Barbara Walters raised the question of potential assassination threats from racists to Obama on Wednesday night's interview. Displaying a National Socialist publication with Obama's head in a target, she asked:
I want to ask you a sensitive question. There is, of course, a tremendous outpouring of good will towards you. There has also been a reported increase in racist violence since you were elected. There are crosses being burned. There are Internet racist postings. Authorities say there are more threats against you than any other president in history. Why do you think this is happening?
She added:
There are a lot of people concerned about your safety. Are you concerned about your safety?
This allowed Obama to say he wasn't worried, in part because "I have a deep religious faith." Walters avoided the racism of Obama's longtime minister. Obama's old church or his choice of a new one did not come up.
The opening slammed Bush:
In only 55 days, Barack Obama will replace one of the most unpopular presidents in modern history. He will inherit two wars and an economic crisis not seen since the Great Depression.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Obama's "Faith"
November 27, 2008 - 07:21 ET by PopularTechObama's Pastor (Video) (2min)
Censored Global Warming Videos
no matter one's political stripe
November 27, 2008 - 07:24 ET by abeautifulpersondeath threats against the president-elect is nothing to take lightly or be downplayed. the murder of the president - whether he is democrat, conservative, green or otherwise - is an attack against not only america but an attack on the democratic system.
it needs to be discussed. and if there is anything that requires solidarity it is this issue.
abp
November 27, 2008 - 07:39 ET by AgnosticI agree with your statement but I do have two problems.
One, I work in a racially split neighborhood with periodic problems and have seen nothing since the election to make me believe there is any problems. While not indicative of a nation there is usually some type of local problem here for any national issue.
Also the following:
http://sweetness-lig...
http://sweetness-lig...
While only two articles that happened to be easy for me to find they are not alone in my memory. From the Duke case to nooses the media has blown race problems entirely out of proportion and guess which direction they always seem to side with.
one more for general treatment of people for their beliefs:
http://sweetness-lig...
If these supposedly increased racial problems are true then the people need to be held accountable for their ignorance. If, as I suspect, the media is just creating a story and an issue for Obama then who will hold the media accountable.
sorry. i'm not really a fan of S-L
November 27, 2008 - 09:50 ET by abeautifulpersoni suggest the racially split neighbourhoods are not the places where racism percolates. as someone who tracked (and fought - literally) nazi skinheads in the 80's, i can say these types are parked far away from the 'mud' people. white supremacists don't mix.
this issue is not unlike terrorism, in that, people must be vigilant and cannot assume its overhyped. in my lifetime, 2 presidents have been shot.
oh and for mr poptech: i may despise the sitting president but no death threat is acceptable to any president.
i'm of the opinion bush should spend time in jail, but never on the receiving end of an assassin's bullet.
one more thing. correct me if i am wrong but: all conservatives may not be republicans, but aren't all republicans, conservative? just asking
No all Republicans are not Conservative
November 27, 2008 - 10:13 ET by PopularTechMany are RINOs and really liberals. Arnold, McCain ect...
Yeah Bush should be in jail for what? Your deluded fantasies?
Censored Global Warming Videos
not conservative by who's definition?
November 27, 2008 - 10:18 ET by abeautifulpersonleft of you isn't necessarily on the left.
bush in jail... want a list? forget it. i don't have the time.
nuff said.
Obama, worst president in history
November 27, 2008 - 10:26 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI would agree that Obama (drugs, racial intimidation, association with terrorists, lying to the public in order to get elected, falsifying government paperwork, etc., etc., etc.) belongs in prison, but what crimes that Congress was unable to prosecute Bush for are you aware of?
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
What list? Your delusional fantasies?
November 27, 2008 - 10:43 ET by PopularTechTypical liberal, no facts to back up their delusional fantasies. You are so used to spouting off unsubstantiated allegations to your brainwashed friends, you are never called upon to prove anything - so you think you are right.
You don't have the time because you don't have jack.
Censored Global Warming Videos
pfffft
November 27, 2008 - 11:36 ET by abeautifulpersonjust because i don't spend the next hour compiling a number of issues which are potentially illegal (many revolve around the iraq war), for you to dismiss, doesn't mean they don't exist. war crimes are really the heart of the matter. unfortunately, utter ineptitude is not criminally prosecutable.
ABP
November 27, 2008 - 11:40 ET by MrShyYou're on here railing about crimes committed by Bush and his administration.
Find the time and make that list.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
I don't have the
November 27, 2008 - 11:45 ET by motherbeltI don't have the time....nuff said
Well you certainly have no argument to counter that, Shy!
ABP..I'm with Shy...put up or shut up.
