Comments on: Don’t Hammer Obama for ‘Refining’ Iraq Stance

By: Obama's Foreign Policy Stance

Obama's Foreign Policy Stance — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:20:22 +0000

..]Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate for president. His advisers in foreign policy are generally Democrats. Together they carry with them an institutional memory of the Democratic Partyâ€™s approach to foreign policy, and are an expression of the complexity and divisions of that approach. Like the their Republican counterparts, in many ways they are going to be severely constrained as to what they can do both by the nature of the global landscape and American resources. But to some extent, they will also be constrained and defined by the tradition they come from. Understanding that tradition and Obamaâ€™s place is useful in understanding what an Obama presidency would look like in foreign affairs…]

By: LaBolt

LaBolt — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:09:10 +0000

Alinsky has taught him well. In other words, he will say whatever it takes to gain power, regardless of what it is he would actually do, God forbid, if he was able to bamboozle the electorate enough to pull all of the fraud votes that will come flooding his way and then become the most powerful leader in the world.

By: Washington Post Calls Obama’s Iraq Speech “Irrational” | THE HOT JOINTS

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:13:37 +0000

[...] When he spoke on July 3rd about visiting Iraq and further “refining” his position, it caused on uproar on the looney left. By around four o’clock that afternoon, Obama held a second press [...]

By: Chuck Pelto

Chuck Pelto — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:01:40 +0000

TO: John Samford
RE: Hussein’s WMDs

“Saddam DID have WMD and lots of it. That is a matter of record. Enough evidence to get a conviction in court, if there was any reason to waste a court’s time with it.” — John Samford

You’re preaching to the choir, reverend.

I’m very familiar with Hussein’s history of using chemical weapons on Kurds and Iranians. I’m also familiar with his efforts towards achieving nuclear weapons. And likewise familiar with where his WMDs went just before US invaded; think Syria.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

By: John Samford

John Samford — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:12:33 +0000

Chuck Pelto.
Saddam DID have WMD and lots of it. That is a matter of record. Enough evidence to get a conviction in court, if there was any reason to waste a court’s time with it.
The moonbats won’t face this bit of reality. It would completely destroy their worldview. The MSM keeps a lid on it, earning the big bucks they get from the Rabid Billionaires Club (hereafter RBC). Not that it matters anyway. Once you get started on a serious collection of lies, there is a tendency to over-do it. History will get it right.
Meanwhile, back on the home front, prepare for the ultimate flip-flop.
Ohhhhhhh……BAAAMA will release his Birth certificate, showing his father to be 87.5 % Arab. He will apologize for not being black, having been treated black all his life he just assumed, etc. etc. etc. Not a dry eye in the house. Then he will change his slogan from ‘Change you can believe in.’ to ‘Black like me’. and make the ultimate flip flop, from black to white. The suckers will eat it up.
We will then have our 6th black President.

http://www.geocities.com/cureworks1/5blkpres.htm

“All the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavour to find out what you don’t know from what you do.” *
*
_Arthur Wellesley, Duke Of Wellington

By: Chuck Pelto

Chuck Pelto — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:12:19 +0000

TO: Brian H
RE: Rationalization

“Rationalization Rules!” — Brian H

More appropriately….

“The field behind rhetoric is oft mined with equivocation.”

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Oratory: A conspiracy between speech and action to cheat understanding.]

By: Brian H

Brian H — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:16:12 +0000

Chuck;
also relevant is a variation on that old quote I came across: “Oh, what tangled webs we weave; When first we practice to Believe!”

Rationalization Rules!

By: megapotamus

megapotamus — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:23:52 +0000

I could live with Barry being sensible about the war, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that he is, only idiocy could support the Iraq position of the Dems lefty whakoes but only that idiocy could beat Hillary Clinton. And as everyone sees, that was the purpose of that position and it had no other. Barry does not know what he thinks. He doesn’t, apparently, think much of anything except what the polling of the moment says and he has only a tenuous grasp on that. This boob didn’t know what “undivided Jerusalem” means on the international stage. He doesn’t know how many states there are. He doesn’t know where oil comes from. He doesn’t know a damn thing except tactical politics and there he has parlayed a ruthlessness with less ruth than a Clinton far more skillfully than any policy, principle or postion. It is a disgrace that he has gotten so far.

By: Ed Wallis

Ed Wallis — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:38:42 +0000

“Hillary4Prez,” Though I disagree that Hillary is the best candidate [vis a vis socialism vs. freedom in the USA - please note her outrageously priced socialized medicine proposal for one], you make an interesting point: when you look at today’s Germany, your concern is exactly what is happening with their Democrat’s Party (SPD – Social Democrats) losing ever more support to the former-Communist, now neo-Socialist Party (Die Linke, pronounced dee LIN-kah)…and guess which will mesh into the other within the next 20 years. The Socialist Left in the US must be purged from the legitimate political parties. Can the Democrats do it? I hope so.

By: mike

mike — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:27:28 +0000

To the John Stamford blog that said Truman is among our list of unprincipled presidents, you, John Stamford, haven’t the slightest idea of the meaning of “unprincipled”. You could agree or disagree with Harry’s principles but to say he didn’t have any is just plain stupid. And so typical of the far-left. No wonder Obama has problems pleasing you people. He should cut you off and let you drown.