Gobama! Hosanna! Obama in the highest! . . .

[metalluk]

I suggested recently that a close examination of Obama's foreign policy proposals reveals a neoconservative-like aggressive posture, indistinguishable from the Bush-doctrine, except by its further refinement of tactics. Two writers, at sites where I posted the observation, responded that Obama's aggressive stance was not simply "neoconservative" (which was never mainly "conservative" in its origin, drawing, in part, on the "nation-building" tradition of Democrats). It is a continuation of a much longer tradition of American imperialism, dating back, ultimately, to the "Manifest Destiny' of the 1840's, which was the rationale offered, at the time, to justify American expansionism, theft of lands from Mexico, and, later, the extension of U.S. tentacles into Latin America. It was God's will, the proponents proclaimed, that we should do so!

Call it "Neoconservatism" or call it a renewal of "Manifest Destiny," but either way, Obama's proposed foreign policy is to be based on extending American influence and hegemony throughout the world. It is bare-fisted posturing consequent to a surfeit of emboldened followers. Too many citizens blinded by euphoria brought on by chants for a charismatic leader. Shouts of adulation ring in the rafters! GOBAMA! HOSANNA! OBAMA IN THE HIGHEST! . . . Christian Fundamentalist fanaticism, shimmering in a mirror, as some sort of imprecise reflection of the Islamic Fundamentalism that challenges America from the East! A crosswind stirs. Enraptured followers gather below. Now, we see Barack Obama ascending to a raised pulpit to preach his coalition of faith and bipartisanship, hope and change. Inspired supporters whisper about biblical prophecies, citing chapter and verse. Others simply fall down on their knees as before a savior. "Yes we can!" we hear them exclaim in chorus. We are the chosen people, the new master race! We are destiny!

GOBAMA! HOSANNA! OBAMA IN THE HIGHEST!

GOBAMA! HOSANNA! OBAMA IN THE HIGHEST!

God bless America! And save us, now, from ourselves!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

1. You really are deluded, aren't you?

[leftofcool]

2. Well some poster already likened him to Goliath

Why not God?

[LaurenG]

3. Well where are the links to this bare fisted posturing"?

and what's with all this religious language? This is a weird post.

[redqueen]

5. I think we're supposed to just take their word for it.

:crazy:

[Alter Ego]

50. I swear to god, the dichotomy between the Hillary people

decrying the "thuggish" nature of the Obama people here and the utter shitload of posts like this is making my brain hurt.

[redqueen]

52. It's a puzzler, that's for sure!

[ShortnFiery]

4. I'm disappointed. With the brain trust you Hillary Supporters tout, that's all you've got?

This one's for you:

Alleluia! Holy Shit! Where's the tylenol? :crazy:

[babylonsister]

6. And this article claims differently, embracing

a global strategy that ends the politics of fear. This sounds lots better than you condemning and calling names. Neoconservatism? Gimme a break. I 'get it' that you don't like him. But you know what they say about opinions... And let me guess, it will take you about 5 minutes to badmouth The Prospect, because they don't share your opinion. :eyes:


http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

The Obama Doctrine

Barack Obama is offering the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades. But will voters buy it?


Spencer Ackerman | March 24, 2008



When Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama met in California for the Jan. 31 debate, their back-and-forth resembled their many previous encounters, with the Democratic presidential hopefuls scrambling for the small policy yardage between them. And then Obama said something about the Iraq War that wasn't incremental at all. "I don't want to just end the war," he said, "but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place."

Until this point in the primaries, Clinton and Obama had sounded very similar on this issue. Despite their differences in the past (Obama opposed the war, while Clinton voted for it), both were calling for major troop withdrawals, with some residual force left behind to hedge against catastrophe. But Obama's concise declaration of intent at the debate upended this assumption. Clinton stumbled to find a counterargument, eventually saying her vote in October 2002 "was not authority for a pre-emptive war." Then she questioned Obama's ability to lead, saying that the Democratic nominee must have "the necessary credentials and gravitas for commander in chief."

