Author Topic: Why the war on Obama?  (Read 3731 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Why the war on Obama?
« on: March 01, 2008, 06:45:51 am »
Why the war on Obama? 



29/02/2008 09:02:00 AM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=94319


 
 The Israeli lobby in the United States is adamantly opposed to Obama, preferring Clinton because “they own her.”



By Robert Parry

While some cynics still view Barack Obama’s appeal for “change” as empty rhetoric, it’s starting to dawn on Washington insiders that his ability to raise vast sums of money from nearly one million mostly small donors could shake the grip that special-interest money has long held over the U.S. government.

This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo – and prompting harsher attacks on Obama.

Right now, the front line for the Washington Establishment is Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, which has been stunned by Obama’s political skills as well as his extraordinary ability to raise money over the Internet. Obama’s grassroots donations have negated Clinton’s prodigious fundraising advantage with big donors.

Powerful lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries – also are recognizing the value of keeping their dominance over campaign cash from getting diluted by Obama’s deep reservoir of small donors. It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible.

So, neoconservatives and other ideological movements – heavily dependent on grants from the same special interests – are now joining with the Clinton campaign to tear down Obama by depicting him as unpatriotic, un-vetted, possibly a “closet Muslim.”

On Feb. 25, the New York Times’ new neocon columnist William Kristol attacked Obama’s patriotism by citing the Illinois senator decision to stop wearing an American flag lapel pin because, Obama said, he saw how George W. Bush was exploiting the flag to stampede the nation toward war with Iraq.

“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama said when asked about his lack of a flag pin in October 2007. “As we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

In a column entitled “It’s All About Him,” Kristol mocked this explanation as an example of both Obama’s dubious claim to patriotism and his pomposity.

“Leaving aside the claim that ‘speaking out on issues’ constitutes true patriotism,” Kristol wrote. “What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. … Moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good – too patriotic! – to wear a flag pin on his chest.”

Kristol then turned on Michelle Obama for her comment about how excited she was by the public outpouring for political change that has surrounded her husband’s campaign: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country,” she said.

Kristol wrote: “Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since [the mid-1980s] has made her proud? Apparently.” [NYT, Feb. 25, 2008]

Clinton money woes
Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign – having burned through $130 million and needing a $5 million emergency loan from the Clintons’ personal finances – has gone hat in hand to some of the special interests with a strong stake in protecting the Washington status quo.

For instance, campaign finance director Jonathan Mantz met with donors from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in a Washington hotel lobby when these pro-Israel AIPAC supporters were in town for other business, the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 14.

The approach made sense because these pro-Israeli lobbyists remain wary of Obama’s advocacy of high-level talks with Iran, his opposition to the Iraq War, and his skimpier record of supporting Israel when compared with Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

One former Israeli official told me that the Israeli government feels it can work with Obama, Clinton or McCain, but that the Israeli lobby in the United States is adamantly opposed to Obama, preferring Clinton because “they own her.” The ex-official said the lobby has some concern, too, with McCain because of his independent streak.

Like other powerful lobbies, AIPAC is threatened by Obama’s ability to raise large sums of money from everyday Americans, thus reducing the need of Washington politicians to hold out their tin cups to AIPAC’s legendary network of wealthy donors.

After having lost 11 consecutive contests, the Clinton campaign is now turning to what its “kitchen sink” strategy of throwing whatever it has at Obama.

Over the past few weeks, Clinton surrogates have been spreading rumors about Obama’s association with people with Arab names and contributions he has received from 1970s-era student radicals (though they’re now gray-haired, middle-class professionals). Some are packaging the attacks under the title, “The Obama Scandals.”

On Feb. 26, Internet gossip Matt Drudge reported that a Clinton staffer e-mailed a photo taken of Obama during a 2006 trip to Kenya when he was dressed in a turban and other traditional garb of a Somali Elder. That reinforced earlier rumors spread about Obama as a secret Muslim, though he has long belonged to a Christian church in Chicago.

Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe denounced the Clinton campaign for circulating the photo with the goal of “shameful offensive fear-mongering.”

The Clinton campaign denied knowledge of how the photo was disseminated, but campaign manager Maggie Williams attacked the Obama campaign for overreacting. “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed,” she said.

Two faces of Hillary
Sen. Clinton herself seemed torn between showing voters her softer side and releasing her inner combative persona.

At the end of a Texas debate on Feb. 21, Sen. Clinton extended her hand to Obama and expressed how “honored” she was to be on the same stage with him. But she soon switched tactics and launched harsh attacks on Obama.

On Feb. 23, reacting to flyers that the Obama campaign distributed in Ohio criticizing her positions on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the mandate included in her health insurance plan, Clinton rebuked her rival.

“Shame on you, Barack Obama,” Clinton shouted, before instructing him to “meet me in Ohio, and let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”

To some observers, Clinton’s outburst had the look of an angry queen scolding a misbehaving servant boy, or a principal pulling a wayward student by the ear to the school office.

“Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove’s playbook,” she added, suggesting that the flyers contrasting the positions of the two rivals were somehow a novel or diabolical concept.

In reality, the Obama flyers were pretty standard stuff, more from the playbook of Tom Paine than Karl Rove. If Rove’s playbook were in use, the flyers would have claimed to come from a pro-Hillary group while advocating legalization of child pornography.

But the Clinton campaign was only warming up. On Feb. 24, during a stop in Rhode Island, Clinton mocked Obama’s speeches calling for change:

“Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.”

Amid some chuckles from her supporters, Clinton added, “Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and the special interests disappear.”

