*OMG!! Obama BOMBSHELL!!!!!!!!!

[Big P]

no doubt if this is true then its pretty messed up and they will make ads about it

I think a lot of people dont really realize how versitile and unique a guy like John maccian is

hes gonna run circles around obama, then hes gonna run circles around iran

just like he ran circles around the vietnamese prison gaurds all the while, they were breaking his very arms



this is what you call

"a tenacious little fucker"




ill never forget somthing he said when he was running against bush in the primary

they asked him somthing about Al gore

and he said

"im gonna beat'em like a drum!"


for this statment alone we should make him our supreme leader

 

[VTXDave]

Of course his campaign is going to deny it. They have no choice. If it wasn't for his voting record, I'd consider giving the denial some credence. Occam's Razor strikes again.

 

[Garden Knowm]

And your source is????

Vi

iran contra PART 1...

it is all over the place....

 

[tipsgnob]

The Iran-Contra affair was a political scandal which was revealed in November 1986 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration. It began as an operation to increase U.S.-Iranian relations, wherein Israel would ship weapons to a moderate, politically influential group of Iranians opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeini; the U.S. would reimburse Israel for those weapons and receive payment from Israel. The moderate Iranians agreed to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by Hezbollah. The plan eventually deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages, without the direct authorization of President Ronald Reagan.[1][2] Large modifications to the plan were conjured by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985. In North's plan, a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[3] While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[4] there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that he authorized this plan.[1][2][5]
After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[6] The investigation was compounded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[7] On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."[8]
Many investigations ensued, including those by the United States Congress and the three-man, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither could find any evidence that Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[1] In the end, fourteen administration officials were charged with crimes, and eleven convicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger.[9] They were all pardoned in the final days of the George H. W. Bush presidency, who had been vice-president at the time.[10

 

[VTXDave]

The Iran-Contra affair was a political scandal which was revealed in November 1986 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration. It began as an operation to increase U.S.-Iranian relations, wherein Israel would ship weapons to a moderate, politically influential group of Iranians opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeini; the U.S. would reimburse Israel for those weapons and receive payment from Israel. The moderate Iranians agreed to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by Hezbollah. The plan eventually deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages, without the direct authorization of President Ronald Reagan.[1][2] Large modifications to the plan were conjured by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985. In North's plan, a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[3] While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[4] there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that he authorized this plan.[1][2][5]
After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[6] The investigation was compounded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[7] On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."[8]
Many investigations ensued, including those by the United States Congress and the three-man, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither could find any evidence that Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[1] In the end, fourteen administration officials were charged with crimes, and eleven convicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger.[9] They were all pardoned in the final days of the George H. W. Bush presidency, who had been vice-president at the time.[10

Business as usual, yes? All hail the American Hegemony.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

Sounds pretty close to what the original post was saying.

Don't agree to this until after January (which is ... oh, I don't know, after November)

 

[Garden Knowm]

Business as usual, yes? All hail the American Hegemony.

i don't understand.. can you explain please?

iloveyou

 

[ViRedd]

If true, this is going to sink the O'Bama campaign. This is a violation of the Logan Act.

Did Obama Violate The Logan Act? [Jonah Goldberg]

Amir Taheri:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
​

If memory serves, Taheri hasn't always panned out, but this certainly seems worth investigating further.

09/15 11:34 AM

The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. However, there is no record of any convictions or even prosecutions under the Logan Act

 

[Big P]

if i know mccain well enough i think he will save this one for the first debate.


they will ask mcain a question about iraq and troop withdrawls, he will say his schpeel and then says:


"while barak has been running around the country telling your loved ones he is bringing your fellow troops home right now!! begining withdrawls right now!!

he was trying all the while to persuade the Iraqi government to keep them there longer so he could get the "credit" so to speak. What a self serving POS

is this a man that really cares about bringing the troops home?

he would rather have a few more die so he can get the credit is what i see, just so he can have his presious POWER

 

[medicineman]

Sex, lies and Video tape, please bring the tape?

 

[ViRedd]

Sex, lies and Video tape, please bring the tape?

Hey Cleopatra ... you're in denial.

Vi

 

[Kludge]

Sorry, didn't bother reading your propaganda.

Here's something to think about.

McCain is 71 years old. If we look at the actuary tables we see he has a 33% chance of dying in the next 4 years. Add in the stress of the job and I'd give him a 50% chance at least.

Now,do you really want to roll those dice and have Palin as our President? Seriously? You have problems with Obama being inexperienced but Palin is just fine and dandy? Really?

Stop hurting America, stop spreading propaganda.

 

[ViRedd]

Sorry, didn't bother reading your propaganda.

Here's something to think about.

McCain is 71 years old. If we look at the actuary tables we see he has a 33% chance of dying in the next 4 years. Add in the stress of the job and I'd give him a 50% chance at least.

Now,do you really want to roll those dice and have Palin as our President? Seriously? You have problems with Obama being inexperienced but Palin is just fine and dandy? Really?

Stop hurting America, stop spreading propaganda.

Would I take Sarah Palin over B. Hussien O'Bama as president? Yes, in a heartbeat. Just on experience alone, she wins hands down. More importantly, I would select her over O'Bama just for the two, and perhaps even three Supreme Court nominations that will surely come over the next four years.

Would you rather have three more Ginsbergs on the Supreme Court, or three more Antonin Scalias?

Now, you've called the information presented here "propaganda," and yet you said you didn't read it. How then, did you come to the conclusion that its propaganda? Are your biases showing?

Vi

 

[Kludge]

Sexism, racism, homophobia ... and agism ^^^^ Same thing.

Vi

Not true. I know it's not popular to say this but, on average, old people really are less capable. They have, again on average, a much diminished physical ability and they are also more prone to mental lapses and slowdowns.

