Posted by hossdog001 on May 16, 2008 at 12:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This tells me that Obama knows nothing about these kind of people in the world that want to destroy the USA. The people he wants to sit down with and "TALK THINGS OUT" with, will use him and his staft like toilet paper. THE ONLY HOUSE OBAMA SHOULD BE RUNNING FOR IS THE OUT HOUSE!!! I also agree with Harpo...The race card is next.

Posted by ssriyer on May 16, 2008 at 2:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

President Bush has proved that he is as irresponsible as ever, while giving his speech in the Knesset. Its really pathetic that the people living in USA has chosen him as the President. Apart from anarchy, destruction and a sliding economy Bush has not given anything to US. He handed out death sentences to thousands of US soldiers to be killed in Iraq. They continue to be executed as this man conducts his daughter's marriage and continues to be as irresponsible as ever. Oil prices are increasing, for which he is responsible, obviously so, since his family benefits what with their interests in Oil.
Many of the uttering of Bush wreaks of incompetency, foolishness, irresponsibility and lack of accountability. And his actions have also been cantankerous for which the People of USA endorsed. Its no wonder that today USA is reeling under the pressure of a shattering economy. After all what can they expect under a brainless tyrant?
The whole world is suffering because of this one nicompoop. He can be likened to Osama Bin Laden, but with a difference! He is endorsed by the people living in America and the likes of Tony Blair - the born Sycophant of Bush from UK!!
Don't call him President.. call him Tyrant!!

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 5:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for 8 years of dedicated service President Bush.

Posted by lowcountrylover on May 16, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BUSH NEVER MENTIONED HIS NAME, BUT OBAMA KNEW IT WAS ABOUT HIM WHEN HE SAID SOME PEOPLE WOULD NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS. OBAMA IS A NUT!!

Posted by tripsa on May 16, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ssriyer - thats a lot of mis-placed hate.

Thank God for President Bush.

Obama is nothing more than a child that cant take the least bit of getting his feelings hurt, what a wuss. I hope this guy does not get anywhere near the White House.

Hillary has more down there than Barak Hussien Obama.

Obama, and Carter, two of a kind. Appeasers.

Posted by tripsa on May 16, 2008 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain said: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism? ... My question is, what does he want to talk about?"

Good Question...

Posted by tripsa on May 16, 2008 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ssriyer; blame the right people for high oil and gas prices, the Liberals, the left wing enviro nuts, and the global warming hoax clowns with their useful idiots on the democRAT side - http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles...

Posted by skeeter on May 16, 2008 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I like what Marlon Brando said in the Godfather. Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer.

Posted by tripsa on May 16, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Inhofe blamed Democratic policies going as far back as the Clinton administration.

“The Democrats are the reason we have high prices at the pumps, and we’re not going to be able to alleviate that until we start producing again in America,” Inhofe added. “And I knew this was happening way back, well 10 years ago, when President Clinton vetoed the bill that would have allowed us to drill in ANWR. I said on the Senate floor that day 10 years ago that in 10 years we would regret this. It’s now 10 years later.”

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You southern hicks are unsophisticated in world affairs. You people need to go to the re-education camps and learn the ways of comrade Obama. He’s a Harvard graduate and he is much smarter and more sophisticated than the American people in the art of diplomacy. Comrade Obama will reach across the ocean and bring our enemies and friends together. Remember he is the candidate of change and hope. Give peace a chance.

Posted by 5thGenerationLocal on May 16, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

F Obama and his "changes." He, Hillary and Pelosi should should go down in a fiery plane crash and leave this earth. All at once would be even better.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How do you spell "sinking ship"?

O B A M A

Do you really want a President that runs around the White House yelling "Mommy! Mommy! He called me a name!!!"

Posted by greyrider on May 16, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course Bush was referring to Obama. But why is Obama upset for Bush bringing up a philosophy that Obama was shouting from the rooftops? Is it that Obama now realizes how stupid some of his ideas are?

Posted by Larz13 on May 16, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The only "change" Obama wants to make is the removal of the change from your pocket!

