And praises the surge.

And praises the surge.

#1 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at

Says it was successful even beyond what Bush expected... that's a pretty big fucking admission.

lol... not a good night for him. Had to admit it worked and then Bill pointed out that if he and Biden were in charge there would be no Surge.

O'Reilly is an ass, but he made Obama look bad last night.

Obama is going to replace the troops with blackwater mercenaries at five times the price, then claim the withrdrawal has begun.

Then many of us will cry, "hooray, the war is ending."

"Had to admit it worked and then Bill pointed out that if he and Biden were in charge there would be no Surge."

Obama wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place.

Big suprise Rob,I don'tagree. Ithought O'rReillywas rude - interrupting Obama and not letting him finish an answer. I know his show is designed for those short of attention span, but if you were paying attention, you'd notice that O'Reilly did almost as much talking as Obama during the interview.

Obama made his point about the surge, even if you dismiss it. He has repeatedly said that the military portion of it had succeeded, but the political aspect of it (the original and ultimate purpose of the surge) has not succeeded.

"Bill pointed out that if he and Biden were in charge there would be no surge."

If Obama had been in charge, there would have been no Iraq war, no 4,000 casualties, no 30,000 maimed,
no 100,000 dead Iraquis and no billions of dollars wasted and stolen.

Ithought O'rReillywas rude - interrupting Obama and not letting him finish an answer

That's why O'Reilly is an ass... he does that to everyone... I can't stand the guy. Its the first time I put his show in years...

Obama made his point about the surge, even if you dismiss it.

Dismiss it? I applaud it... he says it worked... something just recently his running mate disagreed with.

And as far as the political aspect goes, he's wrong... they hit the majority of their benchmarks and they just took over the Anbar province. Midi it took this long for Obama to admit he was wrong about the military aspect of the surge... don't you think he could be just trying to save face and keep the point that some of it "failed?"

Had to admit it worked and then Bill pointed out that if he and Biden were in charge there would be no Surge.

There would be no surge because we wouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place.

John Bush keeps talking about winning in Iraq... winning what exactly? Can someone please explain to me what it is we are going to win in Iraq?

In the same show when O'Rielly talked to the two "Dem" ladies (haha) he refused to even acknowledge that Palin lied about Obama's record in the Senate. O'reilly is a right wing hack, I honestly don't understand how you righties tolerate his condescending tone and arrogance. He isn't even that bright. He was rude to Obama and like Midiman said interrupted and wouldn't even allow a real answer. He want everything concensced into a talking point because that it the intellecutal level of his audience.

FLOP EARS still will not admit the "Surge has worked".
I guess his Cook County handlers will not allow him to admit this success. This guy is an empty suit.

"Had to admit it worked and then Bill pointed out that if he and Biden were in charge there would be no Surge."

This is absolutely true, AHole - because if Obama had been President 8 years ago WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN IRAQ! If Obama had been President 8 years ago, we would have gone after the people who were actually responsible for 911. Repeat after me, please "Osama bin Laden planned and executed the 911 attacks. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 911 attacks." I know, I know, it is a VERY difficult concept to grasp, but please make a effort here.

The surge worked. If Shrub had gone into this misbegotten hellhole of a war in the first place with enough troops who were equipped properly and with a PLAN for how to reconstruct Iraq that did not involve handing out massive amounts of American tax dollars to crooked contractors to pay for work shoddily done or not done at all there would have been no NEED for a surge and we would have been OUT of Iraq years ago instead of mired down there with no way out.

And meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, the Taliban has re-grouped as it always does and is now at pre-911 strength according to what I have read in the MSM. And our armed forces have been stretched and bent to the point that we are in deep, deep trouble if we have to take military action anywhere else in the world right now. Our young men and women are being sent back to Iraq for their 3rd or 4th tour of duty - something that was never even done in Viet Nam. And the young men and women who come home are too often either in coffins or so damaged that they will never be healed. Those wounded young people are at the mercy of a veterans administration that is underequipped, underprepared and completely inadequate to the task of putting these people back together again. But hey - medical research is making HUGE strides in the development of prosthetics thanks to our country's "Iraq Adventure". Now THERE is an accomplishment Shrub can be proud of.

Danni: "Palin lied about FLOP EARS record in the senate". Why did they call FLOP EARS "BILL JACKER" in the IL senate?

"I honestly don't understand how you righties tolerate his condescending tone and arrogance."
Posted by Danni

Apparently Obama was willing to tolerate it too.

"He want everything concensced into a talking point because that it the intellecutal level of his audience."
#9 | Posted by danni

And they vote. this is the world we live in as you've so often reminded me.

Until you're ready to amend the constitution to add an i.q. floor for the right to vote...

"FLOP EARS still will not admit the "Surge has worked". I guess his Cook County handlers will not allow him to admit this success. This guy is an empty suit. Posted by oozieoswald"

Another swing and a whiff for the Ooze.

Guess you missed the O'Reilly interview yesterday.

Looks like yer goin' Oh-fer again today.

obama looked like a deer in headlights.

Obama should never have gone on O'Reilly. He's a racist and a bigot. Appearing on his show only legitimizes the "news" part of GOP's mouthpiece network. The best thing that will happen under an Obama administration is the muzzling of these pseudo-news networks and talk radio.

"Guess you missed the O'Reilly interview yesterday."

Which is particularly embarrassing for you when that is what this thread is about, Oozie.

In the same show when O'Rielly talked to the two "Dem" ladies (haha) he refused to even acknowledge that Palin lied about Obama's record in the Senate. O'reilly is a right wing hack, I honestly don't understand how you righties tolerate his condescending tone and arrogance. He isn't even that bright. He was rude to Obama and like Midiman said interrupted and wouldn't even allow a real answer. He want everything concensced into a talking point because that it the intellecutal level of his audience.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-05 10:26 AM |

Are you kidding? Look in the mirror there darling. I know, I know, you libs are so much more intellectual than the rest of us. You have told us that on so many occassions.

My God, how pathetic it is when someone has to try to convince themselves that they are intellectual superior.

The surge was a good idea in exactly the same way that calling an ambulance after a drunk driver runs over a little kid is a good idea. It could possibly save the child's life but wouldn't have been necessary if it hadn't been for the drunk driver.
The Iraq war was and is a foolish idea and a senseless tragedy. Any of you cons want to man up and admit that?

Obama mistake #1: Appearing on the O'Reilly show, thus giving it any form of legitimacy it in the first place.

The best thing that will happen under an Obama administration is the muzzling of these pseudo-news networks and talk radio.

Be careful what you wish for. It's not a big leap from disenfranchising voters and supporting FISA.

