Jun 18 2008
Obama and Susan Rice on Iraq- Stupidly Insulting
The trend is so obvious, it shouldn’t need commenting. But comment we must, for those who miss it.
Obama’s willingness to politicize our country’s safety knows no limits. This should both indicate how much he cares about the security of the average American, and how far he is willing to go to manipulate his way to the reins of power.
Every time he is asked about Iraq, Obama recites the mantra of Bush-McCain and bin Laden. Not only does Obama fail to present any kind of vision of his Iraqi policy (he has none), he has yet to convince anyone of his sincere concern for the welfare of both the American and Iraqi people.
At Stop-Obama we’ve discussed the manner in which Obama has cheapened the issue of Iraq (viz “content” tab, and search “Iraq”) , and used it to libel contenders for the presidency.
Obama had never voted on the resolution to invade Iraq, and had he done so, he has publicly stated he would not have known how he would have voted.
What wonder then, that every time Obama is asked about his promises to begin withdrawal from Iraq in six months to two years -exposed as mendacious by a former aid fired for her indiscretions- his only answers are aggression, ducking the question, and outright lies and gaffes.
A successful visit by McCain to Iraq, has prompted responses from the Obama camp, stopping short of moral slime.
Rather than answering the Iraqi people’s determination to maintain US forces in Iraq until they decide that our presence is no longer necessary to their safety, Obama and his advisers, consistently, and I mean every single time, duck this issue by repeatedly attacking the very legitimacy of Iraq. For a bunch of academics who themselves supported the Iraq invasion -with the comparatively limited hands-on experience they have- their aggressiveness is astonishing. For a freshman Senator, with a zero record on foreign policy, it is dangerous. If there are any Iraqis listening to the “Obama attitude gang”- their prattle should have Iraqi’s sweating.
One of America’s leading candidates for the presidency, shows no concern for Iraqi’s long-term security, on the grounds that it had been obtained with lies which he attributes to a small cabal of McCain advisers.
***
Yesterday, when the McCain camp charged Obama with having a September 10th mentality, Obama responded with Conspiracy Theory:
“These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11,”
As I’ve recently noted, in his 2002 speech Obama made the charge that Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, were “conspiring” to take America to war to “distract” us from domestic issues. (a few questions for those who still believe this)
Yesterday, Obama suggested that Randy Scheunemann, whose name he is adding to his list of conspirators, had actually been out to “distract” America from our hunt for Bin Laden.
Frankly, I did not expect Obama to refer to McCain’s supporters as those who “engineered” the Iraq war. I did not expect Obama to insist on “conspiracy” theories about Iraq, which fly in the face of the reality of the pre-invasion situation in the media, and I certainly underestimated Obama’s mental honesty. Suggesting Randy Scheunemann and PauL Wolfowitz had deliberately let Obama slip, while fully knowledgeable of his having masterminded the murder of 3,000 American civilians, is as harebrained as it is border-line libelous.
It is true that Scheunemann, like Wolfowitz and Feith, believed in invading Iraq. But so did millions of people accross the world. I’ve already discussed this in great detail in a previous post. Included in those millions, are all of Obama’s own foreign policy advisers. Not one of whom, went on record so much as questioning the invasion.
Obama has yet to explain why he did not support the invasion in light of circumstances. After all, the same media which are now selling him to the American people, had sold us the war in the first place. With the same facility that Obama points his finger at McCain’s advisers, one can point to his. Again, which one of them opposed the Iraq invasion?
-Not one.
If Obama did not have the media on his side -with the exception of Fox and the Wall Street Journal- his ability to lie on Iraq, would have been revoked long-ago. But one channel and newspaper, are not enough against the entire media establishment.
***
That’s why when Susan Rice, one such Obama adviser who supported the invasion of Iraq, was on the Laura Ingram show, the results of the shouting match, were less than impressive. Laura seemed unaware of Susan’s Iraq war record. Like nearly 99% of Americans, Susan believed Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, and not once did she question the need for invasion. Her skepticism -along with everyone else’s- surfaced only after no WMD’s were found in Iraq. One would think that with such an illustrious past, Susan would bite her tongue, before giving anyone a lashing, let alone share her unimpressive insight.
Lacking either in honesty or just too bellicose for her own liberal good, does not keep Susan from attacking Clinton and McCain from her perch in the Huffington Post. Susan’s professional integrity has been questionable since the day she libeled the entire Foreign Policy establishment as “insufficient” due to a lack of the correct mix of Affirmative Action prescribed “diversity.”
