12 posts from October 2008

This sounds to me like someone who wants to obfuscate the issue.  "The best defense is a strong offense" ...

As for your comment

I'll grant it's not something that your hero Bush would ever do.  He would rather "liberate" by force.  But that is not a real solution.  You can't "liberate" people from millenia of entrenched cultural and social norms by bombing them back to the stone age.  You fight ideas with better ideas.

That's unfair and uninformed.  We have approached Iraq with ideas..... Democracy? Individual Freedom? The Right to Life?....and have had absolutely profound effects.  Millions in Iraq are leading normal lives today - the millions who were afraid to even venture outside under Hussein's bloody dictatorial rule now picnic in the countryside. I would call that a good thing, even if Bill Clinton accomplished it. (Which he didn't)

I'm fine with you having liberal and differing views, but let's not buy the left's crap hook-line and sinker.   There has been a lot of good done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and America under George Bush is the driving force behind the good.

dad

and have you read the original article?  "spin" or no, it sounds to me like Obama would be a president dedicated to resolving the conflict between israel and palestine, which has been the primary cause of palestinian hatred of the USA since israel's creation.  In my opinion, there's really only one way to beat the terrorists... and Obama seems to agree with me.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story

As to the substance of the event, the fundraiser for Obama, it sounds like he's willing to entertain communication and dialogue with people whose viewpoints differ from his own.  Even people who we may not count as friends or even allies of the USA.  But it's a good thing, not a bad thing.  Honestly, how do you expect that we will ever resolve conflict with anti-american groups in the middle east?  Kill them all?  It can't be done.  That's why communication is a step towards victory, not capitulation.  Take the moral high ground and "win hearts and minds" for chrissakes.  Be open to compromise when possible, and live the american example of inclusiveness, honesty, fairness and freedom.  Does Obama want israel wiped from the face of the earth, just because he has spoken with a member of the PLO?  Of course not, it's ludicrous even to suggest it.  The truth is that in an exchange of ideas, the better idea wins.  If a former PLO spokesman has legitimate concerns for the welfare of his people, then Obama would be wise to listen to him.  Happier palestinians means fewer terrorists.

I'll grant it's not something that your hero Bush would ever do.  He would rather "liberate" by force.  But that is not a real solution.  You can't "liberate" people from millenia of entrenched cultural and social norms by bombing them back to the stone age.  You fight ideas with better ideas.

Now, as to the news story:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/la-times-refuses-release-tape-obama-praising-controversial-activist/

"This is a story that we reported on six months ago, so any suggestion that we're suppressing the tape is absurd -- we're the ones that brought the existence of the tape to light," Sullivan said.

the suggestion of its existence is almost certainly more inflammatory than the actual substance of the tape, and the evidence is the timing: why is everyone getting excited about it now when the story was printed six months ago?  Because six months ago, people would have said "so what" if the tape were released, but now, a week before the election, fox news can throw a tantrum and get people riled up.

You think that the LA Times refusing to release the tape is a sign of bias, but I say it's the opposite.  They own the tape and can do what they want with it, including not sharing it when fox news freaks out over a non-story a week before the election. conservatives just want something to get angry about, and the LA times said go get your kicks somewhere else.

Yawn.

Here's one for you to refute.   Be open-minded here, no spin.

The LA Times is refusing to release a tape of Obama celebrating with an anti-Israeli Palestine group.

So much for our free and unbiased press, huh?  Kind of brings into question everything we base our beliefs on, doesn't it?

Per one report...............

L.A. Times Holding Video of Obama Praising Rashid Khalidi - Posted on October 26, 2008 by Nancy

Just when you think it can't get worse, the media sinks lower.  It seems the Los Angeles Times is sitting on a video of Barack Obama at a 2003 dinner honoring Rashid Khalidi, Israeli critic and defender of Palestinian rights. The full story can be found here.

Obama praised Khalidi during the event and stayed through the anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish sentiments expressed by others.  Some other associations between the two men include:

• Khalidi, described as a former PLO spokesman, threw a fundraiser for Obama in 2000
• The Obamas were frequent dinner guests of the Khalidis
• Obama funneled about $75,000 to Khalidi's anti-Israeli Arab American Action Network through his work at the Woods Foundation

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

- Los Angeles Times

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases… It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

- Gateway Pundit

Dad

I dunno, I try to avoid most of the news about either side, but for about two weeks nobody talked about ANYTHING other than ayers.  Then they finally got tired of it.  It's just not the big scandal that conservatives thought it should be.  Your only hope now is to catch him cheating on his wife...

Countered....... the press could report on the relationships if they wanted to.  Bottom line is they choose not to (thus - the point of the article).  As for Obama's posting - if I sent you something from McCain's website you would reply to me that talk is cheap, and that politicians can and will say anything to get elected. Right?

Good answer though.  I continue to be impressed with your use of information and avoidance of generalizations with all replies.   You build strong cases.  Too bad you support the wrong side.

:-)

Dad

two things (copied and pasted)...

"Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview?"

Yes, actually, they are. Ayers refuses to give interviews, end of story, and Rezko is under indictment. At a guess (because I can't confirm it), I would think that Rezko has been advised by his lawyers to not give any interviews at all, at least until after his trial.

I'm honestly surprised that Malone is so ignorant of those two facts that he would pose the question of "Are [they] that hard to interview?" That question has been answered again and again with a resounding "Yes, and not for lack of trying."

...and straight from obama's positions on his website:

Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets

• Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
• Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Barack Obama believes that the nation's rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.

point being, you can worry all you want about the dangers of the fairness doctrine, but obama doesn't actually support it.

Please read this......................

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

I'm sure he will allow other flavors in the soda fountains too... coke, sprite, dr. pepper... hopefully no pepsi though.

Think about it........ I'm guilty of nothing more than Obama does in every speech.    He compares a McCain term as "8 more years of Bush"....not true.  He says "McCain will give billions of dollars in new tax breaks to the big oil companies"........ not true, he will allow an existing tax break to ride.   He says "McCains' plan will give $10 back to the poor but $50,000 to the richest in the country" in an effort to incite anger ... pathetically misleading to the point of fraudulence....   If $50K is a percentage of tens of millions or billions of income, then so be it.  It is probably a smaller percentage to the rich than the $10 (assuming that to be true, which I don't) he will give to the poor.  BUT.... Obama makes it sound like the $50K going to the rich is oodles of money, when in fact $50K each to 1% of the population is a WHOLE LOT LESS than the BILLIONS Obama wants to redistribute to the poor.  Obama's campaign is all about root beer in the soda fountains. Sounds good, but will never happen.  He is buying this election with false hope and empty promises.   He is simply a creation of the power-left, and is filled with smoke and mirror rhetoric.

Dad