Obama mistake #2: Apprearing without a teleprompter.

You mean we will finally be rid of ABC, NBC, CBS news? Along with CNN, CNBC and MSNBC?

DAWNGLO: As you put your verbal masturbation into writing you forgot to mention one historical fact. We would not have to be in Afghanistan if your democratic buddies would have authorized money to rebuild the Afghanistan infrastructure. That was right after we helped remove the Russians from Afghanistan.

The best thing that will happen under an Obama administration is the muzzling of these pseudo-news networks and talk radio.

Any other amendmets you want to get rid of?

"Can someone please explain to me what it is we are going to win in Iraq?"

Yesterday Rob said that we gain "an ally in the Middle East". As if it is safe to assume that Iraqis, who don't like us at all, are going to elect pro-US leaders. Seems pretty silly. I doubt anyone would argue that we'd be in Iraq right now if Bush told us he wanted to invade "to turn them into an ally....".

Basically, all these Bush apologists know we have nothing to gain in Iraq. They just don't give a shit. Saving face is more important than doing right by their country. They are traitors.

"We would not have to be in Afghanistan if your democratic buddies would have authorized money to rebuild the Afghanistan infrastructure. Posted by Oozieoswald"

Given your track record, I'd like to see some sort of source on that claim.

CABO VATO: RIGHT ON! maybe we would get some truthful reporting instead of only getting it from FOX.

O'Reilly Rules.

he is a fair and consistent interviewer, Just because He doesn't drone on about how wonderful DEMS are and how Tyrannical Bush is makes you Fascist lefties angry and Your only hope is that Obama finds his "Black Joseph Goebbels" so you can celebrate the demise of the thing you whine about the most "FREE SPEECH'..But I forgot , Like everything else, that only applies to LIBTARDS

mccain was right about the surge

too bad it was a bandaide to something he was wrong about... the iraq war

a john mccain presidency will be a series of failures then band aide repairs.

its going to be a rough ride

SANOBAMA: Am I supposed to give you documented fact everytime I correct one of your many fabrications. Obviously this is the only response you can come up with. Put down the New York Slime and get the facts.

"We would not have to be in Afghanistan if your democratic buddies would have authorized money to rebuild the Afghanistan infrastructure. That was right after we helped remove the Russians from Afghanistan."

I see no reason to believe this is true. (the assumption that we wouldn't have been attacked had we wasted money rebuilding for those savages)

"... maybe we would get some truthful reporting instead of only getting it from FOX. Posted by oozieoswald"

Oozie gets a FF today!

FLOP EARS still will not admit the "Surge has worked".
I guess his Cook County handlers will not allow him to admit this success. This guy is an empty suit.
posted by Ozzieoswald

Obama mistake #2: Apprearing without a teleprompter.
posted by Wisgod

We would not have to be in Afghanistan if your democratic buddies would have authorized money to rebuild the Afghanistan infrastructure. Posted by Oozieoswald"

Given your track record, I'd like to see some sort of source on that claim.

#27 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I don't remember who kept that money from going to Afghanistan, but that is exactly what Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) is suggesting rather than sending more troops there.

BTW, neither McCain nor Obama is on board with that limited plan.

"Am I supposed to give you documented fact..."

Uhm... yes.

See that's the way it works. You don't get to just make any old claim off the wall and think anyone is going to believe it without documentation.

I mean, aren't you even moderately embarrassed for posting...

"FLOP EARS still will not admit the "Surge has worked". I guess his Cook County handlers will not allow him to admit this success."

... on this very thread?

This is absolutely true, AHole - because if Obama had been President 8 years ago WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN IRAQ!

True... but he wasn't president 8 years ago. Bush was, and with the approval of Congress we went into Iraq. Then things didn't go so well for a while, and a plan was formulated that could help the situation. McCain helped bring about that plan... Obama was against it and has spent months pissing on it.

Now he has to admit it worked and he was wrong. And if he got his way about the surge when he actually was senator (not some hypothetical, "If I were president in 2001").

He want everything concensced into a talking point because that it the intellecutal level of his audience.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-05 10:26 A.M.

You shouldn't comment about the I.Q. of the O'Reilly viewers when you don't seem to have a very good handle on your grammar or spelling. Just take a good look at your posting! Don't you have the requisite intelligence to use a spell checker before you post your comments? That sentence has grammar that smacks of Ebonics!

I watched part of that interview and O'Reilly didn't allow Obama to spin a line of B.S. like he has elsewhere with the mainstream media. Obama talks about hope and change but he doesn't have any real specifics. The tax policies that he has suggested could drive us into either a new recession or a depression. As they say, "When you can hope in one hand and shit in the other, see which one fills first.

I only agree with Obama about initially invading Iraq. However, now that we are there, it would be foolish to just walk away. The chaos that would ensue would cause havoc throughout the world's financial markets. Also, Al Qaeda would gain billions of petrol-dollars to use in their quest to kill us.

And if he got his way about the surge when he actually was senator (not some hypothetical, "If I were president in 2001").

#37 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Hmmm.... don't know what happened there...

And if he got his way about the surge when he actually was senator (not some hypothetical, "If I were president in 2001") Iraq would be a much worse place and a lot more soldiers would be dead today.

HAGBARD CELINE: It was the blowhard congressman from PA. He was chairman of the committee that refused to give money to Afghanistan. I can't remmember the morons name. I guess it is because he is such an important congressman.

SANOBAMA: If you can read more then two sentances a minute I would recommend the book "Wilson's War" If you only have first grade reading abilility I suggest the movie. It follows the book closely.

"The chaos that would ensue would cause havoc throughout the world's financial markets." VBOB

Bob,
It's the Middle East. Chaos is a way of life. BTW, hope is not bullshit. It is audacious.

DFIANT: Yes ASSHOLE. I did watch the interview. And if anybody could get a yes out of, "UH, UH, AND, BUT, UH, WHAT I MEAN, UH". Thats a language I'm not familiar with.

"However, now that we are there, it would be foolish to just walk away."

I agree. We're stuck there thanks to Commander Kookoo Bananas. Seems to me everyone keeps missing the big question of Iran. McCain will spread the war there, Obama will not -- that's the big difference between the sides now, as I see it.
And that's why Obama is the only choice.

... don't you think he could be just trying to save face and keep the point that some of it "failed?"

#7 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-09-05 10:23 AM | Reply

Rob, you are asking for nuance. Liberals are only slash-and-burn

"And if he got his way about the surge when he actually was senator (not some hypothetical, "If I were president in 2001") Iraq would be a much worse place and a lot more soldiers would be dead today."

If you care about soldiers dying in Iraq due to bad/incorrect/incomplete planning then why do you still stupport Bush?