PS...policy disagreements are not crimes.
Funny,
November 27, 2008 - 12:27 ET by RukusEven the crickets are silent! The truth always gets in the way doesn't it ABwhatever. The KosKids heart ya!
"Bri is with Jesus now, we will meet again, just not right now. We love you Bri!"
you must realize, there's not enough APB to go around
November 27, 2008 - 13:38 ET by abeautifulpersongoogle: indict president bush and start reading.
ABP
November 27, 2008 - 13:46 ET by MrShyYou're a lightweight in every aspect with regards to politics and debating. You don't belong here.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
abp is a demo, partner with the killer of Lincoln, buds/w KKK
November 27, 2008 - 13:57 ET by upcountrywaterabp is a DEMOCRAT
Aclu</
today is a busy day for me
November 27, 2008 - 14:07 ET by abeautifulpersonthere's nothing i'd like more than to spend hours compiling my resources so you could dismiss them with a flick of your wrist. really.
but today i am a busy with several projects. i can't be all things to all people. but i'll say this: i'm needed more here than you.
sometimes i'm up for debating, sometimes i make statements and critique the critic and i don't care to debate. sometimes i don't have time. you'll just have to suffer.
hanging out at newsbusters is like a table tennis match against several people at a time. some are good some are not. you aren't qualified to judge, since i've seen little from you. keep an eye out. you'll know when i have time to debate. later.
abp, The Truth HURTS , you democrat LMAO
November 27, 2008 - 16:51 ET by upcountrywatercompile your brains out.. DEMOCRAT
And stumble around with your paperwork like the Aclu</
Go for it.... START.
"sometimes i'm up for
November 28, 2008 - 08:02 ET by NL207"sometimes i'm up for debating, sometimes i make statements "
Mostly you are just full of crap, zero fact and all opinion.
ABP, I agree with you, we
November 28, 2008 - 08:16 ET by motherbeltABP, I agree with you, we don't always have time for debates.
But I do think if you're going to make generalized statements like:
bush in jail... want a list? forget it. i don't have the time.
nuff said.
war crimes are really the heart of the matter.
and not expect anyone to ask for specifics; especially about "war crimes" which is a very serious charge.
Klinton charged with War Crimes
November 28, 2008 - 08:25 ET by Sergeant ROCKNo, try searching 'International Criminal Tribunal, Clinton, Cohen, war crimes, Yugoslavia'.
As far as I know, Klinton, not Bush, is the only President actually indicted for 'war crimes'.
Alan KEYES 2012
I usually don't feed trolls . . .
November 29, 2008 - 15:35 ET by DoktorFranken. . . . but I will make an exception.
''google: indict president bush and start reading.''
And the resultant hits would be mostly all of the Left's nutty, wacko, SFBrains groups that make up this crap out of pure gas - of which the Left has an abundance. Some ''proof''. Why don't you just chant ''Bush lied, people died!'' a few thousand times. It would be based in the same lie most everything else you write is.
And as far as ping-pong goes, I don't play. But I do like watching a dweeb like you flailing in the gaseous breeze created by the loony-tunes you hang out with on a regular basis on your Leftist sites. And, I enjoy the truthful, insightful, and intelligent way the folks here cut you to ribbons each and every time. You deserve it.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
November 27, 2008 - 19:35 ET by JWFYou threw out the jail bomb troll, back it up.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
a couple reasons why BUSH should be indicted
November 28, 2008 - 17:19 ET by abeautifulpersonsorry i couldn't generate this list sooner. i have been swamped with work and have to divide my time carefully. i'm sure you understand.
i am no lawyer, so if you are going to argue specific words, get lost. i am not writing something to be debunked as how it is written. as a non-lawyer, the essence will have to be enough for you...
1. WAR CRIMES - IRAQ
the fabrication of evidence, ignoring of real evidence, the manipulation of evidence in order to invade iraq. i am not interested in arguing whether saddam was bad or a terrorist. this war is an illegal one, initiated on false and doctored evidence. spin-offs to this is the legality of gitmo and the issue of torture among others.
2. ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS
this administration has been eavesdropping not only on americans but on people around the world, illegally. right now, exec's from a number of ISP and telecommunication companies are looking for to dodge future, possible criminal charges. the president does not possess the authoritarian right to engage in behaviour which congress prohibits under the law.