If Clinton's response on Iraq sounds familiar, that's because it's structurally identical to the defensive crouch John Kerry assumed in 2004: Voting against the war wasn't a mistake; the mistakes were all George W. Bush's, and bringing the war to a responsible conclusion requires a wise man or woman with military credibility. In that debate, Obama offered an alternative path. Ending the war is only the first step. After we're out of Iraq, a corrosive mind-set will still be infecting the foreign-policy establishment and the body politic. That rot must be eliminated.

Obama is offering the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades. It cuts to the heart of traditional Democratic timidity. "It's time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right," Obama said in a January speech. "It's time to say that we are the party that is going to be strong and right." (The Democrat who counseled that Americans wanted someone strong and wrong, not weak and right? That was Bill Clinton in 2002.)

But to understand what Obama is proposing, it's important to ask: What, exactly, is the mind-set that led to the war? What will it mean to end it? And what will take its place?

To answer these questions, I spoke at length with Obama's foreign-policy brain trust, the advisers who will craft and implement a new global strategy if he wins the nomination and the general election. They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root. An inextricable part of that doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda. Is this hawkish? Is this dovish? It's both and neither -- an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy. And it might just be the future of American global leadership.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

[azmouse]

7. This should be a seperate thread. It's great info!

:hi:

[babylonsister]

8. It was; also FrenchieCat has a thread around here that got

a lot more attention:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=347640

Edit to add Frenchie's:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5244934

[metalluk]

10. Obama's foreign policy is not based in liberal principles

From his March speeches"

"Instead of the new Middle East we were promised, Hamas runs Gaza, Hizbollah flags fly from the rooftops in Sadr City, and Iran is handing out money left and right in southern Lebanon."

When were we promised a Middle East where Palestinian flags fly nowhere?

"conflicts in the Middle East" are "not rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel," emanating instead "from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam"

Straight out of the Bush playbook.

"we need to start fighting that battles that need to be won on the CENTRAL FRONT of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan"
"two additional combat brigades to support our efforts in Afghanistan"
"this increased commitment in turn can be used to leverage greater assistance -- WITH FEWER RESTRICTIONS -- from our NATO allies"
"we cannot base our entire Pakistan policy on President Musharraf"
"we must act" "if Pakistan will not or cannot"

All of this represents a dangerous expansion of military action in the Middle East and beyond as well as a continuation of Bush's folly of unilateral military action.

"increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines"

Why would we be increasing our forces by 92,000 if he intends to "end the war" in Iraq, which by itself, would free up 10-15 brigades. The end of a war usually implies demobilization, not increasing military personnel. Granted, military forces were stretched thin by the Iraqi War, but if that war in to be ended, why add new personnel now? The obvious answer is that the Obama team anticipates increasing the overall deployment of U.S. ground forces, even as the number of troops in Iraq specifically is cut back.

Obama decries "unending war and unilateral action" that "saps our strength and standing." Those are fine words, but not matched by the evidence of his own intentions. He will be continuing and extending the same failed policy that he claims to reject.

[babylonsister]

12. I'm supposed to take your word for this? Links pls., of anything nt

[metalluk]

25. No, you're supposed to

research and think for yourself, instead of piling on a bandwagon and responding to sound-bytes generated by the respective campaigns.

Obama gave three speeches during the third week of March, starting with the well-publicized race speech, dated, I believe, March 17th, March 19th, and March 20th. The most troublesome of the three is the one from March 19th, but there are problems inherent in the other two as well. Clinton gave a foreign policy address a few weeks back at George Washington University. McCain will be giving a major foreign policy speech today, so there's an opportunity to get a handle on his current thinking.

Find them for yourself and print yourself out copies.

[babylonsister]

31. No, you're supposed to supply links instead of making shit up.

And for that, meet my ignore button.

[metalluk]

41. Won't you be embarrassed when you find out

that all of these quotes that you call "shit" and think are made up by me are straight out of Obama's own policy speech?

[Drachasor]

47. + your own creative interpretations

Stop fear-mongering, please.

[The Doctor.]

61. Well cheesecake, I've done the research, and nearly every one of those quotes

is completely out of context.

[Drachasor]

32. He and I debated this in another thread he made on this same topic

He doesn't have any proof. He rejects Obama's stated policies on his website. He reads his own fears/misgivings into everything Obama says to justify his position.

