn;t exaxtly attribute any prescient abilities to him.
Oh, and enjoy. You wont find this on MoveOn or DailyKOs (or HuffPo).
.
.
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7777
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.
If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."
Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on "Face The Nation"
September 29, 2002
We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003
Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD:
WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.
MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?
WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely
Posted by girl , Jun 11, 2008 1:19PM
Transcript of Obama's Anti_iraq speech, delivered in Chicago on October 2nd, 2002, Over a week before the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War was passed by either body of congress.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
I beg of you, do your research before you waste my time further with your nonsense.
I'm out.
Posted by lowellfield , Jun 11, 2008 1:20PM
I think less-informed wingnuts can be forgiven for thinking that everyone thought the Iraq War was a great idea at the time. The media presented two sides to the debate in 2002-3: the Republicans who were eager to invade and liberal hawks who were eager to defend the invasion from the skeptical dirty hippies.
But there were a lot of inspectors in Iraq for a long time, and El Baradei said "We ain't found s---", and yet this was taken as proof that Saddam had hidden his nukes effectively, and that invasion was the only option.
I hate to rehash this again, but it's an interesting case study in what happens when so many people are so mindblowingly wrong about something, there's never as much accountability as there should be.
Posted by Bugs Meany , Jun 11, 2008 1:33PM
Blah blah blah. 9/11 woke us up to the pathologies of the Middle East, and Iraq was the logical place to start. You can criticize the invasion as idiotic, but so is the notion that all our problems were confined to Afghanistan, which is either the outermost edge of the Middle East or not a part of it at all.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 1:38PM
girl,
Phew. Let me cool down first. Give me a sip of that kool-air will you.
Ok. Read the passage below (actually from Obama's website). There are more of them there. READ LIKE SOMEONE WITH AN IQ ABOVE 100.
In the Chicago speech he comes out outright against the war (no questions asked).
However, in all these interviews he politically hedges saying 'I did not have the information they had, from my vantage point I would have voted no'.
So by his own statements, had he seen what those members of Senate committees had seen, he did not know how he would have voted!
So he is diminishing his own stand by saying that his stand was from an outside vantage point! And you call that opposition?
RUSSERT: The nominee of your party, John Kerry, the nominee for vice president, John Edwards, all said he was an imminent threat. They voted to authorize George Bush to go to war. How could they have been so wrong and you so right as a state legislator in Illinois and they're on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees in Washington?
OBAMA: Well, I think they have access to information that I did not have. And what is absolutely clear is that John Kerry said, "If we go into war, let's make sure that we do it right. Let's make sure that our troops are supported. Let's make sure that we have the kind of coalition that's necessary to succeed." And the execution of what was a difficult choice to make was something that all of us have to be concerned about. And moving forward, the only way that we're going to be able to succeed is if, I think, we have an administration led by John Kerry that's going to allow us to consolidate the relationships with our allies that bring about investment in Iraq.
RUSSERT: But if you had been a senator at that time, you would have voted not to authorize President Bush to go to war?
OBAMA: I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time.
RUSSERT: So you disagree with John Kerry and John Edwards?
OBAMA: At that time, but, as I said, I wasn't there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don't have a change in tone and a change in administration, I think we're going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.
Posted by lowellfield , Jun 11, 2008 1:45PM
"You can criticize the invasion as idiotic"
Good, because it was. And that's before getting into the moral analysis of the unprovoked aggression and the dishonesty required to promote and defend it.
And I agree the problems aren't confined to any one country at all. There are terrorist groups all over the world. The idea that another 9/11 is made much less likely because there are 140k US troops in Iraq should be ridiculous on its face, but we're a country of people dumb enough to believe "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."
Posted by lowellfield , Jun 11, 2008 1:46PM
@1:38
That one's easy. In the course of campaigning for the 2004 Dem nominee, it wouldn't have done at all for him to make a big deal about having got right what Kerry got wrong.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 1:53PM
Wait a minute. So he fudges when needed?
Lets see. Everyone knows that primaries attract the fringes of the party do contenders go extreme in primaries and then converge to the center in the mains.
So Obama was an uppity politician looking for a break in the Senate, and appealing to the extreme of the part would be advantageous. Hence he made the Chicago speech and does not really believe that? Why is that not plausible?