By “diversity” Susan naturally did not mean, of intellects and viewpoints, but of ethnicity, religion, and pigmentation. In her facile world, variety of the skin automatically means “variety of opinion”. Just as Susan Susan is factually wrong about “diversity” in her field -Foreign Policy is by definition the most diverse of all fields in the world- so she fits-in perfectly with the pedigree of Obama’s other foreign policy advisers, extremist and ignorant, while bad-mouthed and pugnacious. A chip on their shoulders, with pride to prove. In her appearance on Ingram’s show- like her boss in Chicago- Susan ducked every way she could, if only not to answer a single question competently or completely. Her notion of “diversity” obviously falls in place with Obama’s own. Merit, competence, knowledge - sequestered to their Racist past.
Today, Ingram had exposed that Obama had just lied when describing his conversation with Iraq’s foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari. Obama characterized the talk as one in which Zebari was not concerned with Democrats plans to withdraw troops from Iraq. But in today’s Washington Post, Zebari responded that he had in fact expressed the strongest concern with just such a proposal.
Obama should have known better who to choose to lie about. Only a year ago Zebari wrote an article in the Post called “Don’t Abandon Us.” If Obama had to lie about his talk with someone, he should not have picked on an Iraqi minister whose desire for the presence of American forces in Iraq is a well known fact in Washington circles, and openly accessible to anyone with an internet connection.
Of course as anything with Obama, the media don’t care - unless he or his henchmen are saying something nasty about Clinton or McCain.
When asked point blank by Ingram about the Obama lie, Susan Rice ducked, lied, and with the typical aggressiveness of the ignorant and daft, empowered by the moral supremacism of the Democratic Cult of Diversity, continued with the venom she expressed this morning in an interview on MSNBC- calling McCain “stupid.” With Ignram, Susan made the aditionaly puzzling promise to withdraw troops from Iraq as carefully as “Bush had carelessly put them there”.
Not only should Rice be more careful in the words she chooses, she could begin by displaying a basic capacity to comprehend the English language, while keeping her emotions at bay. Otherwise, the “Diversity” Susan once promoted -will rub off badly on her Boss.
Obama already more “diversity” than he ever bargained for - terrorists, America bashers, anti-westerners, and anti-Semites. One such member of the “diversity” squad, an Irish national (something we’ve never had in American history, an Irish national running our foreign policy) has already been fired when she showed similar trends towards the stupid, aggressive, and ineloquent. What kind of mental “diversity” does it take, to call yourself a “genocide chick”?!
***
Have no doubt, on Iraq, Obama and his stooges may be as aggressive as permissible on national television and the internet, but it is just a simple reflection of the unsustainable position they have dug themselves into with their unique brand of ignorance and arrogance. How’s that, for “diversity” in American foreign policy?
33 responses so far
[…] VCubed wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptObama’s willingness to politicize our country’s safety knows no limits. This should both indicate how much he cares about the security of the average American, and how far he is willing to go … Read the rest of this great post here […]
His Iraq policy is WITHDRAW. In 16 months, starting January 20, 2009. He’s said it so many times I started singing along with him during debates and stump speeches.
While you’re technically right he was not in the Senate and has admitted he can’t say for sure how he would have voted, he campaigned against the war as a relatively unknown candidate for Senate, at a time when the idea of war was quite popular, if you recall. That’s worth something to me. That’s what a leader does.
You dont get it guys.
With my extremely poor english (as someone wrote before) i am only telling you to think WHY Barack Obama is SO popular in Europe. I remind you that European citizens are into politics much more and much deeper than the average american.
I know my comment is absolutely irrelevant to the subject of this post but still it is 100% relevant with your “anti Obama” monomania. Americans have unfortunately only 2 choices: Democrats or Republicans. The world has already experienced Republican policies for ten years. The results are known to everyone. And the world needs desperately a Change. A change, that promises less aggression in foreign policies, a change more sensitive with the environment.
A change, that seems to be more human centric. Even, if all these are only reflections of an icon or a symbol with no true power.
Ah…well! forgive my english!!!
Obama has flip flopped on Iraq much more than the usual politician Jeff.