About the most substantive thing he said was that Obama wanted to increase our military size, therefore he must want more wars (or something to that effect). He ignores the fact we are undermanned everywhere and pulling out of Iraq likely won't be easy. When you are undermanned everywhere, getting more manpower whilst decreasing your fronts can be quite the responsible thing to do. He 'naturally' rejects such arguments out of hand.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

24. .....

[InsultComicDog]

57. well if we're going THERE

[karynnj]

38. Seeing that the thread indicates you don't even take Obama's web site

as counter to your nonsense. I have an even easier proof - Senator Kerry has specifically spoken of Obama's foreign policy in a very positive way. As I trust the foreign policy of Senator Kerry FAR more than that of either Clinton - I suggest this as a meaningful test - he passed the Kerry test.

Remember the Clintons had NO problem with Reagan illegally arming the RW Contra thugs, at a time Kerry risked his career to counter the extremely popular President Reagan - why? He saw the same danger in what we were doing in Latin America as in Vietnam.

[LittleClarkie]

9. It's alittle to close to Easter for this bullshit.

And it can boomerang so easily, what with the Judas comment coming from Carville. Wouldn't that make Hillary Jesus if Richardson is Judas?

I just support him. I don't pray to an image of him to save us from our national sins.

[metalluk]

16. Haven't finished your prayers to Obama yet?

In any case, get used to it!

Next fall the right wing will be playing tapes of the worshipful adulation of Obama followers and portraying Obama as a false prophet. Remember, American Christians only love their own denomination's fanaticism, not that of any other group.

My main point with the second half of this post was indirect: to illustrate how easy it will be for McCain to defeat Obama by portraying his followers as fanatics. And McCain will have plenty of fodder to draw on from the posts and links already evident at this site and other blogs and message boards.

I'm not worried about any boomerang effect. Hillary already has plenty of crap flying her way. Her odds of winning the nomination are remote.

McCain's positives are now up to 67%. Obama will be blown away in the fall and will be politically finished at that point, all because he and his followers pushed him ahead before he was adequately prepared. What a waste! Barack Obama could have been a great leader had he followed a patient course of preparation for the presidency instead of launching an effort to win the presidency by generating a cult following. He and his followers have sewn the seeds for his own destruction and it's a great pity.

Well done, Democrats!

[Cheap_Trick]

20. it's so ironic that hillbots such as yourself keep referring to Obama and cults

when HRC is a member of one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5260599&mesg_id=5260599


not that you'll read it and shatter you fantasy world.

[metalluk]

22. Not ironic. Self-evident.

The repetitiousness of the charge stems from the simple fact that it is self-evident to so many observers. McCain's surrogates will exploit the idea no end, in the fall. All it will take is a short segment of video to scare the bejesus out of ordinary Americans.

An idea that occurs to many different observers is easily turned into a general public perception.

[LittleClarkie]

51. What part of "I don't pray to him. I'm just a supporter" didn't you get?

And if the Republicans sell this line of thinking, what makes you think they need help from you?

In fact, if they use this meme, it will be because it was used first in the primaries. By Hillary supporters misrepresenting Obama supporters.

Now I do believe I will "let it sink" as it were.

[bunnies]

11. Seek help. Asap.

Delusions of this magnitude are quite disturbing.

[metalluk]

18. That is my intention.

The delusions evident among the roughly half of Democrats supporting Obama do indeed need to be addressed. Unfortunately, there's no drug for MASS delusions. Instead, it will require political involvement. It will require working with others who feel similarly.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Rather than defaulting to the same old stupid shit about cults

This post actually had some potential if you would point specifically to policies you oppose and outline varying responses (especially from other candidates). I know that that would have been more difficult and perhaps time consuming than blathering out the same old tired cliches, but it would have been a better post.

You start strong, then end weak as hell. Nice try though. Next time, an original thought would help.

[metalluk]

21. We agree about the same old stupid shit

generated by cults. They spring up over and over again. Each one has to be dealt with in its turn.

The Obama phenomenon will run its course, hopefully sooner than later.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Lacking an actual argument

I suppose screaming that your opponents are in a cult is fun enough. That seems to be your pathetic tactic, so I'll leave you to it. When you decide that you want to actually argue like a reasonable person, let me know.

