|
MasterShake69 -> RE: Obama or Bush??? (3/9/2009 1:51:44 PM)
|
You might notice the troops aren’t coming home yet...and might never come home. Maybe sometime next year after the Iraqi election some might start coming home. ;) Why do you think both McCain and Bush have no problems with Obamas Iraq plan. Funny how the comedians aren’t making fun of Obamas change on this issue ;)
oh and a few other situations where recent democrats presidents have lied and people have died ;)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18106281
The former president had been complaining the news media paid too little attention to Obama's record on the war. Then, he pointed an accusing finger at Obama."You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004. There's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," he said. really? nobody died under clinton?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/62987.html
Friday, February 27, 2009
In twist, GOP likes Obama's Iraq plan, Democrats don't
CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — President Barack Obama announced here Friday that he'll withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, but his plans to leave as many as 50,000 U.S. troops there through 2011 made many Democrats in Congress angry, while Republicans cheered. It was an ironic reception for a new commander-in-chief whose presidential campaign was built initially on his early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it if elected. "I am deeply troubled by the suggestion that a force of 50,000 troops could remain in Iraq," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. "This is unacceptable." "I question whether such a large force is needed to combat any al Qaida affiliates in Iraq or whether it will contribute to stability in the region," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. "You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can't be in and out at the same time," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. "We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history." The Republican Obama defeated in November for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, lauded the plan.
En route to Camp Lejeune, Obama called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and then former President George W. Bush to tell each personally about his timetable. The controversy centers on his decision to leave a force of between 35,000 and 50,000 U.S. troops to train, equip and advise Iraqi forces, help protect withdrawing forces and work on counterterrorism. They'd remain until Dec. 31, 2011, the date the Bush administration agreed to withdraw all troops under a pact with Iraq. That timetable too, could depend on conditions in Iraq and on the need for additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has made significant gains, and where national elections also are scheduled.
http://www.againstbombing.org/foreignviews.htm
September 12, 1999
TORONTO STAR
Canada must speak out on embargo
WHY IS CANADA vacillating at the United Nations over lifting the
genocidal economic sanctions on Iraq that are killing hundreds of
thousands of civilians, especially children? As an influential member of
the Security Council, we should be taking a strong moral stand. Instead,
Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy is reining in his reformist instincts to
appease America and Britain, the only Western states still insisting on
pursuing the perverse policy of getting at Saddam Hussein by inflicting
untold miseries on innocent Iraqi civilians.
For eight months now, the United States and Britain have been waging an
undeclared war on Iraq, deploying 22,000 troops, 19 warships and 200
aircraft that have have fired 1,100 missiles and flown 10,000 combat
sorties - two-thirds of the missions mounted by the entire NATO command
in the war over Kosovo.
The ostensible reason has been that Iraq has been violating the two
no-fly zones set up after the Gulf War. But the misdemeanours - foolish
boasts from Saddam about Iraqi sovereignty, the odd Iraqi radar locking
on to an American aircraft, or an Iraqi plane puncturing the prohibited
air space for seconds - are neither new nor serious enough to justify
the longest U.S.-British bombing campaign since Word War II.
The real reasons for the bombing blitz are the American frustration over
the collapse of the discredited United Nations weapons inspection
program, following revelations that the CIA had infiltrated it to spy on
Iraq, and an American decision to topple Saddam, somehow, without
ushering in democracy.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/05/12/cia/print.html
Why the Chinese embassy was bombed A senior intelligence official says the CIA team in charge of choosing targets has no recent Belgrade experience. - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jeff Stein As NATO and the United States continue to deal with diplomatic fallout from Friday's Chinese embassy bombing in Belgrade, a senior U.S. intelligence official told Salon News that the CIA team in charge of choosing Yugoslav targets does not include any agents or experts with recent on-the-ground experience in Belgrade. Speaking on condition of anonymity Tuesday, the official said that no CIA officer with an up-to-date, walking familiarity with the Yugoslav capital was on the targeting team when China's embassy was mistakenly bombed Friday, killing three occupants and injuring 20 more. Nor, apparently, does the CIA have clandestine spotters in Belgrade helping verify targets picked from maps and satellite photos. The issue has taken on added gravity because the CIA has admitted it used a partially updated 4-year-old street map and "educated guesses" to select the target, which was thought to be a Yugoslav arms agency. In this case, the maps did not show that China had vacated its old property and built a new embassy elsewhere in 1996, even though American officials, from the U.S. ambassador to the semi-public chief of the CIA mission, frequented the embassy for events. The U.S. embassy in Belgrade was closed and its staff evacuated March 24. As the primary intelligence agency among U.S. civilian and military information-gathering organizations, the CIA takes the lead role in supplying targets to NATO planners. In response to a question Monday, a senior CIA official said the CIA alone had selected the mistaken target. The bombing tragedy, along with recent espionage revelations, has severely strained U.S. relations with China. It has also threatened to derail a possible solution to the Kosovo conflict proposed last week by the G8 nations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/oct/17/balkans
Nato bombed Chinese deliberately Nato hit embassy on purpose
Kosovo: special report
The Observer, Sunday 17 October 1999
Nato deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the war in Kosovo after discovering it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications. According to senior military and intelligence sources in Europe and the US the Chinese embassy was removed from a prohibited targets list after Nato electronic intelligence (Elint) detected it sending army signals to Milosevic's forces. The story is confirmed in detail by three other Nato officers - a flight controller operating in Naples, an intelligence officer monitoring Yugoslav radio traffic from Macedonia and a senior headquarters officer in Brussels. They all confirm that they knew in April that the Chinese embassy was acting as a 'rebro' [rebroadcast] station for the Yugoslav army (VJ) after alliance jets had successfully silenced Milosevic's own transmitters. The Chinese were also suspected of monitoring the cruise missile attacks on Belgrade, with a view to developing effective counter-measures against US missiles.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ienigma777
Yes indeed. I read also an acessment of Bush; the commentator stated: Bush was the worst president in US history; also, as far as World Leaders - Bush was the worst World Leader in the history of the world. Now,that's an accomplishment. Don't forget Time, Newsweek and other mags featured articles where Bush, Rice et al ADMITTED they were wrong with the Iraq war. Yet they all are unaccountable for their actions. While Bush bankrupted the country with his war, the economy of the country and the world collasped; and the media did virually nothing to inform the general populace. Bush gave hardly a notice, but made sure more money was spent on fighting terrorism...even to his last speech to the UN.
When, at the end, the economic crash became newsworthy, the bailout, Bush rallied to the cause, demamding the 750 billion, and got it.
Chrysler, and the other Auto makers all got billions for their share.
Incidently, Chrysler who up until the middle of 2007 was owned by a German company, was acquired by an American Company, but only about 78%. The Company, Ceribus - an investment mangement Co. which generates over three hundred Billion Dollars annually, now asks for 5 billion more in bailout money or it threathens to shut down Chrysler.
The economic crisis just leapt upon us all of a sudden....right.
|
|
|
|