Seems you are awfully selective as to when you care about these things.

"I did watch the interview. Posted by oozieoswald"

Then why on earth did you say, "FLOP EARS still will not admit the Surge has worked."?

"However, now that we are there, it would be foolish to just walk away. The chaos that would ensue would cause havoc throughout the world's financial markets. Also, Al Qaeda would gain billions of petrol-dollars to use in their quest to kill us."

So are you for staying there forever? If not, how do we stop jihadists from gaining power once we leave?

Barack Obama is looking and sounding more and more Presidential. He is willing to talk with FOX NEWS, which is more than I can say for McCain cancelling Larry's interview on CNN. And how debasing to Sarah Palin, that her speeches are prewritten for her and the Bush NeoCons are keeping her away from national interviews except for People magazine. This sounds like the Republicans intend to run on the old Bush policy of 'Personality' not 'Issues'. I am sadden to see that the McCain maverick I used to know and admire, has sold out to the Bush NeoCons.

I prefer to move on to the future, not roll back to the past 8 years.

If you care about soldiers dying in Iraq due to bad/incorrect/incomplete planning then why do you still stupport Bush?

Seems you are awfully selective as to when you care about these things.

#45 | Posted by Sully

Soldiers have died under every president's administration...

If Obama had his way, Iraq would be a far worse place today then it is, and since we'd have troops there still they would be in more danger and more would be getting attacked wounded and killed...

I'm glad Obama realized he was wrong and didn't know what he was talking about when he opposed the surge and then kept saying it wasn't working... just makes me wonder will he learn from his failure, or will he make the same mistake next time...

Rob - Does it bother you that Iraq had no WMDs and no connections to Al Queda and we invaded under those premises and 4,000+ soldiers died as a direct result?

Or are you only worried about hypothetical dead soldiers?

Try to be honest and answer a direct question for once...

USAUDA: When was the last time you saw Joe (Motor Mouth) Biden on a talk show. The problem is they can't get him to shut up. I'd love to see him on more talk shows so we can catch him in more of his lies.

Barack Obama is looking and sounding more and more Presidential.
Posted by USAUSA

Are you basing your vote on the number of "eh, er, umm, oh, and huh's"?

"Sarah Palin, that her speeches are prewritten for her"

Hate to break this to you. But Obama and every one else have speeches written for them......

the way he kept grasping at bill as he was trying to make a point was pathetic - good thing bill was just out of reach or i'm sure snowbama would've been holding hands with him!

cannot wait for parts 2-3-4. monday, bor confronts him on his ayers' ties.

And how debasing to Sarah Palin, that her speeches are prewritten for her.

#48 | Posted by USAUSA at 2008-09-05 11:36 AM

Hey Einstein, ALL candidates speaches are written for them.

"I'm glad Obama realized he was wrong "

in the interview

o'reilly admitted he was wrong too
about going to iraq in the first place.

Nice of you to repeat a lib talking point though.

"But Obama and every one else have speeches written for them......"

you are right that most of obama's speeches are prewritten

but the most memorable if you do some research you will find that he wrote himself.

The best thing that will happen under an Obama administration is the muzzling of these pseudo-news networks and talk radio.

#16 | Posted by KnowsTooMuch at 2008-09-05 10:34 AM | Reply

Aren't you the same guy that was advocating banning an anti-Muhammed book the other day becase it was "hate speech"?

I think you need to change your name from "KnowsTooMuch" to "MuzzleAndBan."

Barack Obama is looking and sounding more and more Presidential.
Posted by USAUSA

Hitler wooed his people with his speaches also.

BEWARE

SULLY: Let me ask you a question. Why did the troops have chemical protected suits on when they entered Iraq? Why don't you be honest and stop with the liberal spin.

but the most memorable if you do some research you will find that [Obama] wrote himself.

#58 | Posted by klifferd at 2008-09-05 11:44 AM | Reply

Remind me. Which ones are the most memorable? I forgot.

klifferd

So what's your point.......

DFIANT: Yes ASSHOLE. I did watch the interview. And if anybody could get a yes out of, "UH, UH, AND, BUT, UH, WHAT I MEAN, UH". Thats a language I'm not familiar with.
posted by Ozzieoswald

FLOP EARS sounds exactly like Castro back in the late fifties. Remmember "CHANGE"! And Cuba got it.

libslayer

my point is

mccain and bush's judgement usually sux
and though they got it right to bandaide a failing policy

doesn't mean next time they won't make the original mistake again

they've made it over again in countless policy decisions

what is YOUR point.

Rob - Does it bother you that Iraq had no WMDs and no connections to Al Queda and we invaded under those premises and 4,000+ soldiers died as a direct result?

It bothers me a lot that they didn't have WMD... Given that everyone said they did, and not just Americans.

As far as no connection to Al Qaeda that's not entirely true...

In all honesty I don't think either of those reasons were the real reason we went into Iraq... I think it had much more to do with changing the makeup of the region... if it works then yes it was worth it.

Why did the troops have chemical protected suits on when they entered Iraq?

Because the chain of command ordered that they wear them.

"mccain and bush's judgement usually sux
and though they got it right to bandaide a failing policy

doesn't mean next time they won't make the original mistake again

they've made it over again in countless policy decisions"

This is your point about the speech being written for her??????

"FLOP EARS still will not admit the "Surge has worked"."

Posted by ozzieoswald

Flop Ears?

That's the best you can do for petty little insults - and towards a man who is far, far more accomplished than you?

What a silly little child you be.

Why did the troops have chemical protected suits on when they entered Iraq?

It was part of the whole Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld ruse to convince us that they really believed the lies they told. Didn't work on me, and I bet lots of soldiers thought, "what the hell are we wearing these stupid things for?"

WHATSLEFT: Because they thought as did Hussein (not Barack Hussein) military also thought Iraq had WMDs.

"In all honesty I don't think either of those reasons were the real reason we went into Iraq... I think it had much more to do with changing the makeup of the region... if it works then yes it was worth it."

But those were the reasons we were given before the war started.

So are you saying that the public was deliberately misled into the war and you are OK with that?

Dear ZOT. Don't you have some liberal meeting to go to. Would it be in SF?

He isn't even that bright. He was rude to Obama and like Midiman said interrupted and wouldn't even allow a real answer.
#9 | Posted by danni a

As evidenced by his sexual harrassment settlement. $10 million is a lot of money to pay for "doing nothing wrong".

O'Rielly is much more about hearing himself talk and lecturing people on his ever changing morals rather than conducting an interview.

That is why he will always be a joke of a "journalist". He makes Geraldo look almost credible. Almost.