[metalluk]

43. Why would I let YOU know

when a reasonable discussion was taking place?

It would make far more sense for me to invite reasonable people.

Why is it that SO MANY people have characterized Obama's followers as similar to a cult?

Remember, criticisms only sting when there is a significant element of truth in the accusation.

Calling a thin person "fatty" is so patently absurd that everyone recognizes it as a joke. Call the Obama following a "cult," and dozens of Obama supporters spring to the defense. As Shakespeare put it, "Methinks the lady dost protesteth too much."

Perhaps by fall, Obama and his supporters will have found a better way to respond to accusations of being cult-like. At present, the vigor of the responses merely lends credence to the point.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. Any time you're ready with some specifics, there, Aristotle

:rofl:

Hint: When making accusations of culthood, it's best to stay away from the "how could a billion commentators be wrong?" argument. Mass agreement without thought is the very thing you aim to criticize, so relying on the validity of mass agreement for your evidence is - well - comically self-defeating at best. My father used to make arguments somewhat like yours, wondering how it was that the Jews were hated everywhere, wondering whether there may be some truth in it after all, etc. Reasonable people sniff out such bullshit fairly quickly. But you're in the great tradition of bullshit arguments for 2 millenia, so I can't really blame you.

Hint 2: When quoting Shakespeare, get the line right.

Now, about those specifics on Obama's foreign policy? Are you going to get to them anytime soon, or can I expect another argument ripped from the greatest hits of anti-Semitism?

[Drachasor]

33. He already made a post on this topic. His claims are basically baseless.

I debated him on the topic, and his claims require that you completely ignore Obama's policies as stated on his website. Instead you must read into his speeches and assume neo-con intent into everything he says.

I am quite certain Hillary would look just as bad or worse by this measure.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

14. amen

[ProSense]

15. Shouldn't you be invoking Maya Angelou? n/t

[enid602]

17. no

NoMoFauxbama4me

[charlie]

19. And Hillary would be better, how?

Of course, you don't know. Nor do you know anything about McCain. Admittedly, you're examining the candidates serially, as they assume front runner status. In short, you're fucking weird.

However, you're ready and willing to vote McCain should Obama be the nominee:

There is no possibility that I could vote for Obama in November should he win the nomination. I have never voted for a Republican candidate for president; this could be the first time, unless an appearling third-party candidate emerges.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/04/clinton-wins-ohio-primary/#comment-4288948

So, to send the party a "message" to not float a candidate you believe is a neo-con, you'll back a genuine neo-con. Like I said, fucking weird.

[metalluk]

23. Hillary's foreign policy plan is solidly founded on liberal Democratic principles

I have now studied Clinton's proposals and they are spot-on. I spent yesterday carefully examining her foreign policy positions. Obama's spin-masters have misrepresented her orientation, but I've now read what she has to say firsthand. It's exactly the kind of sound integration of strength and fairness that I've always advocated. Hillary Clinton would have made a great president, but will likely not get that chance in 2008. It doesn't surprise me that an electorate that could choose bozo-Bush over Al Gore can also be drawn into supporting Barack Obama. Voters pick U.S. presidents with no more attention to leadership potential or issues than when they picked their class presidents in high school.

McCain is giving a major foreign policy speech today. I will be printing it out and studying it in the next few days. Until then, I will withhold judgment in relation to McCain. If McCain convinces me that his policies would be as bad or worse than Obama's, I will certainly say so at some point on this board. If not, I will be constrained by this board's policies from reflecting positively on McCain, so, in that event, I'd have to withhold my analysis from this site.

[BlueIdaho]

26. Absolutely!

Thats why she voted with Bush to go to war in Iraq - that was a very democratic principle... not.

[charlie]

29. "I have now studied... I will study"

See, that's what I'm talking about. You'd already declared your intent for a spite vote for McCain before you knew diddly about candidates not named Obama.