It appears that Riptide has signed on to the Jimmy Carter-Barack Osama school of foreign affairs. Appeasment! Get real...this guy's got a lot to learn. Going to Harvard may make you book smart but not street smart.

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I used to think like you guys but a few weeks in the re-education camps and the drugs can change your entire outlook on life.

Posted by greyrider on May 16, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 9:24 a.m.

"I used to think like you guys but a few weeks in the re-education camps and the drugs can change your entire outlook on life."

I'm afraid to ask.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL

Posted by blondjes on May 16, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Riptide: your the low life here, i'm from NY and my father is a retired NYC firefighter, and WE know that Obama doesn't have a clue how to handle terrorists and Iran, your the clueless narrow minded one in here, southern people are not stupid! i should know i'm proudly married to a southern man currently serving in the US military, shame on you!

Posted by carlosthedwarf on May 16, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barack Obama is naive and foolish to thinking that he can sit down, hold hands and chant "Kom-bi-ya" with people like Ahmadinejad. The only way I would ever consider talking to Ahmadinejad is if he wanted to talk about peace by shutting down Iran's nuclear program.

Posted by Native_Ink on May 16, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whatever. If Hitler were a Republican, some people in S.C. would vote for him. Grow a brain, people. What have Republican politicians given you? A state that's last in everything?

Posted by carlosthedwarf on May 16, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Riptide: Your argument is so filled with inaccuracies and dishonesty and I'm going to nuke it right now.

"You southern hicks are unsophisticated in world affairs. You people need to go to the re-education camps and learn the ways of comrade Obama."

This coming from the same man urging us to "give peace a chance"? I love it when you peaceniks bash the hell out of America and our military, talk down to our people but then get sanctimonious by chanting the mantra of "peace and love." Incidentally, isn't "comrade" a term of affection that Communists use for their friends?

"He’s a Harvard graduate and he is much smarter and more sophisticated than the American people in the art of diplomacy."

So because he's a Harvard graduate that makes him smarter and more sophisticated than the American people? Well, hell, let's just vote for Harvard graduates in every election. Hmm...he's sophisticated in the art of diplomacy yet he aligns himself with a hateful, racist, anti-American preacher who spews this bile for 23 years in his church yet he doesn't remember hearing any of it? Oh yeah. He's smart alright. And sophisticated.

"Comrade Obama will reach across the ocean and bring our enemies and friends together. Remember he is the candidate of change and hope. Give peace a chance."

Yes, yes, he is the man of hope. I think he's only mentioned this about 1,000 times during his campaign. Obama is a clever politician but he is no different from most of them. He says he is the candidate of change and I agree with him. Change for the worse. Higher taxes, bigger government, far-left judges, more spending, military cuts, negotiating with terrorists and our enemies. We already had a leader like Barack Obama. His name was Jimmy Carter.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm thinking I'm reading sarcastic humor in Riptides comments. Either that, or he's actually flipped :)

Oh your candidiate has a first name
Its B A R A C K
Your candidiate has a second name
Its O B A M A
I laugh about him every day
And if you ask me why I'll sayyyyyyyy....
Cause Barack Obama has a way
Of F'n up the USA!

Posted by carlosthedwarf on May 16, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Native_Ink: typical response by someone who loses an argument-"whatever". You obviously are one of the uneducated ones in South Carolina. Which party overwhelming voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Republican. Which party had the President who came up with the Emancipation Proclamation? Republican. More Democrats than Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s supported segregation and "Jim Crow" laws. And BTW racism is not just in the south and you know that.

Posted by carlosthedwarf on May 16, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama is such a smart man. I tell you, the man is a genius. Why, just today he announced that when he's elected President he's going to visit all 57 states.

Posted by tripsa on May 16, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that riptide was being SARCASTIC!

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

US interests must submit to the interest of internationalism. We must think globally and Obama is the right candidate for the global village. We must merge our interest and wealth to the interest of the United Nations.

My break is over and I must return to the re-education camp.