So, basing decisions on actual science isn't an -ism. Would you call life insurance ageist? No, it's common sense. If you are old you are more likely to die it's a fact, not a belief. I should be able to base my decisions on that evidence.

Are life insurance sellers forced to sell insurance to everyone at the same price regardless of age?

I think it's perfectly OK to say, "I don't want to hire him because he's got a 33% chance of dying and the beauty queen without a braincell in her head isn't a good second bet."

 

[ViRedd]

Not true. I know it's not popular to say this but, on average, old people really are less capable. They have, again on average, a much diminished physical ability and they are also more prone to mental lapses and slowdowns.

So, basing decisions on actual science isn't an -ism. Would you call life insurance ageist? No, it's common sense. If you are old you are more likely to die it's a fact, not a belief. I should be able to base my decisions on that evidence.

Are life insurance sellers forced to sell insurance to everyone at the same price regardless of age?

I think it's perfectly OK to say, "I don't want to hire him because he's got a 33% chance of dying and the beauty queen without a braincell in her head isn't a good second bet."

You'd be in violation of the civil rights laws. Yes, I know its done all the time ... but you'd better think up a better excuse. ~lol~

Vi

 

[Big P]

Not true. I know it's not popular to say this but, on average, old people really are less capable. They have, again on average, a much diminished physical ability and they are also more prone to mental lapses and slowdowns.

So, basing decisions on actual science isn't an -ism. Would you call life insurance ageist? No, it's common sense. If you are old you are more likely to die it's a fact, not a belief. I should be able to base my decisions on that evidence.

Are life insurance sellers forced to sell insurance to everyone at the same price regardless of age?

I think it's perfectly OK to say, "I don't want to hire him because he's got a 33% chance of dying and the beauty queen without a braincell in her head isn't a good second bet."

thats the most dumbass thing i heard. see that is ageism, because not all old people are like that,

i can say woman are scientifically known to be physically weaker than men. but the fact remains not all of them are


factually most black males grow up without a father. but not all

scientifically all handicapped people are not as functional as non hadicapped but not all



thanks for showing your true colors, and by the way if you are not reading what the thread is about pls dont come in here and post your nonsense.

this is a thread about what an iraq official said in an obscure interview

and guess what the obama campain did not deny it but just tried to spin it to make it sound lets bad so even obama confirms this was discussed

 

[misshestermoffitt]

McCain couldn't run circles around anyone even if they did put wheels on his walker.

Voting for McCain hoping he will die so Palin can be president is pretty stupid. I wish men would not be trying to vote with their penis.

 

[Kludge]

Would I take Sarah Palin over B. Hussien O'Bama as president?

Wow, nice one. Can I start calling Palin, Sarah Hitler Palin? Or how about Sarah Lucifer Palin. Oooo! Ooo! How about Sarah Palin Tall.

Or maybe I'll just use her real name, Louise. S. Loser Palin... have we really come to that? Name calling.

I think you're very intelligent Vi but you are clearly suckling on the flavor-aid spewing tit of Republi-merica, Inc. Once I see that kind of fanaticism I just turn off. None of your words reach me so you are being counter productive if your intention is to persuade me to your side of the argument. And you're playing right into their hands Vi. They have made you their puppet and they your masters.

But I don't think the point of most of this kind of propaganda is to change minds. Instead it's meant to anger the people who already believe the magic fairy tale called, "My politician is perfect and yours sucks."

It's meant to distract us from the real problems at hand. The political machine is a master at keeping us so angry at the thief across the street that we don't notice the one in our midst. And that's the one that's actually stealing from us.

If an honest person on the other side of the fence tries to point out how much of a thief the other guy is he's ignored because we're so used to hearing the thief on the other side wrongfully accuse guys on our side. It just never ends. All you can do is not play the dirty game because when you start flinging shit, you're bound to get some on you.

The simple facts are that we don't vote for competent people. We vote for stupid, pretty people.

Let's look honestly at the candidates.

Obama: Inexperienced. Where DO you get experience for this job? Do we really want to let this guy learn on the job? I really don't know the first thing about him but to be far I don't know shit about the other guys but at least I can go look it up; which most American's won't do so the point is almost moot.

Biden: AKA Senator HSBC. In the pocket of the credit card companies. I just can't abide by that. Plus he's one of those assholes that can't accept that he's wrong about marijuana laws. And just because the guys seems like a likable guy is no reason to let him into the white house.

McCain: Biggest fuckup on the face of the planet. Murdered 100's of men on the USS Forrestal by his gross incompetence. Not a WAR hero, fucker got shot down in like 2 seconds, but he is a POW hero. I give him full props for that but he's a fuckup pretty much every where else. Oh, plus he'll be dead or living in an iron lung in like 2 years and then we're left with...

Palin: Wow, where to begin. Just watch the Gibson interview of Palin. If that doesn't send deuce kills up your spine you don't have one. But just to be fair I'll list her faults. Incompetent, ignorant, uninformed, confuses opinion for fact, and just an all around slimy politician that abuses power.

So, looking at that what choice do I have? I'll tell you what choice I have. I can vote for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I don't care if they are running or not. You don't think your vote is actually counted do you? How silly of you.

What REALLY happens is all the votes are put into a fucking Excel spreadsheet where anyone (aka the incumbent party) can just change the numbers to whatever they want. THEN the vote is certified. Since there are no paper trails how can you prove anything?

</rant>

 

[tipsgnob]

Would you rather have three more Ginsbergs on the Supreme Court, or three more Antonin Scalias?
that's easy...Ginsberg any day of the week....that's not even close...that's all we need is more right wing nut jobs....

 

[ThaGreenBandit]

The only time you can trust a politician not to be a lying, manipulative bastard is when they are 6 feet under. Regardless of their party affiliation.

I must concur!