I think it had much more to do with changing the makeup of the region... if it works then yes it was worth it.

#67 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

But that was not the reasons the american public were sold on.

Do you think that if those were the reasons presented to the public we would have invaded?

"Hitler wooed his people with his speaches also.

BEWARE

#60 | Posted by cabo_vato"

DING DING DING DING DING!

Winner, winner - chicken dinner!

Obama couldn't stop O'Reilly from interupting him and take control of the situation? I'm sure he'd butch up to Putin or Achmindidwhackjob or Chavez though...

Do you think that if those were the reasons presented to the public we would have invaded?

#77 | Posted by 726

I don't know... certainly would have taken longer to get everyone on board, but I do think its still the right move.

I was very impressed with Obama. Went toe to toe with Bill O'R just fine.

IN FACT O'R admitted that he though that history will prove that "Obama's stance against the war in the first place" will prove to be the right position.

Ozzieoswald is a f'n retard. Gotta love them Bill O viewers. Someone should remind him of exactly what party went on a rampage against the concept of "nation building" in the 90's. Hint: it wasn't the blue one. Moron. Read a book.

And how many times does Rob need to be reminded that the whole point of military action in Iraq was to topple a dictator and create a political solution in Iraq so that it could become a beacon of democratic hope in the region (and of course allow us to use its soil for strategic reasons). But it was NOT to decrease the sectarian street violence that didn't even exist yet.

So far, one down (mission accomplished), and a big zero on the other. But somehow we're all supposed to piss ourselves about a decrease in streets exploding? Iraq has been a f'n mess for thousands of years and that won't change because some blo-hard Fox tool or some unemployed asshole DR poster says so for the sake of short term political convenience. Just have another latte, go cash your unemployment check, get back in your safe little bubble, and get back to regurgitating uninformed BS anonymously you wannabe patriots.

"I'm going to give him a couple of dollars and maybe he will give me a blow job."

Just another day in Oozieland.

FLOP EARS sounds exactly like Castro back in the late fifties. Remmember "CHANGE"! And Cuba got it.
posted by Ozzieoswald

DFIANT: "Open your ears douche bag" It's unfortunate that your head was up your ASS when the interview was being conducted. Your take on the interview is a typical liberal ASSHOLE take.
posted by Ozzieoswald

Obama couldn't stop O'Reilly from interupting him and take control of the situation? I'm sure he'd butch up to Putin or Achmindidwhackjob or Chavez though...
posted by 101

Let's take another look at that...

"SANOBAMA: "DING DING DING DING! I think that's my door bell. Yes it is. There is a FLOP EAR campaigner at my door looking for a donation. I'm going to give him a couple of dollars and maybe he will give me a blow job.

#80 | Posted by oozieoswald"

Now THERE'S a kid with real debating skills!

"I'm sure he'd butch up to Putin or Achmindidwhackjob or Chavez though..."

Now here's a gem of a retarded statement. Obama tries to play nice with those he seeks to represent and lead ...then some moron has to compare that to negotiating with unfriendly dictators.

What a dipshit.

Cue the emotional rampage disguised as a point.

"I'm sure he'd butch up to Putin or Achmindidwhackjob or Chavez though..."

You really think these guys just shout over each other when they meet like a bunch jackasses?

"I don't know... certainly would have taken longer to get everyone on board, but I do think its still the right move."

Whether or not you think their motive was correct do you think it is appropriate to tell the public we are going to war for one reason while hiding your real motives - specificallly because you don't think they will agree with your real motives?

Its a basic morality issue, Rob. Certainly you've thought about this.....

I try not to watch O'Reilly but made a point of watching last night. Personally, I thought that Obama came off pretty well (when O'Reilly wasn't listening to his own voice) and was pleasantly surprised when O'Reilly conceded that history will show that Iraq wasn't the proper battlefield for W's vaunted "War on Terra".

As for Obama's concession that the surge worked, what else was he going to say? Only the most die hard partisans are going to cling to their believe that it didn't work, and for Obama to win this election he has to capture the middle.

I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated...

...it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

--OBAMA

Whether or not you think their motive was correct do you think it is appropriate to tell the public we are going to war for one reason while hiding your real motives - specificallly because you don't think they will agree with your real motives?

What if the real motive is the right thing to do, but you could never sell it?

Only the most die hard partisans are going to cling to their believe that it didn't work, and for Obama to win this election he has to capture the middle.

#91 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer

"My God, how pathetic it is when someone has to try to convince themselves that they are intellectual superior."

#18 | Posted by cabo_vato

I'm glad that you're honest with yourself and don't have to convince yourself of anything.

"Joe Biden[the die hard partisan]: The Surge is a Failure"

#94 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Perhaps he can debate Obama:

I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated...

...it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

--OBAMA

"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated...

...it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.
--OBAMA
#92 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-09-05 12:34 PM"

Wouldn't it have been nice if Mr. O' Reilly reciprocated with:

'I think that the Iraq War has failed in ways that nobody anticipated...

...it failed beyond our wildest dreams.'

but that may have been too much honesty for his audience (Mr. O' Reilly's acknowledgements notwithstanding).

Meanwhile:
"Dear ZOT. Don't you have some liberal meeting to go to. Would it be in SF?

#75 | Posted by ozzieoswald at 2008-09-05 11:59 AM"

Kudos to ZOT for hitting a nerve! Although to be fair, it appears ozzieoswald has a LOT of targets ;-).

Bob,
It's the Middle East. Chaos is a way of life. BTW, hope is not bullshit. It is audacious.

#41 | Posted by igmoramus at 2008-09-05 11:22 AM

Actually, I have a much better understanding of Central Asia and the Middle East than most citizens of the USA. I lived in what was West Pakistan from July 1966 until December 1967. I was a high school student at the time. I had a chance to encounter Islamic people on their own stomping ground. West Pakistan was not nearly as chaotic then as it is now. Then, you could actually purchase alcoholic beverages in many of the Bazaars.

As for hope being daring, well, I hope I'll win one of the super Lottos, too. However, just having hope doesn't improve my odds.

"What if the real motive is the right thing to do, but you could never sell it?"

Where something as serious as going to war is concerned I think our leadership owes it to the public to be honest about their motives.

This is especially true at a time we had just been attacked and were already fighting another war.

If you abandon your morals when you think you might not get your way, then you really don't have any morals.

So are you for staying there forever? If not, how do we stop jihadists from gaining power once we leave?