Posted by CHRISJIII on May 16, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is due to the thinking and support from people like most of the posters here that Bush has been allowed to wreck this country and ruin our name around the world. You can really tell who has ever taken the time to read a history or political science book and who hasn't.

Posted by archdude on May 16, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You know, some of you folks are DEFINITELY MAKING SOUTHERN PEOPLE LOOK STUPID if you can not even tell the sarcasm and satire in riptide's post.

Golly gee willickers, huckleberry, wesa been outed! Those who could not tell satire was satire when it was so obviously placed, please turn in your computer as you evidently are not smart enough to post.

Posted by Riptide on May 16, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Arch…

It’s not my intentions to make southern people look stupid but this is way a lot of liberals think and if anything, liberals have a tremendous amount of contempt towards the people of this country. Otherwise they wouldn’t be elitist and go against the people’s will.

Posted by greyrider on May 16, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"You can really tell who has ever taken the time to read a history or political science book and who hasn't."

Let's define terms:
Book about the Founding Fathers written prior to the year 1900 - History Book

Book written about the Founding Fathers by 1960's activist - Propaganda

Bush hasn't been perfect but THANK GOD we didn't have to deal with Al "Global Warming" Gore or John Kerry, who openly admitted that when he heard about the 9/11 attacks, he froze and "for about 45 minutes, I couldn't even think"
Comforting.
Presidents can always be better, but they can also be worse....a lot worse.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said greyrider.

Posted by Test2007 on May 16, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hmmm, I love how "elite" is the new code word. Just like yesterday it was "liberal". Lovely. Oh as for someone saying obama is calling "mommy mommy" in the white house. That is loads better than someone using Daddy's agenda from years back to start ANOTHER war. hmmm.

greyrider: How the hell do you know if Gore or kerry would have been worse? We've been living with Junior for the past 8 years. I am sure it is nice to spout the what ifs but give me a break why don't ya?

Posted by Test2007 on May 16, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I forgot to add that it is always a "nice" day perusing p&c boards. I just wish I could browse some days and have some of the opinions actually shock me for once.

Posted by SCdeacinNYC on May 16, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bush "hasn't been perfect". There are understatements and then there are GROSS understatements.

I understand that many of you think the Bush mentality of dealing with hostile leaders has worked, but let's think about that when we squash Al-Qaeda for good, "win" the war in Iraq AND Afghanistan and actually put some muscle on some other "evil" dictators doing real HARM across the world, (ahem, China anyone). Last time I checked,we will be in Iraq indefinitely, situation is worse and worse in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda is beefing up yet again and we are too hesitant to put pressure on China for killing its own citizens because our government refuses to unless its convenient to them. Oh and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

All of that is just a teensy bit below "not perfect."

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Test2007, why not just type "We lost the election.... twice.. and we're gonna complain, dammit!"?

Posted by Test2007 on May 16, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

coldbeer - hellyeah i am complaining. Not because "we" lost but becaus sh&% is bad and if you don't see it then you must be blind.

seriously...

Posted by quickthought on May 16, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love my president. It was about time someone to stood up for the United States of America. I hate to think what this country will come to if either of the democratic hopefuls are elected to office. Neither of them fits the bill for "Commander in Chief".

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Test2007, quite honestly, I don't see that things are so bad and I've got 20/20 vision (if not better). I'd like for gas tobe cheaper, but it's not like it's breaking my back. These political discussions always go the same way. I bashed on Clinton for 8 years and now you've bashed on Bush for 8 years. Same ol' same ol'. "IF" Bush messed up.. at least he did it trying to defend the freedoms of the United States and not playing "hide the cigar". Either way, they'll both soon be history. You'll get to bitch about McCain for at least 4 years and then we'll move on to something else.

Posted by jsks on May 16, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here we go again....

First of all, Obama isn't crying about President Bush's comments, he is merely pointing out the inconsistencies in his statement. Three things that all of the Obama hatin', right wing, Rush Limbaugh lovin' lock step Republicans on this board should know.

1. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, McCain was interviewed and was asked whether American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now charge? McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another....its a new reality in the Middle East" That is a direct quote from John McCain. It sounds like he is saying we should talk to our enemies and not just threaten them.