We already know that he does that while campaigning. He did that in Ohio wrt free trade. He also did that to either of the SF liberals / rural folks on guns.
So which is it? You confidently state that your chosen one fudges with ease, but he fudges OTHERS not YOU. Really?
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 1:58PM
If there is a real foreign policy wonk out there, could you please explain what is currently the rationale to retreat in Iraq given that the Iraqi army is independently subduing the Mahdi army in Basra, Mosul, etc and sectarian violence is at like a 4 year low?
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:00PM
The choice at this point is pretty clear (leaving Barr and other no-shots out):
A) Obama
B) McCain
Are people on this board in good faith going to argue that the latter gives us better hope/opportunity/truth/stonedimmaculatettimes in the reasonably near future?
More interestingly is anyone here part of the 22% apocalypsers who still support GWB? (I always did wonder how Kudlow garnered any viewer)
peace and profits-JP
Posted by lowellfield , Jun 11, 2008 2:10PM
"So he fudges when needed?"
Oh don't be a child. If you're looking for a REAL fudge by Obama, you're much better off pointing to his endorsement of Joe Lieberman in the CT primary. That's the most calculating thing he's done as a national figure.
This thing with Kerry and the war vote was just him being self-deprecating and allowing for the possibility that had he known what Kerry knew, he might have voted the same way. That was stupid of him to do, in retrospect, but he was just being a team player.
I don't have any doubt that Obama is a politician who will do what he has to do to get elected (see: flag pins), but I hope he gets elected because he's a Democrat and he's not going to invade any countries just so he can prance around an aircraft carrier like some f---ing hero.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:14PM
"...he's not going to invade any countries.."
You mean like LBJ/Vietnam and/or JFK/Cuba and/or Clinton/Kosovo? I mean as per Obama logic, which of these was REALLY threatening the US directly?
Yeah.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:16PM
1:58
Lets look at your statement:
If indeed it is the Iraqi army that is accomplishing all of these accomplishments on its own then we are in fact no longer needed.
If however there are other causes for the violence to have ebbed then those must be examined. My personal belief is that Iran and the US have an uneasy co-operation going on there (explains the Mahdi army playing nice)...given that both the American and Iranian ruling elite are essentially crippled politics makes strange bedfellows. Another possibility is that the Shias have won the (ahem, non-existent) civil-war.
If in fact any of the above are true it would also lead one to logically believe that any solution all along was never one to be guided merely by our military might but rahter social and political in nature...which if true are also situations amenable to troop withdrawal.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:22PM
@2:16 really? so we abandon our allies as they are nearing significant triumphs?
i am pretty neutral on the war in general, but if iraqis really are turning the tide then this is exactly the kind of thing i think conservatives are driving at when they say a retreat would embolden our enemies.
also, Muqtada's brawlers are not "playing nice", they were squashed.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:26PM
Sadr's strongholds in Basra and East Baghdad stomped out attacks by the Iraqi army as recently as March.
And there are no Shia in Mosul, that is Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:27PM
Which allies? The ones in Afganistan against the Soviets? Or the ones in Iraq against Iran durign their war?
The last major joint operation the US and Iraqi armies undertook was marred by the Iraqi army simply putting down their weapons and walkign away. If you think the Iraqi people and their military look at us as allies instead of occupiers than I have a road paved with flowers and candies you might be interested in.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:28PM
haha 2.16 typical leftist argument.. we are losing? retreat! oh, we are winning? RETREAT!!!
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:35PM
@2:28
So then perhaps the McCain 100 year plan is more to your liking?
Or perhaps you have specific criteria you would like to enlighten us with that spells out a clear win.
Typical neo-con argument we have to keep fighting, or else we will be fighting.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:42PM
Yes, the McCain 100 year plan is definitely more to my liking. Would love to have a stable base there just like in Germany, Japan, Italy, Belgium, Panama, Philippines, South Korea, UK ...
But if you are a libertarian who feels the US should have no overseas military presence please just tell me now so we can avoid arguing about it for the rest of the afternoon.