#47 | Posted by Sully at 2008-09-05 11:36 AM

No, I don't want to see the USA in Iraq forever. What I would like to see is a strong government to evolve from the chaotic mess that is Iraq right now. Unlike some of the idealistic posters on here, I'm not opposed to a non-democratic regime if it has enough strength to hold together that country. One thing is probably certain. Once our military's presence is removed the Shiites will probably take-over the country. I really don't see how it can go any other way. They represent at least 75% of the population. I don't see them ever letting the Sunis control the government again. BTW, I got a chance to see Shiites in action in Pakistan. They are some real fanatics!!

"Unlike some of the idealistic posters on here, I'm not opposed to a non-democratic regime if it has enough strength to hold together that country."

Saddam could have been bought off cheap.

You really think these guys just shout over each other when they meet like a bunch jackasses?

#89 | Posted by Sully at 2008-09-05 12:24 PM | Reply

I'm simply saying the same thing that has been said about Palin not being able to stand up to some world leaders.
If Obama can't handle Bill O, how's he going to handle the leaders of foriegn countries?

I'm not the one making excuses as to why Obama looked bad in that interview. I'm responding to those making excuses as to why he looked bad in that interview.

O'Reilly will have Obama on, but Oprah won't have Palin on. Doesn't Oprah think Obama can win without her censoring and stacking the deck? White trailer trash are Oprah's main constituent ... why risk the backlash?

If Obama can't handle Bill O, how's he going to handle the leaders of foriegn countries?

#102 | Posted by 101Chairborne

It's not that he can't handle him, its that he knows he doesn't even have to pretend to respect him, so he doesn't bother to try to conceal his contempt.

For the record, I don't think that Orally deserves Obama's respect. It was a dumb idea to do the interview to begin with.

HC,
I'm purposefully being disingenuous. I'm sure you've seen the arguements about Palin's supposed media blackout, and the repsonses that if she can't face the media how will she handle foriegn leaders...

"If Obama can't handle Bill O, how's he going to handle the leaders of foriegn countries?"

There is no way to handle Bill O if he doesn't like you. That is why it is stupid to go on his show. He'll just shout over you and spew his nonsense louder than you can. If a politician goes on that show and tries to scream over O'Reilly, he'll just end up looking like a lunatic. I question Obama's judgement in going on the show in the first place. Of course, I'd love to go on that show and spew lines from that perverted message O'Reilly left for that woman who sued him for harrassment but I'm not running for office......

That said, I don't think how anyone looks on O'Reilly's show speaks to how "tough" they can be in negotiations. O'Reilly wasn't being tough, he was being loud and pressing the advantage that he can look crazy and other guy can't. World leaders, even mass murderers, don't act like braying jackasses when they get togehter.

ahhh...
you got me there.

and you got sully too, lol.

You liberals are so intellegent and maybe I can learn from you. Why was Flop EARS refered to as a "BILL JACKER" during his time in the IL senate?

I don't know Oozie. Show us from a reputable source that he WAS, and then we can discuss.

O'Reilly Rules.

he is a fair and consistent interviewer...

#29 | Posted by HillBillyJihad

Are you really that stupid?

Sorry to keep asking these questions, but I'm trying become as you libs say, Informed".

How much money did FLOP EARS get for his buddies, Tony Rezko and Allison Davis?

I watched Bill Maher handle O'Reilly just fine without talking over him or shouting.

SANOBAMA: Still can't come back with an answer. If I give you the source you might learn something. The scariest thing I can think of is a liberal with the facts. My GOD you would have a nervous breakdown.

Oozie - more bad news for you. Even the DR Denizens on the right think you're a joke.

Facts? You haven't posted one yet. I am beginning suspect you didn't actually graduate "near the top of your class" after all.

SANOBAMA: I'm sure now you graduated at the bottom of your class. If you are able to be above first grade reading level get the book, "THE CASE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA".
If you read it and you have a heart attack, please don't hold me responsible.

I enjoyed the interview.. Obama looked much better than he did with Rick Warren. Oreilly is a tough interviewer, and the best compliment he paid Obama was when he told someone else later that Obama was a "tough guy.".... That's something the Obama camp should run with..

Still wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances, but he did look pretty good during the interview.

"THE CASE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA".

2 FF's for you today, Oozie.

How about some answers for my question all highly intellegent liberals. If I don't get answers I will have to ask the conservatives on this blog. I know they will have the answers.

"I watched Bill Maher handle O'Reilly just fine without talking over him or shouting."

That's like piss vs. shit.

That's all the sourses you get. Like I said if I give you liberals to many facts you might become conservatives. GOD FORBID!

Even the DR Denizens on the right think you're a joke.

#115 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I have to disagree. There's nothing funny about children with special needs; it's no joking matter.

I have to disagree. There's nothing funny about children with special needs; it's no joking matter.

#123 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-09-05 02:00 PM | Reply

Here's where we part company. I laugh everytime I see the video of the retarded guy at Burger King (the email that comes out every christmas)..."Ding fries are done, Ding fries are done"

Thats Oozie!

Here's where we part company. I laugh everytime I see the video of the retarded guy at Burger King (the email that comes out every christmas)..."Ding fries are done, Ding fries are done"

#121 | Posted by 101Chairborne

As long as the retard in question is an adult I see no problem in laughing at them.

Now we know why Oprha won't have Palin on----she will probably look better than Obama did v. O'riley. Keep that man infront of a telepromter, not open forum talking. McCain sucks at speeches, and Obama sucks off the cuff. Not reassuring for either, but I worry Obama is always trying to form the perfect lawyerly answer, not the answer he believes.

Oprah is no match for Palin...Oprah is too much into herself to let anyone get a word in anyway of substance..she has to try and best everyone...that is why she is so close to Dr. Phil.. besides, she has moved to the 'Jerry Springer' format for the most part..!!!! maybe she will bring the Obama side of the family on...

Any reason nobody here wants to post anything about the question to Obama about preparing for Iran. You don't want to tip your hand you know. That's almost as good as being above his pay grade.

What would you want him to say Crisp? He said he'd keep all options on the table, including military.

yea lets prepare to go to war while we're already at war

smart

lets bring them home so they can prepare to leave again

thats just dumb

dumb question from o'reilly
dumb question from cripee

sanant

they want a simple answer that makes their simple minds understand like

"we will bomb bomb bomb iran"

yea lets prepare to go to war while we're already at war

smart

lets bring them home so they can prepare to leave again

thats just dumb

dumb question from o'reilly
dumb question from cripee

#128 | Posted by klifferd at 2008-09-05 03:28 PM

Read it again. Comprehend. Post something intelligent. Please tell me you don't think we have contingency plans for any threatening nations?

What would you want him to say Crisp? He said he'd keep all options on the table, including military.

O'REILLY: Is Iran part of that component?