There is some very interesting speculation as to why.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/tony-rezko-and-obamas-shifting-positions-on-iraq/
George, no, Europeans are not more into politics than Americans. Its vice versa. You may know your foreign relations, but you can’t run them without us. We are NATO. We commit the troops- not the EU.
Americans are the ones doing the dirty work for Europe. Its cheap, your irresponsible humanism. You want your hands free of guilt, but you want us Americans to run the world in your favor?
Easy life you lead. Watch Angelopoulos, to get an idea of where Europe is drifting.
[…] You can read the rest of this blog post by going to the original source, here […]
Everything Obama stated yesterday about McCain and his direct association to the catastrophe in Iraq is absolutely true. And he’s right to portray a McCain administration as a continuation of Bush’s failed policies. Just as Bush’s foreign policy, particularly the invasion of Iraq, was orchestrated by neocons from the Project for the New American Century, at least FIVE key members of the now-defunct PNAC serve as foreign policy advisors for the McCain campaign: William Kristol (Co-founder and Chairman), Robert Kagan (Co-founder), Bruce P. Jackson (former director), Randy Scheunemann (former director), and R. James Woolsey, Jr.. These were all men who were actively promoting an invasion of Iraq several years before 9/11 finally gave them the “justification” needed.
And now we have the pseudo-intellectuals of this site like Mr. Gold, thinly disguising themselves as Clinton supporters, but really promoting a continuation of the same abominations our country has plagued the world with the past 7 1/2 years. How bad does the situation have to get for you to learn that a radical change of direction is needed?
Ironically enough, perhaps you should look toward a former member of PNAC who has since rejected much of its philosophy for guidance. When asked for his opinion of the presidential candidates, Francis Fukuyama responded surprisingly:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/080527/21/170xi.html
Apparently 24 countries want to see Obama as president according to a poll that was recently taken. However the poll did not even talk to the Iraqis so one capable reporter talked to a group of Iraqis who expressed a very different view. You can read what they had to say in this article I have linked here:
http://tinyurl.com/4yahok
think in many ways, Hillary Clinton represents both the good and the bad things of the 1990s and there is something in the style of the Clintons that never really appealed to me and so I think of all the three, Obama probably has the greatest promise of delivering a different kind of politics.
That is not how the majority of the people felt in Australia. That is one’s person opinion and not a very good one at that. I recently had the chance to talk to business people from Australia who run a small winery with top of the lines called Guilty and Innocent….they were all for Hillary becoming president because the felt she had the best knowledge of the business world. They felt that Obama was too wishy washy….no real policies they could pin them on. They admitted to the fact they have a difficult time understanding our political system. This year I have to agree with them, I am having a hard time with our poltical system too. How can Obama be running for president if it were not for his gaming the system………
@navyvet84
Wow..what a great poll of 4 Australians. You must really be on the pulse of that nation.
“WE are NATO WE commit the troops WE do the dirty work WE run the world for your favor (!!!) … WE, WE, WE…”
…we are the world…
You may not have the slightest idea how arrogant you “sound”. Go and tell these things to mothers and fathers from Britain Spain and Italy. You seem to forget that in Europe we had some of the biggest reactions to YOUR (your administrations) war. Only in London the crowd against your war was more than a million. Nobody wants the US to do any “dirty work”. You have done enough dirty work everywhere including my country with the seven year dictatorship. Let us not forget Chile etc.
By the way I have seen all Angelopoulos films and I have a great respect for both his artistic view and his historical view.
You know… its always constructive listening voices and opinions from a different universe. But you don’t. All you want is a new Republican President and your troops, to stay there for ever.
Well, we don’t. And the one and only who may stop the mess is Obama.
Nobody wants your dirty work. And nobody wants YOU to run the world.
That’s pure imperialism dear. And sadly all Empires end in a tragedy.
Give your country a chance!!!
Everyone respects America because of its nice people its great artists its great scientists its great intellectuals who apparently, they all stand for Obama.
I guess you believe they are all naïve…well, they are not!
George,
What do you say about obama having George Soros’ money and power behind his candidacy? Soros also controls the DNC chair, Howard Dean too. Believe me, the “fix” was in back in 2004 when Dean gave the keynote address to the 2004 democratic convention to obama when he was a mere state senator, when such an honor is usually given to a very senior, highly regarded national politician.