You want to teach the party a lesson about nominating neo-cons? Vote Green. Vote Libertarian. Vote Sinbad. Vote None of the Above. Voting McCain ensures BOTH parties will float neo-cons forever and ever, amen. You think adding to McCain's vote margins won't give ammo to the Democratic neo-con factions like the DLC? You think your moronic vote won't "send a message" that going neo-con is the ticket to electoral success?

Cripes, if your brain was as swollen as your self-regard, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[metalluk]

35. You are mistaken.

I challenge you to find anywhere in what I have written my stating an intention to vote for McCain. You won't because I certainly have made no such choice.

What I have declared repeatedly is that I will NOT be voting for Obama. I have also eliminated Nader.

That leaves: Clinton (if nominated), the Green Party candidate, McCain, a write-in, or staying home.

My decision NOT to vote for BO has nothing to do with spite.

It is based on my conviction that he is underqualified and potentially dangerous for the country and the world (based on cultism, an aggressive foreign policy, a dangerous linking of foreign policy to domestic initiatives, etc.). It is based on my duty as an American to vote for the candidate that I believe will be best for the country.

[charlie]

42. Jesus, dude

I put it upthread. You can pretend otherwise, but you'll be the only one. And you've just nicely reiterated your WILLINGNESS, which is exactly what I said, to vote McCain, thank you very much.

And your "duty as an American" compels you to print out and make final evaluations about candidate positions from their latest campaign posturings, while remaining ignorant of their history on such matters... well, good fucking luck with that. Here's a freebie for you -- you know how Kerry was derided as being "for it before he was against it"? Try to tote up a count of McCain's flip-flops on the war and imperialism (AKA neoconservatism), on theocrats run amok, on corporate interests hijacking legislation, on a crapload of issues that oughta interest you. Just tracking the moments when he vacillated between being a cheerleading hawk and a critic should occupy the rest of your week.

Again, if you were as serious as you are self-besotted, we wouldn't be here.

[metalluk]

45. The petty name-calling

I'll just ignore. It only reflects on yourself.

As far as "flip-flopping" goes, that's 50% an absurd concept. The 50% that is valid is that nobody likes a candidate who flip-flops based on electability considerations. The other 50% of what's referred to as "flip-flopping" consists of phony campaign attacks (regardless of which politician is being accused). Personally, I expect responsible, intelligent people (granted, there aren't a lot of politicians that fit that description, but some do) to absorb new information and reevaluate their positions rather than maintaining a doctrinaire adherence to a static view. Then, there's also the issue of nuance. A politician sometimes has to vote against a bill because of a particular adverse provision, even though they generally support what the bill was otherwise promoting. So, every so-called "flip-flop" requires careful evaluation to determine if it is just another cheap campaign tactic by an opponent or whether there is real evidence of cynical inconsistency.

Naturally, BO has a distinct advantage when it comes to accusations of flip-flopping. He hasn't been around long enough in Washington to have very much hard evidence that establishes his positions or to confront changing circumstances. Inexperienced candidates won't typically have as long a record from which to extract accusations of flip-flopping.

[charlie]

48. Fer chrissakes

You want to congratulate yourself for some imperious academic purview when you've admitted your breadth of knowledge about the candidates ranges from mere months ago? Go ahead. Meanwhile, try to reconcile Big John's opinion of fundie theocrats as dangerous with his pilgrimages to Bob Jones U and embrace of rightwing theocrats today. Explain to me how his characterization of the Surge as the final play in a bad hand that became an unmistakable signpost of success in Iraq is a "nuanced" assessment, when he knows the relative calm comes only from payola handed to Sunni insurgents not to attack us. Go ahead, give just those two a shot.

You've said your vote is reserved for McCain, should no else prove to be "appealing" to you. You are a preening, unserious poseur. You're not worth bothering with.

[JoFerret]

54. OO oooOO i don't believe you said that

obama is so like and she is DESPICABLE. and i hate her so much. she is a shrew and shritler and that proves it she lies.and now i wont vote because she is a shritler and ugly and anyway obama is pure and you said i hate her she is pure scum and beneath content. so ther

[Drachasor]

34. Right, and is that before or after you read crap into what Obama says and ignore his other policies?

If you treated Hillary the same way, she'd come out just as bad. Some people have done it, and reach the conclusion that she wants to stay in Iraq forever. Among other things, of course. Such claims are as baseless as your claims regarding Obama.