3. AUTHORIZATION of ILLEGAL WEAPONS
depleted uranium, white phosphorus, cluster bombs are all arguably weapons of mass destruction. their use are war crimes.
even george bush himself is concerned he may be indicted. he is trying to figure out how to blanket pardon, include pardoning himself. right now.
there are some very compelling arguments for the indictment of george bush.
this is an interesting read.
http://www.iacenter....
nuff said on my end. i anticipate this as being an endless circle of nasty insults and accusations that all my factless opinions are baseless, so i will cut this it and spend those pointless hours dodging poison darts with my family. enjoy your weekend.
abp... Blah... blah...
November 28, 2008 - 17:31 ET by bigtimerabp...
Blah... blah... blah....
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
1. WAR CRIMES -
November 29, 2008 - 17:23 ET by NL2071. WAR CRIMES - IRAQ
There is not one item in the Casus Belli for war in Iraq that was fabricated by Bush Administration or repeated as a known falsehood from other sources by the Bush Administration. I defy you successfully produce one instance. Here's a head start for you: The Casus Belli are enumerated here. Which one is a putative lie? Things that are errors do not count. Only putative lies count in a fraud / perjury prosecution.
2. ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS
There are no documented illegal warantless wiretaps in common knowledge. Espionage performed abroad does not count. Why? Because the sovereignty of the US Constitution stops at the borders of the US. To claim otherwise is an act of war against the foreign governments whose sovereignty such claims deny.
But .... your slimy Democrat friends have made numerous illegal intrusions into people's privacy. I can name four such that are common knowledge and documented as well: (1) The theft and publication of Maryland Lt Governor Michael Steele's credit report. (2) The illegal search, retrieval and publication of confidential governent records pertaining to "Joe the Plumber" in Ohio. (3) The theft and publication of Congressman Randy Kuhl's divorce file from New York. (4) The illegal requisition and perusal of 100's of FBI dossiers on Clinton political opponents by the Clintons.
When the Democrats prosecute the scumbags who did these things, then we will listen to your complaints about illegal wiretaps.
3. AUTHORIZATION of ILLEGAL WEAPONS
"depleted uranium, white phosphorus, cluster bombs are all arguably weapons of mass destruction. their use are war crimes."
WMD ==> ABC weapons. Atomic, biological, chemical. The items named above are all conventional weapons. By your arguments, a flamethrower, machine gun or automatic rifle using special AP ammunition, or a 12 guage semi-auto shotgun loaded with 00 buck are WMD.
Bush is concerned? When the left is intent on criminalizing all policy it disagrees with, you bet. I'd be concerned about such abuse of power. I'd be concerned that honorable men who were doing their jobs within the law were going to be tarred and feathered by this gang of left wing political thugs who are about to take control of the reigns of power.
Lies from a beautiful liar
November 29, 2008 - 03:52 ET by JWF1. LIES. No evidence was fabricated, ignored or manipulated. You provide no proof whatsoever or anything for or against. LIAR.
2. LIE. the president does not possess the authoritarian right to engage in behaviour which congress prohibits under the law. The President derives his authority from the Constitution, not Congress. YOU LIE.
3. LIES. The Constitution provides the highest law of the land. But the Constitution largely stops at the borders. All international law is based upon treaties which we have or have not been signatory. The Geneva and Hague conventions provide for war crimes. We are signatory to them. The International Criminal Court provides for other war crimes. WE ARE NOT SIGNATORY TO THAT.
depleted uranium, white phosphorus, cluster bombs are not prohibited by any international treaty of which the United States is a signatory. To state different is a LIE. To state they are WMD's is a laughable LIE.
even george bush himself is concerned he may be indicted. ANOTHER LIE.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
thanks for coming out
November 29, 2008 - 15:32 ET by abeautifulpersonwhat is sad is that bush probably will never have to answer for any the crimes which many accuse him of. that seems to be the way the world works these days.
thank goodness he didn't get head in the oval office. now THAT is something someone should be investigated about.
apb... Many say, some
November 29, 2008 - 17:56 ET by bigtimerapb...
Many say, some people say...our polls say...our sources tell us...
You have the leftist/msm/politico talking points down to a Tee don't you gal.
Your last lines were especially clueless/classless, let alone asinine, then again, so are you in my opinion.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
abp is a democrat
November 29, 2008 - 18:42 ET by upcountrywaterA KKK Lover...
abp just loves being a DEMOCRAT
Aclu</
Duck and Cover.
November 29, 2008 - 23:34 ET by NL207Duck and Cover.
What about the accusations of abeautifulliar
November 30, 2008 - 10:42 ET by JWFI accused you of lying. How come you never have to answer for the many things people are saying here. That seems to be the way liars work these days.