OBAMA: Iran is a major threat. Now, I don't think that there is a the same they are not part of the same network. You've got Shia, and you've got Sunni. We've got to have the ability to distinguish between these groups, because, for example, the war in Iraq is a good example, where I believe the administration lumped together Saddam Hussein, a terrible guy, with Al Qaeda, which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

Steeeerike 1

O'REILLY: But would you prepare for one?

OBAMA: Well, listen...

O'REILLY: That's the question though, senator. Anybody can say option. Would you prepare for it?

OBAMA: Look, it is not appropriate for somebody who is one of two people who can be the president of the United States to start tipping their hand in terms of what their plans might be with respect to Iran.

Steeeerike 2

O'REILLY: Diplomacy might work. You might be able to sanction economically.

OBAMA: sanctions.

O'REILLY: Maybe.

OBAMA: Maybe.

O'REILLY: But that's all hypothetical.

OBAMA: Everything is hypothetical, but the question is, are we trying to do what we need to do to ratchet up the pressure on them, to change their...

Steeeerike 3.

Caught looking

"I believe the administration lumped together Saddam Hussein, a terrible guy, with Al Qaeda, which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

Steeeerike 1"

Jesus Christ you are a moron.

Jesus Christ you are a moron.

#132 | Posted by Sully at 2008-09-05 03:53 PM | Reply

I hope you're not basing that on "Strike 1" because Obama's answer made no sense what so ever. He was trying to run away from the question by deflecting to Iraq.

"I hope you're not basing that on "Strike 1" because Obama's answer made no sense what so ever. He was trying to run away from the question by deflecting to Iraq."

Well the original question wasn't posted but from what posted I can gather he was asking if Iran is a country that has to be consider a threat to the US - which he answered by saying "Yes". It was a Yes/NO question and he answered it.

He then went on to explain why Iran is not connected to other Middle Eastern entitities by presenting factually correct info.

I don't see why that is wrong to do. Certainly the lumping of the whole region into one entity by the retards running things now hasn't helped us any.

Crispee, wipe the spittle from your chins.

Well the original question wasn't posted but from what posted I can gather he was asking if Iran is a country that has to be consider a threat to the US - which he answered by saying "Yes". It was a Yes/NO question and he answered it.

Hey dumbshit all you had to do was read the post instead of guessing what was written. Makes you look like a fucking idioit when you claim "What I can gather..." In other words I decided to troll on crispee becasue I never bothered to read his post? Another sharp tool in the shed.

Crispee, wipe the spittle from your chins.

#136 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-09-05 04:09 PM

As soon as you take your head out of Sully's ass.

No, Crispee, both chins.

It is amazing how Sully spits all over himself top post anything about the Iraq war. The same fucking post over and over and over for the last year. Economy bad. The Iraq war was.... Healthcare rising. The damn Iraq war was... Get some new material Sparky.

No, Crispee, both chins.

#139 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-09-05 04:14 PM

Yes Doc. Both cheeks.

No, Crispee.
I said your chins.
The spittle.
From your chins.
If you want to fantasize about a poster's ass, that's your business.
We're talking public hygeine here.

No, Crispee.
I said your chins.
The spittle.
From your chins.
If you want to fantasize about a poster's ass, that's your business.
We're talking public hygeine here.

No doc. You are just another troller looking for something to write. I caught your little two chins attempt at humor. How hygenic is it up Sully's ass? Which is your business.

"Notice it was about Iran and he ignorantly posts shit about Iraq? "

Anyone who read both our posts knows that you posted Obama's quote that made reference to Iraq first. Except you that is..... I wonder why Crispee has so much trouble with simple things....

"Hey dumbshit all you had to do was read the post instead of guessing what was written. Makes you look like a fucking idioit when you claim "What I can gather..." In other words I decided to troll on crispee becasue I never bothered to read his post? Another sharp tool in the shed."

I read your post. Maybe you did not. Here is O'Reilly's "first" question according to your transcript: "O'REILLY: Is Iran part of that component?"

Seeing as how there is nothing to tell us what "that component" is, we can only make an educated guess. What is clear is that it is a Yes/No question and that he answered "Yes" before elborating.

Why I am not surprised that I ended up having to explain your own cut and paste job to you. No more cut and paste for you. Back to fingerpaints, you special little boy....

lol... not a good night for him. Had to admit it worked and then Bill pointed out that if he and Biden were in charge there would be no Surge.

#2 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-09-05 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

There also would have been NO WAR in Iraq to begin with....so yes, you and O'Really can act all glib while bragging how the war you wanted resulted in the deaths of over 4000 American soldiers.

Obama opposed the War in Iraq because he's indebted to Islamic backers for his admission to Harvard Law.

Well the original question wasn't posted but from what posted I can gather he was asking if Iran is a country that has to be consider a threat to the US - which he answered by saying "Yes". It was a Yes/NO question and he answered it.

Crispee - Just because you have nothing else to do doesn't mean I don't, loser. Posting 4 times in 5 minutes saying "Oh you ran away...." makes you look foolish.

I read the full transcript. The question is pretty much what I thought it was after reading what you pasted. He clearly answered "Yes" to a yes/no question. Then he went on to say that while Iran is part of the war on terror, it is important to remember that it is distinct from other entities. He then gave an example from recent history as to why that is true.

But to you, that is a "Steeerike" because you are dumber than a bag of cunts.

Now I really do have to go. Have a nice weekend, stupid. Try not to hurt yourself staring at the sun. I will try to help you some more next week.

Funny how Barack Obama has broken the 'liberal politician code' and appeared on Fox. Must be because viewers have become aware of the bias at the other MSM networks and flocking to Fox News in droves.

The MSM's refusal to cover the Edwards scandal seems to have made even the National Enquirer more credible than the NY Times.

Oprah won't let Sarah Palin appear on her show. She's so sold on Obama, she has to "protect her flock of believers" from heretics.

As a rule, I don't watch Papa Bear. My sense is that if I want to watch someone "interview" himself and wear a flag lapel pin (made in China) that says "I don't interview myself" I can at least laugh along with Colbert. But I tuned into the "interview" last night and enjoyed the "conversation." Bill baited Obama but Obama didn't bite. Didn't need to. Fox, and Bill (as their slightly older foot boy to the younger Hannity), is simply trolling for a "gotcha" headline. Obama is too smart to fall for that. Instead, FOX was able to promote the fact that Obama took the time to sit down with a member of their "news team" and Bill had the opportunity to enjoy some of his best numbers as a "host." Oh, and get Obama to concede that an obvious short-term fix to a complete clusterf*#k is helping. We knew that going in. So, good for Bill, I say. And Obama got the opportunity to demonstrate that he can reach across the aisle for the sake of a healthy debate. As they chant repeatedly during the annual meeting at Walmart, "it's a win-win." Now admittedly, I was concerned that Obama actually took this bait and then promptly remembered why. The worst that can happen is that a small number of folks who rely on Papa Bear for "news" will come away after hearing Obama and think, "well, he's not so bad after all. He did sit down with Bill." And then cast their vote the same way that they initially intended.