Posted by lowellfield , Jun 11, 2008 2:44PM
Look up "libertarian" when you get a sec.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:44PM
Here's a good look at your post-racial pro-reform sbove-politics Messiah at his best:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/06/obamas_no_i_cant_moment.html
I expect more of the same if he is somehow elected.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:50PM
The United States of America is a foreign power in the sovereign Republic of California, which it is illegally occupying with military since the gangster James Polk invaded us in 1846.
My demands are the closure or all America military operation in and around California, including Travis, Vandenberg, Mclellan, March, Beale, Edwards, and Los Angeles air force bases, Fort Irwin, Presidio of Monterey, Camp Pendelton, Miramar and San Diego Marine Corps bases, China Lake, Coronado, Point Loma, Port Hueneme, and North Island.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:52PM
True, my leanings are libertarian, so best to avoid these arguments until after a few scotches.
On a more germane the most recent time I saw Maria Bartiromo in person she looked quite good and not at all haggard.
As for callogen and other enhancements in general, what are the feelings on the board? (I'm talking more along the lines of Jennifer Aniston not Jacqueline Wildenstein)
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:57PM
@2:44 whats your point? Bob Barr the Libertarian candidate for president and Ron Paul (you remember him right) both advocate closing american military bases on libertarian ideology
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 2:59PM
I think they did a freakin bang up job on that chick from the hills.
Posted by lowellfield , Jun 11, 2008 3:16PM
I just meant that resistance to the idea that the US should have a massive troop presence in as many other countries as possible is by no means exclusive to "libertarians."
Glenn Reynolds fancies himself a libertarian and he's of the invade/nuke all the brown people school of thought.
Posted by guest , Jun 11, 2008 3:29PM
I am stunned you are trying to argue that reducing military spending overseas is not an important libertarian position. That is like saying republicans are generally not against raising taxes and democrats typically support the iraq war.
Posted by lowellfield , Jun 11, 2008 3:46PM
I'm not saying that it's not a libertarian position, I'm saying it's not exclusive to libertarians, and that there are people who claim to be libertarians (because it's popular shorthand for social liberal/fiscal conservative) who don't seem overly distressed with American military spending and/or hegemony.
But Ron Paul sure hates the Iraq War, and for that I give him and his fans credit.
Posted by guest , Jun 12, 2008 12:30PM
Shirley...what kind of ice cream do you like?
Posted by guest , Jun 13, 2008 6:37AM
It's been a while since Ron Paul was praised on these massage boards: kudos to lowellfield
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Posted by guest , Sep 30, 2008 3:34AM
Nonsense. Obama's "main resume point" wasn't simply that he was a community organizer but also a Constitutional Law Professor at one of the greatest law schools in the world (U. Chicago). Maybe you guys forgot but the main duty of the president is to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution. He's certainly able to do that. Plus being the President of The Harvard Law Review further bolstered his reputation as a highly intelligent and capable man. On top of that he was consistently against the war in Iraq (I disagree with his Kerry-esque afghanistan policy) and is somebody who would be pro renewable energy and student loans - Two issues I care about. People who support Obama agree with his VISION and respect his intelligence and capability. Forget style or story.
Posted by guest , Sep 30, 2008 4:44PM
The only important issue at the moment is that Wall St. pigs want the U.S. taxpayers to fork over their hard-earned dollars to pay for the pigs' greed. Sorry, but no -- unless permanent financial and economic changes come with the deal.
I like Bernie Sanders' proposal to assess a 5-year, 10% income surtax on the wealthiest (couples earning $1 mill and above; individuals earning $500K and above). That would pay for almost half of any bailout.
Somehow, I don't think Maria Shill will bring the topic up, though.
Posted by guest , Sep 30, 2008 4:47PM
The only important issue at the moment is that Wall St. pigs want the U.S. taxpayers to fork over their hard-earned dollars to pay for the pigs' greed. Sorry, but no -- unless permanent financial and economic changes come with the deal.
I like Bernie Sanders' proposal to assess a 5-year, 10% income surtax on the wealthiest (couples earning $1 mill and above; individuals earning $500K and above). That would pay for almost half of any bailout.
Somehow, I don't think Maria Shill will bring the topic up, though.
Posted by guest , Oct 03, 2008 4:40PM
I just want to lick Maria Bartiromo