Thank goodness people with class believe in things called puncuation. Too many on the internets seem to have forgotten this. Now that is something that needs to be investigated.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
anuglysocialist
November 30, 2008 - 11:07 ET by choselife3xSo let me get this straight. ABP is referred to repeatedly as female, mentions a wife in one thread, claims to sit on a hospital board, and now claims to have 'tracked' and 'fought' skinheads. That is one mean@ss, Canadian bu!!dyke.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
"as someone who tracked
November 27, 2008 - 21:52 ET by NL207"as someone who tracked (and fought - literally) nazi skinheads in the 80's"
Really! I should think that makes you an excellent candidate for employment in Komrad Obama's Civilian National Security Force. You'd think Obama could come up with a spiffier name for this. Maybe he doesn't want to yet. Besides, all the really good ones like KGB, Savak, NKVD, Gestapo, Mossad, Mudiriyat, Okhrana and Guoanbu have already been used.
"in my lifetime, 2 presidents have been shot"
Yes, and only one of them was shot for a political motive, John Kennedy, by a leftist. Reagan's attacker was mentally ill.
ABP
November 27, 2008 - 07:41 ET by cheesegraterIs the word republican so repulsive to you that you have to use the term "otherwise"?
I guess "conservative" was
November 27, 2008 - 08:04 ET by motherbeltI guess "conservative" was close enough to Republican for ABP.
Obama Overhyped Death Threats - Who Cares
November 27, 2008 - 07:56 ET by PopularTechThis is nothing but hype by the left to try and associated neo-Nazis (Nazis were socialist by the way), the KKK and all the other hate groups with the Radical Right and Republicans. Yet they have nothing to do with either.
Bush got death threats all the time, except these were actually from radical communist and socialists who were part or movements the progressives actually agree with and the MSM stayed silent.
So please spare me you solidarity. You can take your solidarity and shove it. You want solidarity for electing a man who had a working relationship with Domestic Terrorists? Tell someone who cares.
Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools (The Wall Street Journal)
Censored Global Warming Videos
PT
November 27, 2008 - 08:31 ET by sentforth5You know, as of late I have found that your lengthy(thanks for all the work I am too lazy to do) posts AND Lame Cherry's comments are the only ones that make sense to me.
...just sayin' is all.............
Didnt the Nazi's hate the Communists?
November 27, 2008 - 14:12 ET by MichiganVetI carry a gun because a cop is too heavy
Yes
November 28, 2008 - 08:15 ET by Sergeant ROCKAnd while the Nazis were socialist, they seemed to be into that state directed capitalism that the democRATS are in favor of.
Alan KEYES 2012
In only 55 days, Barack
November 27, 2008 - 07:36 ET by motherbeltIn only 55 days, Barack Obama will replace one of the most unpopular presidents in modern history
Nice touch of subtlety, Baba.....
He may be extremely unpopular now, but he wasn't always. If he was, why did he get re-elected?
She should have said A president whose unpopularity is exceeded only by that of Congress.
Unpopular amongst the Democrats.
November 27, 2008 - 19:40 ET by JWFHe still had a relatively high rating among Republicans. They never tell you that.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Classic lack-of-fact reporting
November 27, 2008 - 07:44 ET by WingletDriver"There has also been a reported increase in racist violence since you were elected."
Really, Babs? Then cite a study. We have so many pollsters and statisticians out there who look at minutiae like what the trends of accumulation of belly button lint are. Heck, I bet there's even a research department at ABC that can tell her to the day when ABC will have zero viewers. But all she can do is throw out an unsubstantiated statement prefaced by "there have been reports."
You know, there have been reports of an increased number of UFO sightings, Bigfoot corpses, Yeti attacks and Loch Ness Monster spawnings. But until I see concrete proof, I'll just believe that the person who pushes these rumors is a sad, pathetic soul in need of human companionship.
listen carefully.
November 27, 2008 - 08:10 ET by i was just thinking"There has also been a reported increase in racist violence since you were elected."
Really, Babs? Then cite a study.
Didn't you hear her? She just reported it. That's all citing that the simple-minded public should need. ("Some people say...", "many people think...")
Good catch IWJT
November 27, 2008 - 14:15 ET by MichiganVetThis is so typical of the ITOT (in the Obama Tank) media - "people have said", "I heard", "someone in the crowd shouted".
Also interesting that Barbie had no issues with all the threats to Presdient Bush or wishes that Cheney would die of a heart attack.
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy
so, now there are more sick people?
November 27, 2008 - 08:06 ET by tonemeisteralready with the excuses "i couldnt fix the economy because neo-nazis had a reported meeting in pigsknuckle,arkansas" of course these are not new problems. if the press did it's job and properly vetted obama he wouldn't be such an unknown. unknown=fear. hey,this is the supposed smart-guy ,the one that reads. all the ecomomic problems, iran nukes, the wars etc. were well known problems before the election. if they were easy to solve they would be solved before they hit the presidents desk.... no crying from the one. wwwhhhaaa ..