2. Obama isn't calling for appeasment, he is calling for discussion. There is a difference. Appeasement means to give something up, like a swatch of land, resources, etc...Obama has not and is not calling for that. I would suggest President Bush and all the rest of you lock step Republicans read your history books. Neville Chamberlain went to Hitler and gave up land. By merely talking with a nation does not constitute appeasement. Are some of you folks actually suggesting that this administration's stance on foreign policy has been successful? Iran is more powerful than they were 8 years ago. Israel is definitely not as safe as they were 8 years ago and North Korea thinks this administration is a joke. Are you people living in the same world the rest of us are?

3. Here is another dirty little secret. After years of putting their head in the sand and resisting the urge to speak to our enemies, what is the administration finally doing? Do you people read! We are talking with North Korea and Iran!! Hello?

Get your facts straight before you spout off about Obama's lack of experience or how Democrats are soft on defense and start thinking for yourselves! Watch something other than Fox, you may be surprised to find there are other opinions out there.

Posted by Larz13 on May 16, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Test2007 will be complaining about not getting free healthcare and having to find a job. Hey--look on the bright side--at least you could move to CA and have gay marriage.

Posted by Larz13 on May 16, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jsks-

To address some of the inconsistencies in your rant-

You are correct, to a point that the US is talking to NK and Iran, but at a lower level. Perhaps Brian Williams didn't tell you that. Obama when asked, specifically stated on a national TV debate that he, himself would speak with the president of Iran (I am not going to butcher the spelling of his name), without any reservations. Having our president speak with someone like this or Kim Jong Il (that one I can get close to spelling correctly) gives them legitimacy and with state controlled media, can be manipulated (e.g NBC news, etc.) to appear that the dictator has approval from foreign leaders.

Further...Hamas is regarded as a sponsor of terrorism. We know it, Isreal knows it and would not want to give legitimacy to it. If Pelosi and Jimmy Carter want to, well then they don't seem to represent the wishes of this nation. Remember that Carter has also hob-nobbed with Castro too.

And Joe Biden's speech yesterday was not very presidential. Perhaps that may take him out of the VP race.

Posted by Test2007 on May 16, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Larz13, unlike someone folks i actually have a job which is why i can't post on whim like everyone.

Coldbeer - hmm war? high oil prices? What else is not so bad? Also, I'd rather my president play hide the cigar than play war games. Junior's war is costing us trillions and we're still in debt to china but no that isn't as important as slick willy's sex games in the oval office. Nice. I am happy that the gas prices aren't killing you but you don't represent everyone in this country either. While you're ok with it some people are breaking their bank accounts.

Posted by greyrider on May 16, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just curious, who here believes Bush has the authority to end the war? In other words, who here believes that if we pull out, the war will end?

Posted by Weeeee on May 16, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"My fellow Americans, I have a plan of hope and change. Thank you." hahhahha

Since more than likely it'll be Obama/McCain in November, at this point, McCain has my vote. I'm not happy with how the Bush administration has ran the country the last eight years. That doesn't mean I'm going to "switch sides" and vote Dem just because their candidate is preaching "hope and change". Yes, hope and change through lightening my wallet. I'll pass.

Anyway, until either party offers a real viable candidate, my vote will go to the one who I feel is best suited for the job....even if it means 4+ more years of crap administration.

Posted by BKLYNIRISH on May 16, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great speech, actually, and I am sure he did not lose sight of the thousands of American citizens living in Israel that will be voting in November.

I may not believe that the State of Israel is the great ally in the region that many believe her to be, but this administration has treated her very well.

Posted by theronce on May 16, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As best I can tell, some bad guys declared war on us and attacked us. We showed up. Now we cannot and will not give them what they want, so they will not call it off.

Posted by SCdeacinNYC on May 16, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

theronce, what actually happened was:

Terrorists from Al-Qaeda attacked us. We then showed up the country that was housing part of their home base for a while, Afghanistan. We never found Osama (not that it would matter) and then we toppled the Taliban which we had previously installed in power.

COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THAT: We got bad intelligence (or decided on our own whim, who really knows?) on a possible situation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. We took over the entire country in less than three weeks, found no weapons or even a trace of weapons. Declared victory. Capture Sadaam, over threw his party and we've been there since. The attacks created chaos and a catch-22 for the United States with no easy solution. We disposed of a horrible dictator we previously supported and at the same time created a terrorist haven in a country where it didnt exist before. Thousands of U.S. troops have died and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died. Meanwhile many Americans have very little understanding why we are in EITHER conflict and continuously boil it down to "they hate us for our freedom" and they "want to destroy our way of life", et cetera.

As Americans we need to stop believing some simplicities and research what's really going on here. We owe it to our country to not blindly follow what leaders tell us or plant into our heads. I don't care if its Bush, Clinton, Obama or McCain, we have to hold our leaders accountable for the direction they lead our nation in.

What this administration has done foreign policy wise is an abomination, I'm definitely open to another approach.

Posted by Test2007 on May 16, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

greyrider - Don't know who the question was for but i will answer. If we pull out I doubt the war will end, but our folks will no longer be in harm's way. I guess that is kind of selfish of me, but we can forget about that crap. I heard they are building bases over there. You know what that means.

Posted by archdude on May 16, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Test2007

Yes, it will be like the Korean War...a conflict that is still ongoing as their was never officially a treaty ending it...just a cease fire.

Posted by archdude on May 16, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry..."their" equals "there" in my last post. I was on the phone at the time...shucks--why is there not an edit feature?

The lack of a formal treaty of resolution will keep the war ongoing for at least 100 years even if and when we pull out.

Posted by jsks on May 16, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

inconsistencies? Thats what McCain said and by the way, you didnt address that. I am not arguing that Obama DIDNT say that. I agree with him, although it isnt appeasement was my point.

Joe Biden's speech was about the unwritten rule that President Bush clearly ignored. Don't go airing your laundry in your neighbors backyard.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I said... same ol' same ol'

Posted by ceecee on May 16, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Theronce,

When did Iraq attack us?

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Iraq attacked our interests. The purpose of our military is to protect the United States and its interest.

Posted by ceecee on May 16, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't follow. What interests?

Posted by Test2007 on May 16, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Iraq attacked our interests? When? How? This is the first I am hearing about this.

Posted by ceecee on May 16, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That sounds like pretty dangerous territory since our "interests" could be anything depending on the situation. Sounds like some more yellow cake to me.

Posted by MooMoo on May 16, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For those of you who think things are so bad, I offer the following (attributed to Jay Leno, not sure of that but it's good stuff regardless...)

The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It
must be true, given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?''

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?

Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?

Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?

Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?

I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.

Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provides services to help all,

and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital..

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the
unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters ill appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.

Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped
with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.

This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

Posted by ColdBeer on May 16, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are correct in that our "interests" could be just about anything. Our allies... their interests. Just about anything that the President or Congress deems important. When Iraq attacked Kuwait, it was deemed in our best "interest" to come to the aid of Kuwait. The Iraqi goverment was attacking its own people with WMDs. It was deemed in our best interest to remove that threat. It is dangerous territory, but the policy has always existed.

Posted by MooMoo on May 16, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

continued from last post

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the
world?

Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord welive here.

I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?

The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?

Think about it ...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the
"Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may
have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go.

They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge
or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

Posted by MooMoo on May 16, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

part 3 of 3

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it
on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are
for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them
in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about "how he
didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way"...Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York
Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.

"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the
country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"

Posted by Test2007 on May 16, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah, you're going into the first one. The gulf war. I was actually talking about the one we are in now. You know, the one draining the American people of trillions of dollars. Not that I don't care about our allies or our interests but lets take care of business over here first.