[metalluk]

40. I have treated Hillary to the same analysis, now.

Her speech given at George Washington University a few weeks ago is a model of liberal foreign policy. It strikes the ideal balance between strength and fairness, readiness to act and commitment to working with other nations constructively.

The crap in Obama's foreign policy speech was inserted by him or his foreign policy advisors. It was impossible to overlook. Ninety-two thousand MORE soldiers at a time when America is supposedly ending the war in Iraq. Are we supposed to imagine that the 10-15 brigades brought home from Iraq AND the roughly 26 brigades represented by the 92,000 new ground troops are expected to be holding down Camp LeJeune and Fort Dix?

Wake up and smell the gunpowder!

[RememberWellstone]

27. 3 weeks?

And this is what you came up with?

[Irishonly]

28. Good Grief

I know I am in a very small minority here but neither of our candidates are horrible people. Hyper critical posts of either of them accomplishes what? Obama is a man of great faith but he will not ever do what Bush has done. His foreign policy will not endanger our country any more than Hillary's would. President Carter was very religious and he never brought religion into his presidency. I wish we all could remember this and stop baiting each other and I am in the support the nominee camp.

[susankh4]

30. Here's the real question...

if you are looking at two candidates with conservative foreign policy leanings... would you vote for the one with experience? Or without? The war hero? Or the Harvard Law Review editor? The one who wishes to reinvent relations with our democratic allies? Or the one who wishes to forge relations with our (heretofore seen as) "enemies."

For most of America.... the choice will be obvious, I'm afraid. And it won't be the latter in any of these scenarios.

I do not know, really, that Hillary could go head to head on foreign policy with Mr. McCain either. But, she would have an example to hold up... that being the way we were perceived as a nation in the 90s.

MHO: Our Dem candidates need to steer as far afield of war and foreign policy issues as they can. They need to stick with economic issues, as that is where they can draw strong differences from Mr. McCain. The further Barack descends into the discussion of mideast policy.. the closer we get to losing. Having given a speech at a peace rally will not mean sh** to middle America.

[metalluk]

37. May I suggest

that you read the speech Clinton gave at George Washington University a few weeks ago.

She has a strong grasp of foreign policy issues. Remember, she served on the Transformation Committee (pertaining to modernizing our military forces) and the Armed Forces Advisory Committee. Obama also has a good grasp of foreign policy issues, at least in theory. The difference is in level of experience and, especially, in the tone the two candidates set out in their respective speeches. Clinton finds the right balance between strength and diplomacy. Obama seems bent on proving he could be as "tough" as John McCain. His policy speech is unnecessarily adversarial with respect to those nations that don't much like how America behaves in the world.

[susankh4]

46. Oh, I totally agree that Clinton is the better choice in this matter...

but I am also trying to be accepting of the fact that McCain will still likely trump us on foreign policy. Esp. with Condi as VP and Leiberman waiting in the wings to be Sec'y of State. We don't have to like any of these folks to admit that they do know something about foreign policy..... even if it is failed in our opinion.

McCain is already knocking Obama down on the issue of who he would develop relationships with outside of the US. He is very careful to say "our allies." And "democracies." And he also takes every opportunity to point out that Obama would meet with dangerous and untested leaders from Iran and the like.

[crispini]

39. Now, see, I liked your other post --

it had some good things to chew over --

but here, you're just being kind of an asshat. Hope that works out for you. :eyes:

[metalluk]

44. An asshat?

Sounds intriguing. Can I be a velvet one with a plume?

[PerfectSage]

53. You sound more like this kind of asshat.

[RestoreGore]

55. The Audacity Of Fraud

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/20/2648/

Pretty much explains it. His policies on Al Qaeda and war are pretty much what we got now. Remember, like all of the chosen ones he is AIPAC approved.

[LWolf]

56. This falls on deaf ears. n/t

[RestoreGore]

58. Yes, I know. And brainwashed minds.

[LWolf]

59. Amen!11!!

Hallelujah!11!!

:puke:

[The Doctor.]

60. And yet the facts don't support this delusion of yours.

nice.