I have never heard so many people.....
November 27, 2008 - 08:22 ET by connmanin a Presidential election mention that a candidate (Obama) could be assassinated. The threats against the Office of the President elect I believe will be enormously higher than any in our country's history. Having said that, why must the MSM and this way past her useful idiocy Barbara Walters bombard us with the goose bump giddy feel good stories of our new Messiah, and heart wrenching BS stories of how this poor man will live so perilously? Wake me up when they actually report something worthy and researched please.
Hey, come on, it is not like she is a journalist or something.
November 27, 2008 - 09:11 ET by JWFhas also been a reported increase in racist violence since you were elected. There are crosses being burned. There are Internet racist postings.
Why is this the first I am hearing this. I read newspapers. Watch the cable news channels. Read blogs & online news & nothing, I have heard nothing.
Wait! I just googled it. It was a dispatch from the U.S Department of Making S*** Up.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Racist violence, death threats??
November 27, 2008 - 09:18 ET by Calypso Jonesreally? where? I thought this has gone remarkably quietly. I don't think i've heard a peep out of americans that continue to watch the left steal elections in state after state. And now i'm watching terrorists in mumbai targettng americans yet i've heard nothing out of our new president elect. interesting to say the least. no, make that DISTURBING.
Maybe she was talking about
November 27, 2008 - 09:26 ET by motherbeltMaybe she was talking about this.... Yahoo News
Whether this is a big increase, I don't know (it may be the "usual suspects with a new focus) and the story is from AP, so consider the source.
I certainly don't think we should dismiss the idea out of hand, just because we don't like the guy or think that the media has been dishonest. On the other hand, I hope Walters didn't dwell a great deal on it (I didn't watch), as it may spur "copy-cat" syndrome.
That article was noted previously here at NB motherbelt
November 27, 2008 - 19:46 ET by JWFThe infamous roving bands of racist second graders.
We are a country of 300 million people. Someone somewhere is always commiting a crime.
The question is - Has there been an increase and can we attribute it to something?
The article does not even come close to answering that question.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
where's gilda radner when we need her?
November 27, 2008 - 09:39 ET by tonemeisterunfortunately, no longer with us. hearing her on snl doing her barbara walters imitation."i'm baabba waawaa". it's a classic...what a joke.
Typical distortions...
November 27, 2008 - 09:44 ET by owr084"He will inherit two wars..."
There are not two wars, only one. It is the Global War on Terrorism. Right now, there happens to be two major fronts inAfghanistan and Iraq.
When Truman took over from Roosevelt, did the press say he was inheriting two wars - the Pacific and European theaters? NO...
you are absolutely WRONG
November 27, 2008 - 09:58 ET by abeautifulpersonultimately, there was NO PROOF that iraq was involved in al qaeda or international terrorism against the US. it was only because the US was in iraq that al qaeda arrived.
these are (or at least were) two distinctly different wars. painting them with the same brush is an error.
you are absolutely WRONG
November 27, 2008 - 10:17 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsSorry, you are absolutely wrong.
Iraq supported suicide bombers the world over with cash payments to their families. Iraq also had been attacking coalition forces on a regular basis ever since the first Gulf war ended. Iraq also allowed al qaeda to run training camps in the north of Iraq, partly because of Hussein's hatred of the Kurds.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
uhhh no.
November 27, 2008 - 11:40 ET by abeautifulpersonread my words: against the US. there is no proof saddam paid off suicide bombers who targeted americans.
al qaeda ran training camps in iraq? sure.....
with those WMDs no doubt.
Yeah...
November 27, 2008 - 12:53 ET by RukusAnd all that yellow-cake just walked in on it's own and buried itself. Get a grip troll, facts are facts, but that means nothing to you does it.
Uncle Gary
"Bri is with Jesus now, we will meet again, just not right now. We love you Bri!"
abp
November 27, 2008 - 13:04 ET by cocodrieYou ignore or deny every bit of proof presented to you by every person here. Don't you realize how dense and dumb you make yourself appear to be little girl?
ABP
November 27, 2008 - 14:25 ET by MichiganVetDid Italy attack us in WW II, the Turks in WW I, the Germans in WW II, North Korea in the Korean conflict?
You see, its not just a direct attack on the U.S. that drives us to react - it was and is Iraq's support of terrorism - recall when we attacked Libiya (after their support of terrorism).