Funny how Barack Obama has broken the 'liberal politician code' and appeared on Fox. Must be because viewers have become aware of the bias at the other MSM networks and flocking to Fox News in droves.

funny how you are full of shit.

As I said elsewhere...Even Obama cannot lend any credibility to Fixed News.

He only showed up there to show that in good faith that he is willing to negotiate with any "enemy" like he said he would and that he was not afraid of O'Lielly.

And I am sure he took a long hot shower afterward to wash off "Pappa Bear's" nasty spittle.

Fox, and Bill (as their slightly older foot boy to the younger Hannity), is simply trolling for a "gotcha" headline.

LOL! I guess you've never seen M.T. Balzak (aka Chris Mathews) in action. He pitches fastballs to Republicans, and batting practice to Democrats.

He only showed up there to show that in good faith that he is willing to negotiate with any "enemy" like he said he would

I have a different theory. He did it just this one time to deflect criticism from the McCain Campaign from refusing to debate McCain in a series of Townhall Meetings (w/o any media-biased reporters).

In other words, Obama couldn't handle real questions from citizens... like... "who got you into Harvard Law"... "what were your grades at Columbia"... and "have you ever prayed in a mosque".

I'm pleased to get a chuckle from you, Farmer John. I know, I know. It's you, Fox and the Bush family against the world. Oh, was that cheap of me? Yes, and for that I do apologize, but for chrissake, if "conservatives" keep playing the victim card then they (the good people, R or D, who really ARE victims of the puffery of a few notorious Republican celebrities) will continue to sound like victims while those few who get rich off of that charade get richer. And the world moves on.

Sure, Mathews could be tougher on the Dems. And the entire "liberal" press corps could have been tougher on Bush so that my kids won't need to be paying for his little looting spree here and in Iraq.

I realize that I'm not about to change your mind. But call a spade a spade, my friend.

I voted for Nader in 2000 and made a write-in for 2004.

What does the Democratic Party have against giving Independent voters access to information, anyway?

Why did civil rights hero Percy Sutton write to Harvard to help get Barack Obama into Harvard Law School?

We all know that Khalid al-Mansour asked him to write the letter... but WHY?

The Obama Campaign has released NO information that would lead ANYONE to conclude that Obama got their on the basis of merit (LSAT score OR grades from Columbia). There is now an "admitted" political effort to help Obama gain admission...

Khalid al-Mansour is an advisor to Saudi princes, and was once the academic advisor and cultural group mentor for the founding members of the Black Panther Party at Berkeley. WAS THAT the "connection" that got Barack Obama admitted to Harvard Law?

Yes, Obama graduated from Harvard Magna cum Laude... but that does NOTHING to explain how he got in.

In other words, Obama couldn't handle real questions from citizens... like... "who got you into Harvard Law"... "what were your grades at Columbia"... and "have you ever prayed in a mosque".

You can tell more about a person by the questions they ask, than the answers given. Case in point.

YAV-
It's "clear", from the websites "FarmerJohn" "visits" "LOL" that it was a Muslim plot "that" engineered Obama's "admission" "into" "Harvard".

Either "that", or a "bunch" of angry "blacks".

"BETELG"

After all the talk about Obama's comments regarding the surge it should be noted that Bill O said:

MR. O'REILLY: But I'm going to assume that Iran's going to say, "blank" you, we're going to do what we want. And I want a president, whether it's you or McCain, who says, you ain't doing that.

All right, let's go to Iraq. I think history will show it's the wrong battlefield, okay. And I think that you were perspicacious in your original assessment of the battlefield.

So, before we get all hung up on 'the surge' let's remember that had it been left up to Sen. Obama as Commander in Chief we'd have never gotten in this mess in the first place.

THAT'S leadership and judgment.

Farmer John, if you would, explain EXACTLY what you mean by your query about the Dems limiting access to information for Independents, I'd be better off. And then, explain how those limitations differ for Republicans. I'm expecting that you already have an answer.

And while we're making an attempt to be completely transparent here, you should know that I only registered as a Democrat this year, so I could vote in the primaries in my state. Previously, I was registered as an Independent (perhaps that plays into your question?). In fact, until this year, I had never voted entirely along party lines. Not that party affiliation has anything to do with 'reasonable and just' thinking, of course.

O'Reilly is an ass, but he made Obama look bad last night.

#2 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-09-05 10:08 AM

only in your delusional little head.

I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly,-- Sutton told NY1.

Sutton did not say why al-Mansour was helping Obama, how he discovered him, or from whom he was raising money on Obamas behalf.

#144 | Posted by Farmer_John at 2008-09-05 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

OH NO!!! You got him! Obama is finished.....collegiate recommendations.....WHAT A SCANDAL!!!!!!

Tell us, who wrote McSame's recommendation to Annapolis?

Think maybe his daddy had something to do with it? Hmmmmmm....

Surge?

Call it was it is/was. TROOP ESCALATION! ....but that doesn't fit the pretty little names repubs like to give War.

p.s. If the TROOP ESCALATION was such a success, why are we still there?

Sorry but, the very fact that the man had the balls to go on that show says all I need to know about him. When McSame does an interview with Michael Moore, I'll listen to you tightie-rightie assholes and your pathetic talking points...

Obama can admit a fucking mistake, and presumably learn from it, it's called humility, and intelligence, that's a big PLUS in a politician these days but you dumfuks, you stupid fucking egotistical, paranoid brainwashed jackasses can't see that. Actualy, you can but you'll just rip and tear at someone who isn't from the right party because that's all you know how to do.

And then you bitch all day that the country in going to hell in a handbag.

"Sit Up!"

"Roll Over!"

"Beg!"

Obama did fantastic, so far as part 1 that I have seen. ANswered direct, no tap-dancing and gave good answers.

Good Job

Kudos to O'Reilly for this:

MR. O'REILLY: But I'm going to assume that Iran's going to say, "blank" you, we're going to do what we want. And I want a president, whether it's you or McCain, who says, you ain't doing that.

All right, let's go to Iraq. I think history will show it's the wrong battlefield, okay. And I think that you were perspicacious in your original assessment of the battlefield.

Let's remember that had it been left up to Sen. Obama as Commander in Chief we'd have never gotten in this mess in the first place. THAT'S the kind of judgment that counts.