Posted by SCdeacinNYC on May 16, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok MooMoo ...I qualify your 3 post long rant as beginning with under "blind acceptance of presidential authority as 'patriotism" and ending hilariously with "typical doomsday religious paranoia"

And about America's media ....if anything they should be faulted with failing to supply us with adequate information and not asking nearly enough difficult questions in the lead up to any of these wars. This whole idea that the media is some machine out against President Bush is ridiculous. They are for whatever story, and part of their job is to inform us to hold our leaders accountable. If the Media is responsible for our negative view of the President, how do you account for the fact that the most-watched news network is Fox News.

Now back to the real debate at hand....

Posted by MooMoo on May 16, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As for the topic of the article: Obama knows that earlier in his campaign, he did in fact misstep in the eyes of many from both sides of the aisle by indicating a willingness to meet with foreign leaders deemed unworthy of such negotiation in established foreign policy. Anyway, I think that’s why he is reacting defensively – it’s a tactic to try and assuage any concerns about where he stands (or claims to stand? I am not sure) where Israel is concerned in particular, and where negotiating with known terrorists is concerned in general. The whole effort was so transparent…it’s nothing more than campaign soundbiting at its finest…

It's hard to know where Obama really stands on anything. all he talks about is change and hope without providing many specifics on what that really means.

Posted by ceecee on May 16, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Coldbeer,

I understand with Kuwait but not Iraq. That is part of the problem in my opion is there is so much grey area to deal with. If protecting the Iraq people from Saddam was in our interest why not Darfur. I would guess it has something to do with the fact that there is no oil in the country to pay for our efforts. I know that is spectulation but seriously I think that we are fooling ourselves if we don't believe that. Those areas better hope we don't ever find oil there.

MooMoo,

I truly appreciate our way of life but that wasn't really the topic besides surely you are not crediting W with those amenities?

Posted by MooMoo on May 16, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You miss the point entirely SCDeacin, which is: being grateful for how much we have compared to people in many other parts of the world, keeping things in perspective, and not believing everything we are spoonfed.

Moving on...

Posted by SCdeacinNYC on May 16, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't miss the point, instead I think it's good to be grateful for everything in your life, including the nation you were lucky to be born in and still be a responsible and good American by holding your country and your president accountable without blindly following its mistakes.

And given your re-publication of this "essay", I think you should take your own advice about now belieiving everything you are "spoonfed" if you think GWB alone will keep you "safe from terrorists"...that is ridiculous. If the media is spoonfeeding anything its more food for the typical American apathetic appetite which choses to believe whatever requires the least amount of action and sacrifice from themselves.

Posted by MooMoo on May 16, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Allwoman. You will note in my first post I mention that it was attributed to Jay Leno but that I was unsure about that. Thank you for the additional info!

Posted by Cid95 on May 16, 2008 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I voted for Bush twice. Not because I thought he was a great candidate, but he was better than Gore and Kerry.

Having said that, I bet at least 50% of Americans incorrectly think that Iraq attacked us on Sept 11, 2001 and the invasion was payback.

Saddam was an arsehole, true. But there are lots of them around running countries (Mugabe, Kim, the military junta in Myanmar, etc). We don't invade and occupy countries because their leaders suck.

As an iron-fisted dictator, Saddam wouldn't tolerate threats to his regime. Like Al Qaeda. No proven link between Saddam's Iraq and AQ has ever surfaced.

We took a gamble in Iraq to try and install a friendly, viable government in the heart of the Arab world.
Five years later, we need to realize that the gamble failed. It would have been a strategic success if it had worked, but it didn't. The civil war in Iraq will continue whether we stay or not. It will take another Saddam type of guy to end it.

ps - Riptide's "Comrade Obama" thing was such obvious sarcasm that I'm embarrassed for all the people that took the bait.

Posted by ceecee on May 16, 2008 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cid95,

That is a refreshing post considering you voted for W. I think your right about Sept. 11 and Iraq. Ironically it will take someone similiar to Saddam to stabilize that country. The entire culture is very complicated and out of our reach of understanding. There is a reason they have been at war with each other for millenia. Thomas Friedman, in my opinion, has a great perspective of this, his book "From Beirut to Jerusalem" would be a worhwhile read for anyone interested in the opinion of someone who has lived there.