Review the films of the thousands of Kurds that died under Saddam's poison gas attacks. And now we have people in Hollywood (who decried our entry into Iraq), encouraging us to now get involved in Darfur. They are such hypocrites!
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy
Doesn't matter troll.
November 27, 2008 - 19:55 ET by JWFWe were still at war with Iraq since the Gulf War in 1991. There was no peace treaty signed. Only an armistice.
When you are at war, hostilities may resume at any time for ANY reason.
A majority of the 435 members of Congress listed 23 reasons in the authorisation of force signed in Oct of 2002. READ IT TROLL. Then go away.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I read your words
November 30, 2008 - 11:59 ET by NL207I read your words carefully.
"against the US"
Saddam was harboring for many, many years the notorious terrorist, Abu Nidal. Among its other acts, Nidal's orgnization bombed TWA flight 841 on 9/8/74, bombed TWA flight 840 on 4/2/86, hijacked PanAm flight 73 in Karachi killing 19 on 9/5/86, and killed Americans in the Sudan on 5/18/88.
Saddam also harbored the notorious Abu Abbas, hijacker of the Achille Lauro and executioner of American Leon Kinghoffer. "His faction operated out of Tunisia until the October 1985 attack on the Achille Lauro, after which it relocated to Iraq."
So Saddam wasn't connected to any ant-US terrorists? You lose.
Were there terrorist training camps in Iraq?
"Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism."
Looks like it to me. Next question: Were any of these terrorists tied to Al Qaeda?
"Saddam was directly financing and training the EIJ", "In 1998, the EIJ merged with al-Qaeda and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of al-Qaeda"
Why shazzam! Al Qaeda! You lose again!
Now ... About the WMDs. By your scurrilous redefinition of WMDs on an earlier thread to include many conventional weapons such as cluster munitions and depleted uranium bullets on the grounds they cause collateral deaths, any artillery shell is a WMD. Saddam loved artillery and had lots of it. The fact that some of his artillery rounds contained nerve gas isn't even required proof.
I love it. Hoisted on your own petard! Keep posting. I am largely entertained.
actually, the compensation was to the family
November 29, 2008 - 15:35 ET by abeautifulpersonwho had their houses bulldozed by the israeli government. it seems the entire family is punished for the act of a suicide bomber.
It couldn't be because it's
November 30, 2008 - 12:02 ET by NL207It couldn't be because it's hard to give money to suicide bombers after the fact? No doubt the Obamaessiah or even the magnanimos ABP could do this, however.
Perhaps you think payment of blood money to the dependents of deceased terrorists is a good way to discourage terrorism?
ABPLet me ask you
November 27, 2008 - 10:23 ET by SemperrightABP
Let me ask you this,
How well do you think we would be doing in Afganistan if we had not toppled Sadam's terror factory?
Before you answer think about this: In Iraq we have to fight Al Q, Iran, and Syria.
If we had only fought in Afganistan we would be fighting the Taliban, Al Q, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, plus who ever would have joined in the party.
So by taking out Iraq (who we would have to fight anyway) , we have cut the war into two much smaller and weaker parts.
and you're wrong it has been proven that Al Q was training in Iraq long before we invaded.
It's big picture time, let the big boys handle it and make yourself a tofuturkey sandwich. Be thankful for your freedoms.
Semper Fi
Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share.
Ned Dolan
to answer your question
November 29, 2008 - 15:50 ET by abeautifulperson"How well do you think we would be doing in Afganistan if we had not toppled Sadam's terror factory?"
unfortunately, the US has somehow managed to create enemies throughout the middle east... and east asia... oh and there's russia... and north africa... and let's just say many parts of europe are close chums to america... umm and central america aren't very warm... there's china... several countries in south america...
anyhow.
despite the effort to suggest vast numbers of fighters came into IRAQ, the numbers of foreign fighters has been notably small. as have iranian weapons.
if i recall it was SAUDI ARABIANS who blew up manhattan. and they are america's 'friends'. and for many years, pakistan was also a 'friend'.
good friends can be hard to find. and cruise missiles are proving to be lousy ambassadors. the bribing of sunni leaders, that really helped with the surge. allowing afghan warlords to resume poppy cultivation, that was a good one, too.
my freedom was earned by me and my fellow countrymen. who have worked hard and died in all the just wars. btw, i like my meat red and rare.