Obama also has Zbigniew Brezinski as his senior foreign policy advisor. Both Soros and Brezinski are big believers in a one world government. Obama will not be free to decide what he “says” he’s going to do. He’s the democratic version of GW Bush being marketed as a “compassionate conservative”. Same horse, different color.
Obama has sold his soul and is totally beholden to these power elite men who have no intention of want to further democracy, much less empower the middle class. They want centralized government which will exert power over the entire world. What better place to make that happen than to take control of the last super power?
With the complex and overwhelming issues facing this country right now, an neophyte like obama is nothing more than a charismatic front man to cover for the real power behind the presidency.
I don’t want George Soros or Zbig Brezinski anywhere near the Oval office and neither should you.
Who says Soros and Brezinski are for One World Government? Who really believes that and what is their agenda? Just because it is on YOUTUBE doesn’t mean it is true. Who is making these YOUTUBE pieces? What are their goals? Are they good for America? Do you even bother to find out?
Where are your reputable sources?
Soros is so powerful that he gave 75 million to the Kerry campaign and got him into the White House. No wait. Soros is such the Illuminati. Wooo!
“…he campaigned against the war as a relatively unknown candidate for Senate, at a time when the idea of war was quite popular, if you recall. That’s worth something to me…”
The fact that he was running for Senate at the time he spoke out against the war gives him ZERO credibility on the issue of Iraq. I’m sick to death of people using this as a selling point! It’s absurd!
Barack Obama has a HUGE Muslim and Middle Eastern voter and financial contribution base in Illinois and around the world that he had to keep happy. It was EASY for him to speak out against the war. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so. It was political rhetoric then and now and I’m embarrassed for the people who don’t understand this and sad for our country. By the way, his voting record on the war since becoming a fed Senator doesn’t support his Senate election campaign rhetoric and there is NOTHING in his political history to suggest he’s a man of his word…NOTHING!
“…Who says Soros and Brezinski are for One World Government? Who really believes that and what is their agenda? Just because it is on YOUTUBE doesn’t mean it is true…”
Marin instead of taking up space on this website, just Google if you want to know more about Soros and his activities. Good grief!
All this speculation about Soros’ and Brzezinski’ goals is just that — speculation. The world (and google) will never run out of wild conspiracy theories.
In blatant contrast to these advisors for Obama, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East are all the evidence anyone needs to see the kind of goals McCain’s foreign policy advisors are in fact working towards. As I pointed out above, his advisory staff is dominated by the same neocons who got us into the mess in Iraq.
With McCain, there’s no need for speculation — the facts speak for themselves.
Mark-”…Everything Obama stated yesterday about McCain and his direct association to the catastrophe in Iraq is absolutely true. ”
At least you have an idea where McCain stands which is a lot more then anyone can say about obama and his motives. At least McCain is brave enough to be honest about what his plans are with the war. Common sense should tell you that Obama isn’t taking anyone out of Iraq and he’s too much of a dishonest politician to admit it. If Obama or any US President pulled the troops out before the government was stable, Iraq would be taken over by terrorist groups or Iran. The citizens would face instant genocide. Countries around the world would be outraged and the US would be blamed and expected to go back in and save the people that we abandoned. Obama would either turn his back on them or he’d send troops to fight what would amount to the beginning of a new war in Iraq. The death toll that US troops are sure to face under this scenario would be huge.
How can you respect a man who isn’t even brave enough to lay out his plans?
April 5, 2004
Interviewer: But you said that troops should be withdrawn.
Obama: No, no. I’ve never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I’ve said is that we’ve got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I don’t think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that. What’s important is that we have a long-term plan in process and short-term security strategy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kFrFIFizkU
In 2004 Obama also said about Iraq “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.”
[…] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptObama’s willingness to politicize our country’s safety knows no limits. This should both indicate how much he cares about the security of the average American, and how far he is willing to go … […]
This could be worse than just being stupid..
From: UnheardAmericanVoices-Negative Messages
Here’s something that also should be looked into:
“From: UnheardAmericanVoices-Negative Messages Intentionally Placed in Clinton TV Ads?? Who Inside Her Campaign Sabotaged Her? A Disturbing MUST READ/SEE”
http://tinyurl.com/3sqqm3
This is REALLY scary when you think about it…check it out if you haven’t seen it already…
This is off topic I know, but here is a comment about MO’s thesis and I know you guys analyzed it in detail. Will you comment on the comment please.