Much more than undertaking the 'surge' is after 5 long years of bloodshed from failed management of a war we should never have fought under the guise of the GWOT to begin with.

The 'surge', along with the Sunni Awakening, has resulted in reduced violence, but the benchmarks the surge was predicated on helping the Iraqis achieve are far from being fulfilled. The WH reported to Congress 15 of 18 are at a 'satisfactory' status (as if we trust anything they say), but the facts remain Iraq is far from achieving the results we shed blood to help them garner.

THAT'S leadership and judgment.

Perspicacious: of acute mental vision or discernment : keen

AMERICANUNITY: "That's Leadership and Judgement".

Was it leadership and judgement when FLOP EARS got millions for Tony Rezko and Allison Davis to build "Flop Houses" that were later condemned in Cook County?

Hill Farmer John, if you would, explain EXACTLY what you mean by your query about the Dems limiting access to information for Independents, I'd be better off. And then, explain how those limitations differ for Republicans. I'm expecting that you already have an answer.

As a black American, I am exceedingly proud at the American peoples response to Barack Obamascandidacy,-- said COREs Niger Innis. But to deny that he has long-standing ties to left-wing elements in our polity is to deny reality. If you want to be president of the United States, it is not racism if you ask these kind of questions, and he has to come up with an answer, hopefully the truth.--

Obama's biography has been air-brushed by Obama and the campaign. "Dreams of my Father" skims over and pushes into the background many of Obama's connections with the Left, like the one Percy Sutton recently alluded to in the NY-1 interview. It all started with his red-diaper baby mother and her connecting him with Frank Marshall Davis at a young age.

Obama has essentially been "de-contextualized" from his left-wing past and re-packaged as a Harvard magna cum laude, but this career "capstone" is NOT supported by any of the Obama academic history preceding it.

There's something rotten in Denmark, and its' time to lay it on the table. The Left made a HUGE deal over the "Bush lies" that got us into Iraq. So what's the difference here? Do the ends justify the means OR is the left going to give the American people the respect they deserve?

The Left is treating the American people as if they were children who could not handle the truth. Well, if that's the case, then perhaps the left is not worthy of a partnership position within our society.

"Red-diaper baby mother"? Well-played, Farmer John. Politics have become an issue of reframing, a discipline which has been perfected by Rove, but suggesting "de-contextualizing" is a stretch. Would the "truth" as you state it, include false Iraqi ties to Bin Laden to promote a war that results in thousands of lost American lives and countless women and children lost in Iraq? Bleeding heart? Maybe but I'm at my core, a realist. And in that, I believe that "The (Angry) Left" is slightly closer to the truth than that spoon-fed to us by your friends in this current administration. Not all truths, admittedly, but come on. I appreciate your discipline, but it's time for you, Gingrich, and the others to admit that this administration has redefined the very concept of truth and respect to meet their own end. McCain and Palin won't shake up Washington. They'd be powerless against their own supporters. I applaud the commitment to one's job, but they don't work for the conservatives. They work for me. I'd hire Obama over McCain at this point whether he was green, blue, spotted or otherwise. That's just me. I trust him just slightly more than the people who will be running McCain and Palin.

By the way, and regardless of who it is, admission to the top universities in any country requires references and a solid network for admission. Harvard isn't community college.

You didn't answer my question.

I have no doubt that Barack Obama is an intelligent man. You state that you trust 'Obama' and that McCain & co. are "powerless against their supporters".

Well, who are Barack Obama's 'supporters'? Who are the puppeteers that are holding the strings and pulling the strings that open the doors to great universities for mediocre young scholars? Who are the men behind Obama's curtain that you, apparently, feel you can trust MORE than those who pull McCain's strings?

We recently learned that John Edwards had completely compromised himself to Fred Baron and was completely within his pocket. I simply want assurances that Obama's situation is not similarly compromised.

There's a myth out there that Obama is his "own man". And given Percy Suttons recent revelations, I no longer believe it.

The Devil you know may be better than the devil you don't. Why not introduce us to him? And if not, what are you afraid of?

btw - Nietzsche once postulated that the criterion for 'truth' was merely an enhancement of a feeling of power. No wonder you feel that the current administration "distorted truths".

"The devil you know may be better than the devil you don't."

Isn't McCain claiming to be an unpredictable maverick?

You raise an interesting question. I believe that there are few in this system who do it alone. I harbor no illusion that Obama is his own man. The very machine that's been created by the rich has made it impossible to do so. As in business, they have realized that mediocrity rules. Innovation is a cute story, but copycat tactics and discipline are where the real money is to be found.

"Devil" is, again, an interesting choice of words, Farmer John. You've asked what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid that my kids won't enjoy the same world, be offered the same opportunities, that I have enjoyed. I'm afraid that I have two choices in this national election and for the first time in quite some time, I believe we have one candidate that can motivate people. And I'm afraid that I'll be working today and likely tomorrow to make up for an economy strained by the realities of the poor decisions and mistrust that has been created (yes, created) by a party that preaches the highjacked term "conservatism" and practices something else entirely. I'm afraid that I've inserted too many quotation marks because the true definition of terms don't mean what they were intended to mean.

I'm afraid that I'll need to let this conversation rest while I work to pay a few bills and to think for myself. I have appreciated your opinions and the talking points you have recited. I'm afraid I've read them before. Keep up the good fight.

Good talking to you, Hill.

I differ in my opinion of world events as well. The Bush Administration did not "create" the conflict in the Middle East. They merely decided that since we were already being targeted by international terrorists, that perhaps the time had come to get more involved and attempt to influence an outcome.

I was reading the article in Time magazine...

Barack Obama sat down to an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on Fox tonight and shockingly it looked like a TV interview.

Really, what did Time magazine thought it was going to be? lol....Did anyone of their writers ever watch the interview he did with Rosie? O'Reilly tends to be a little softer with Dems, than with regulars on his show. It's not to say, he avoids his viewpoints but he doesn't go out of his way to be combative unless it's an emotional issue.

Obama needs to answer tough questions if he wants to be in the White House.

Obama looked like a candy a$$. Our foes must be worried now.

Obama looked like a candy a$$. Our foes must be worried now.

Rob - Does it bother you that Iraq had no WMDs and no connections to Al Queda and we invaded under those premises and 4,000+ soldiers died as a direct result?

#50 | Posted by Sully

Does it bother you that everyone thought he had the weaponds? He used chemicals on his own people along with Iran.

Does it bother you that your statement about no ties to the terrorists is pure bull shit?

Does it bother you that 7500 military people died while Clinton was in office?

What does bother you?