Please Stop Lying - Saddam did fund and support Terrorism
November 27, 2008 - 10:28 ET by PopularTechAl-Qaida running new terror camp, say Kurds (The Guardian, UK)
Marines Discover Terror Training Camp Near Baghdad (FOXNews)
Naming names: The Saddam-al Qaida connection (WorldNetDaily)
Saddam's al Qaeda Connection (The Weekly Standard)
Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show (The New York Sun)
Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism (The White House)
Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers (FOXNews)
Abu Abbas, Achille Lauro Hijacking - U.S. captures mastermind of Achille Lauro hijacking (CNN)
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al-Qaeda in Iraq Leader - Saddam refused to hand Zarqawi to Jordan: King Abdullah (Khaleej Times)
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al-Qaeda in Iraq Leader - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Killed in Bombing Raid (FOXNews)
Abu Niddal, Rome Airport Massacre - Dead Terrorist in Baghdad (National Review Online)
Censored Global Warming Videos
instead of scooping and linking
November 27, 2008 - 11:47 ET by abeautifulpersonmaking you should read some of these...
the best one article ties the two together:
"Clearly from this document bin Laden was willing to work with Saddam to achieve his ends, and clearly from this document Saddam did not immediately reject the idea of working with bin Laden," Mr. Hayes said."
these are unsubstantiated, hypothesis in most cases. and misleading. not unlike that outrageous presentation powel made to the UN. even the bush admin doesn't make the claims because to this date, they cannot be confirmed.
the kurds said. some guy said. they found some beakers. after all these years and with the US military crawling all over iraq, this is the best that you can come up with?
read my words: against the US. saddam wasn't dumb enough to target the US.
abp
November 27, 2008 - 11:00 ET by larry on LIyou are quickly turning into a troll.
Um...
November 27, 2008 - 13:08 ET by RukusToo late larry, he's already there.
"Bri is with Jesus now, we will meet again, just not right now. We love you Bri!"
ABP & LIBS DON'T GET IT
November 27, 2008 - 11:17 ET by MrShyYou think small and very short-term.
It's all part of a bigger, long-term (we're talking, even, decades) strategy to bring democracy and stability one country at a time -- weening the Middle East to a Western way of living and governing.
Geographically, as well, Iraq makes a lot of sense to bring to our side as it's wedged between Syria and Iran. Now, the remaining bad-guy players are isolated and without a border-neighboring alley.
Bush & Co., wisely, are well aware of the almost inevitable larger-scale (WWIII, perhaps) war that will have to be waged with the Middle East at some point, and having Saddam removed and his country an alley of ours is, well, a big plus.
Again, liberals who just hate war regardless and don't want to fight for freedom and peace, have an inability to think this way.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
i totally GET IT
November 27, 2008 - 12:04 ET by abeautifulpersonit is not for you or george bush to decide who gets the luxury having their regime changed. its certainly not what was proposed prior to the invasion (regime change).
what you consider 'bringing to your side' is what many iraqis and other people (both within the US and without) consider: invasion.
let's get real here. saddam was removed because he was a loose cannon who sat on a lot of oil and he was about to push for switching the sale of oil in euro's. your 'strategy' has cost a lot of people's lives; which is why you've made very few friends throughout this very expensive debacle.
NO
November 27, 2008 - 12:12 ET by MrShyStill, you don't get it. You're dense.
We're at war, and it's an unprecedented kind of war. It doesn't have distinct countries or borders because it's a WAR ON TERRORISM.
You're thoroughly unable to look at the big picture. For you and your limited thinking, it's all about just Iraq, or just about Iraq and the U.S., or about oil, or about how Iraqi's hate us now (which is false), and on and on... You waste your mental energy with all of this.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
hurling insults is the lowest form of debate
November 29, 2008 - 16:07 ET by abeautifulpersonits actually you who is missing the big picture. this entire fight is part-and-parcel to controlling resources. oil is THE resource which is more powerful than the US$. saddam was fiddling with the supply, converting to euros and a general pain in the butt.
if it was about saving the world from terrorism, america would have invaded north korea or would have more troops in africa.
where is the US navy with all these africa pirates?
bombing the USS cole wasn't a terrorist act. it was a military target.
blowing up the world trade centre wasn't so much about scaring america, it was about hobbling the US economy. scaring americans was secondary. if terrorists just wanted a body count, why not blow up a football stadium?
this battle for resources which the US is engaged within in various levels throughout the world, has not been going so well. bribing or threatening little leaders in africa, south america etc, destabilizing regions to effectively extract whatever multinationals need to maintain their control and provide for their consumer base, has been eroding due to local insurrection.
this can be seen in parts of africa, south america and definitely the middle east.
terrorists didn't just wake up and decide to be terrorists. many of them are a reaction to some very insidious actions.
read:
CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN by john perkins
or
BLOWBACK by chalmers johnson
or
OVERTHROW by stephen kinzer
or don't. just dismiss them and continue to spout insults.
it is not for you or george
November 27, 2008 - 12:32 ET by PeskyDaneit is not for you or george bush to decide who gets the luxury having their regime changed.