Begin comment from NQ:
Your “documentation” about Michelle Robinson’s thesis is full of shit. Black Power was not the primary source of the thesis: far from it. It was the primary source for one key analytical term (”separatism”) that was used in her thesis. Yet this ridiculous “documentation” was swallowed hook line and sinker here. Anybody who has actually read the thesis would be able to see in a moment the overwhelming BS in your post about Carmichael.
I did a web search on smears and Obama and found your site. I supported Hillary almost til the end. Now she is out and it is between McCain and Obama. What is up here? You claim to be Democrats, yet you are doing everything in your power to continue Republican rule. Do you not understand that there may be 3 Supreme Court positions becoming vacant after the next President is sworn in. If McCain gets elected, we get three more neo-facists, anti-Constitution Justices who will take our beloved Constitution and use it like toilet paper. The Justices of the Supreme Court are not limited to up to 2 four year terms. The Justices will affect how laws are interputed for decades to come. This alone is well worth swallowing the disappointment of Hillary’s loss and focusing on the country’s future. Habeas Corpus barely survived the current Supreme Court Decision. Kennedy, the swing vote, made a choice for the Constitution and you get Scalia spitting out his rhetoric and proclaims Americans will die because of this. You have Gingrich crying that we will lose cities because of this. All in the name of fear building. I really suspect that you are not Democrats. This is a Swift Boat campaign, designed to fool people who have not the time or the skill to research the facts for themselves into voting for McCain and have politics as usual. Those of you who are real Democrats and real Hillary supporters need to find a real site and escape from being victimized by another Swiftboater.
Oh, the other thing that really gives this site away as a swiftboat campaign site, the profiles of the people who run this site, perfectly balanced between the four major ethnic groups, Jamal as the African American, Juanita as the Hispanic, Jeff as the Caucasian, and Gregory as the Asian. Wake up people, smell the coffee, see the lies. Search the truth for yourself.
Brendanon 19 Jun 2008 at 12:53 am
Obama’s speech to me from years ago is moot. He was in zero position to vote and everything he does is politically motivated - not soulfully so, as you would suggest.
Too, Obama has voted to FUND THE WAR every time it has come up for a vote. That speaks volumes. Barack is not the anti-war president you would like for him to be.
Marin and Mark…what ever you do, stay away from Daily Kos! Don’t click on this link! Your obamabot heads might explode if you read about what Fast Eddie messiah has just proven himself to be (for the 150th time): The Great Pretender!!
Obama supports warrant-less eavesdropping powers to the President and amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms? How could this be? Fast Eddie Messiah said back in January 2008 that he strongly opposes retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. Oh how we long for the good old days when Fast Eddie was Mr. Smith, the fresh new Washington change agent!
“No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd’s amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.”
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/122629/527
Those days are gone and Fast Eddie can now do whatever he wants because he’s the self-anointed Democratic nominee and the little Democrat people are stuck having to vote for him…well, not all of us. Not only does Fast Eddie not say a damn word about FISA but he endorses Congressman John Barrows, a Bush Democrat who is fighting for Bush’s warrant-less eavesdropping over Regina Thomas who’s running against him and opposes it.
“We’re going to need John Barrow back in Congress to help change Washington and get our country back on track,” Obama says in the 60-second ad….”
Do you think he kept a straight face when he said: “…To help change Washington and get our country back on track?”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/19/133620/988
Glenn Greenwald from Salon writes:
“…Obama turns around and intervenes in a Democratic primary on behalf of one of the worst Bush enablers in Congress — not in order to help Barrow defeat an even-worse Republican, but to defeat a far better and plainly credible Democratic challenger…telecom amnesty is not merely a side issue but is one of the purest expressions of what Obama claims so vigorously to oppose in Washington.”
Hey, I thought Fast Eddie didn’t like lobbyists but the Telecom amnesty bill was completely crafted by telecom lobbyists except for the amnesty part which of course was Bush’s contribution!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/obama/index.html
The ACLU calls the FISA bill Christmas day in Washington!
“Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.”
And you funny, silly obamabots were worried about McCain taking away a woman’s right to choice!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/20/135643/827/889/539148
Bots, don’t feel to bad. What can you expect from a man who pretended to base his whole political career on political reform and was adamant about the need for public campaign financing yet had no proven track record of the sort…I remember a brilliant woman recently saying something about “just words”
Obama supporters truly BELIEVE he VOTED against the war! Why? Because they keep saying it is so….when it is not. It reminds me of the build up the Iraq war when a large percentage of the American people believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 which gave false credibilty to the invasion.