What about Alexander vs Darius? Caesar and the Celtic tribal leaders? William the Conqueror vs Henry Godwinson? Wilson and Wilhelm? Clinton and Milosevic? History is full of nations acting on what their leadership feels is in the collective best interest. To wax self-righteous serves no one and shows an utter lack of honesty.
In order for us to engage in an honest national debate, then it is incumbent upon all of us to come to terms with the untenable position in which President Bush found himself. We can Monday morning quarterback this all we want, but without that baseline, all the criticism from the "loyal opposition" is utterly lacking in credibility.
ABP, if you can admit that President Bush was put in an untenable position, it will go a long way to demonstrating a rational thought process apart from the usual BDS we encounter arount here.
damn.
November 27, 2008 - 14:16 ET by abeautifulpersonpeksydane
(wish i hadn't started this thread, don't have time to follow up today.)
i'll say this: bush came out of the blocks fumbling. his position was untenable due to his lack of qualifications.
he has mishandled situations not out of malice but he's been in over his head, while guys like cheney and friends soaked and soaked. i don't know what the exact date was that bush realized he was a dupe. sometimes i actually feel badly for the guy. he's aged 2 decades and has been a dead man walking for some time.
i actually believe bush thought he was acting (though very misguided) in the best interests of america. but what's best for the top 2% income earners and the country at large, has been blurred so much so, that perspectives have been terribly skewed.
time for a reboot. enter obama. not my choice but without ripping america apart, its as good as it can be.
sorry i am rushing this (very fast typing), thanks for the reasoned discourse. its refreshing. too often replies are reduced to name-calling and insults.
later.
http://news.yahoo.co... We
November 27, 2008 - 13:08 ET by contraryhttp://news.yahoo.co...
We won, your side lost. Get over it.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
Now you are LYING
November 27, 2008 - 19:58 ET by JWFlet's get real here. saddam was removed because he was a loose cannon who sat on a lot of oil and he was about to push for switching the sale of oil in euro's.
That is a lie troll. That makes you a liar.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
YASM from the idiot troll
November 27, 2008 - 19:59 ET by JWFYet Another Straw Man fallacy from the idiot troll.
No one EXCEPT YOU TROLL said that iraq was involved in al qaeda or international terrorism against the US.
Once again, you have someone saying BACK IT UP! Back it up troll!
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Threats???
November 27, 2008 - 09:56 ET by jackie3Nothing in my neck of the woods. Nada, zip, nothing and we are about as 'red neck" as ya can get. I would like to see BW sources. If anything is has been very, very quiet on Obama in our local media.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
ok, so what about the rest of links
November 27, 2008 - 12:14 ET by tonemeisterwhat about the other links listed above. anything....a last parting shot at an outgoing president...the only real question left is how far the msm will go to protect "the one". as far as war crimes go. reading what richard clarke wrote on bill clinton's and al gore's involvement in rendition back in the 90's. and having turkey, egypt and others torture on our behalf. they have direct knowledge and gave the go ahead themselves. if you want to indict bush,cheney et.al, we also need to indict the new secretary of state's husband and mr. hoot-al also. old german saying "mit gefangen, mit gehangen". caught together, hang together.
well now we know what
November 27, 2008 - 12:53 ET by katainkentwell now we know what Babs reads.
Obama : Most death threats ever
After Obama's win, white backlash festers in the US
and already on NB once
Election spurs 'hundreds' of race threats and crimes
The thing is all of these articles cite exactly the same incidents
Its nice to know the AP recycles.
Three new additions :
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
No proof that Obama is hated more than Bush
November 27, 2008 - 20:24 ET by nkviking75I want to ask you a sensitive question. There is, of course, a
tremendous outpouring of good will towards you. There has also been a
reported increase in racist violence since you were elected. There are
crosses being burned. There are Internet racist postings. Authorities
say there are more threats against you than any other president in
history. Why do you think this is happening?
Naturally Walters provides no source for her claim that there are more threats against Obama than any other president in history. Lacking any hard evidence either way, I find it hard to believe that Obama has been threatened more than the current President. I don't doubt there are racist nutjobs out there who would love to kill Obama, but this site and others have documented an awful lot of hateful language against Bush. Some have those threats undoubtedly went beyond mere words, but thankfully were thwarted. How many Bush effigies have been burned? Does anyone remember the movie about the fictional assassination of Bush?
If we could accurately quantify the levels of hate against Bush and Obama, I suspect Obama is experiencing far less than George W. Bush.
Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!