I love how Americans are supposed to vote for a Democrat because 24 countries in the world believe that we should have a Democratic President. How about if Americans choose who is best for them? Europeans are always upset about Americans sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong and being overly arrogant, yet (a) they want a say in who our leader is and (b) they want to support the most arrogant candidate that ran for President this year. Go figure.
Oh, my, how the naive do protest too much.
Trying to defend Obama is tantamount to wading knee-deep in effluvia and ignoring the foul odor. Don’t drop the old abortion rights issue as an incentive for wasting your God-given vote. Someone pointed out that is an old saw put to rest long ago; no pol would dare to seriously revisit it in century 21. Women would tar and feather him/her. The SCOTUS has been neutralized in any event.
The Executive is in full power mode. Congress has been deemed null and void.
I am a lifelong Dem; never entertained a possibility that the Party would become so
vile and dysfunctional I would have to reregister as an Indy and contemplate voting for a Repub…but here I am, about five months out, and am now unaffiliated and
revisiting my options. Barack is not even on my “maybe” list. The thought of media blurbs featuring BO and MO for four or more years is so nauseating, I am considering moving to far places without cable TV.
Our country is in great peril and sliding fast, racing to the bottom. Yes, the NWO is not a conspiracy theory; it is transpiring before our eyes. Look, listen, drop the rose colored glasses and fight back. “Do not go gentle into the good night/ rage, rage against the dying of the light.” (Dylan Thomas)
Why is no one questioning why Sen Obama has taken on board as foreign policy advisor-Dr Susan Rice.
Dr Susan Rice , a 1986 Stanford graduate and Rhodes scholar with a doctorate from Oxford University has been accused of being another MAJOR reason why Osama Bin Laden was able to carry out terror attacks on 9/11. She URGED US govt not to accept Sudan offer to turn over Bin Laden to US in 1997 despite convincing arguments to the contrary provided to her by other US and foreign officials friendly to the US. .
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2002/01/osama200201
The osama Files, January 2002, David Rose
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0144,gould,29537,1.html
“Thanks But No Thanks-How the U.S. Missed a Chance to Get Bin Laden”
by Jennifer Gould, The Village Voice, 10/30/01
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=omar_al-bashir
http://www.espac.org/terrorism_pages/osama_files.asp
What is going on here. Why do we care about what Dr Susan Rice thinks as far as WMDs are concerned?
I have more important question that I would like Dr Susan Rice to answer before she gives me her opinion(s) about ANYTHING ELSE.
I want to know why she strongarmed the US policy makers into refusing to capture Osama Bin Laden during 1997 when we had the chance? Check out the articles referenced. Amazing…
Will some journalists PLEASE ask her this very important question…
Dear Jeff
Thanks for the excellent post - as ever. Will link to it and hope it remains available.
Sooooo sorry to hear your site is down-sizing from now on. You really are irreplaceable - but must have your reasons.
You have consistently been one of the most attacked sites I’ve visited and see in this thread that has not let up.
We can only respectfully accept your decision, in trust that your excellent work will continue in other equally valuable ways.
Thanks again for everything. But must object only to the notion that you are redundant - your site remains unique, without parallel and we pray will remain available in archived form. NO ONE - not NQ etc. have presented such in depth intelligent ongoing analysis. NO ONE has included 3 unique viewpoints as your team. NO ONE has been more dedicated to the truth.
Based on all this we are SURE your talents will continue to contribute in the ways you 3 find most viable.
Whatever else, we know the slimy troll nest so long in your site is only a compliment to how much you have accomplished.
Highest regards and best of wishes in all else you do.
Ditto on jmk comments above.
I will continue to provide links to this site in my future blogs.
Marin-re your comment # 13 above:
ZB wrote book advocating US control of Iran-by use of pre-emptive force if necessary:
ZB has been accused of being 1 of the several MAJOR reasons Osama Bin Laden was able to carry out terror attack on 9/11. Read why. He helped to arm Bin Laden & provide trained soldiers for his war on the US. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1097chessboard#a1097chessboard
“Context of ‘October 1997: Brzezinski Highlights the Importance of Central Asia to Achieving World Domination” Cooperative Research History Commons