Though this Clinton line of attack is popular among some of her backers – ridiculing the supposed naivety of Obama’s young supporters – Obama has never suggested that countering the entrenched special interests of Washington would be easy.

Obama’s argument has been that only an energized American public can elect representatives to bring about change and then the people must stay vigilant to make sure there is no backsliding.

While it’s true Obama doesn’t spell out all the difficulties ahead, his argument is at least as realistic as Clinton’s – that Republican obstructionism can be countered with “hard work.” That approach failed miserably when her initial health care plan collapsed in 1994 despite her strenuous efforts on its behalf.

More to the immediate point, however, Obama’s success in getting out from under the special-interest financial dependency may be the most significant political development of this election cycle.

That success also helps explain the emerging war on Obama – and the rising hysteria among Establishment figures about his surging candidacy.

-- Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush , can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

 

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2008, 06:51:17 am »
When McCain and Obama face off, Israel may find itself in the eye of the storm !!

The Republican contender is counting on the American voters' hatred for anything that reeks of defeat.


By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959362.html

Republican contender John McCain's campaign team is preparing files with incriminating information about Democratic candidate Barack Obama. McCain's advisers are eagerly looking forward to the great debate between these two candidates. They believe McCain's agenda, while perhaps less rosy, is more convincing than Obama's. Israel may find itself in the eye of the storm, for McCain's people have no intention of backpedaling from their claim that Obama's policy endangers Israel. This will not be easy for Jerusalem, whose diplomats will have to maneuver carefully in a political minefield. Obama will now have to decide whether to use the endorsement he got Thursday from former secretary of state James Baker against McCain, the way Robert Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski were used against Obama regarding Israel.

McCain is counting on the American voters' hatred for anything that reeks of defeat. "I will not surrender," he said on Wednesday in a campaign rally. In other words, the other candidate is going to offer to surrender in Iraq. I offer victory.

Iraq will be the focus of the candidates' debate, which will also cover a number of foreign policy differences - from Iran to Cuba, Venezuela to Pakistan. (An update in What To Read: Voters think that Obama is not strong enough on foreign policy:   http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=865078  )

This will be an interesting test for the American voter. A clash between the loathing many feel toward the war in Iraq and the part of the American ethos that seeks victory. The power of the "winner" factor versus the fear of becoming a "loser."

If McCain could only persuade the voters that such a victory were still possible, if he could ignite the spark of hope, perhaps he would, in turn, sway public opinion. That would be a fascinating development as well as an insult of sorts to President Bush, who failed in his own efforts to win over the public.

But McCain will offer not only the hope of victory but a rational argument for the need not to withdraw. "If we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country and I'm not going to allow that to happen," he said. "I will not surrender to Al-Qaida."

At a debate last Tuesday, Obama and Clinton were asked about this possibility: "If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and Al-Qaida resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?" asked moderator Tim Russert.

It was a question neither Clinton nor Obama felt comfortable with. "I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests," Obama replied. McCain's people filed that answer as well. They believe their candidate has a much better answer - the U.S. will not leave before ensuring stability, therefore it won't have to return.

Obama responded at a campaign gathering of his own two days ago: "I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as Al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

These exchanges are seen in Washington as a prelude to the real election show. Hillary Clinton is becoming increasingly less relevant as the McCain-Obama battle captures most of the attention. Obama and Hillary have one more round, next Tuesday, before she will have to concede defeat - unless she manages to surprise everyone yet again.

In any case, McCain's political future depends on a military rather than a political figure - General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, who is due to submit his report on the progress to stabilize Iraq in Washington this April.

The Democrats, asked to explain the American troops' success in reducing the violence level in Iraq, have repeatedly said the army is winning, but the political process is stuck, so that the military reinforcement Bush initiated and McCain pushed for was unnecessary.

But McCain argues that the political process is progressing as well. The Iraqi parliament has managed to surprise even him and pass important legislation. In any case, Obama, who wants to withdraw, will have to prove otherwise. Obama has an answer: the fear of imminent withdrawal finally got the Iraqis moving. If McCain is elected, thus ensuring an American presence in Iraq for generations, will bring the opposite results. It will calm the Iraqis and roll back the political progress.



Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2008, 07:03:41 am »
Obama has taken the AIPAC kool-aid.

He has tons of jewish supporters.

Obama will not stop the palestinian genocide or the iraqi genocide.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Red7Paladin

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2008, 07:07:29 am »
Obama and Brzezinski.  'Nuff said.

Offline A K

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,132
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2008, 07:14:34 am »
Clinton and McCain are "owned" by AIPAC.  Obama only supports them 90% of the time, therefor the Neocons and the War Party are attacking him.  With Hillary or McCain the neocons will get our troops staying in Iraq and a US attack on Iran, and everything they want for Israel, including greenlights for as many attacks as they want on Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or Iran.  Clinton is now resorting to Bush like fear mongering attacks on Obama.  Obama is now starting to get the same neocon attacks they used on Perot, then Buchanan, then Ron Paul.  Anybody who deviates even slightly from the AIPAC, NAFTA, WTO military-industrial complex line is demonized.

Offline A K

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,132
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2008, 07:20:25 am »
I'll take Brzezinski over the neocons any day.  He has the guts to criticize AIPAC and the neocon war mongers.  His new book is a sustained attack on the Bush Cheney neocon faction.  Of course he still wants America to be an empire that rules the world, but in his vision this is done through economics and diplomacy, not war and mass murder.  He also argues that we will only prosper if we include the third world in the bounty, and not treat them as sub-human colonial subjects as the neocons and the corporate Republicans want.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2008, 07:27:13 am »
I'll take Brzezinski over the neocons any day. 

?

He is the NeoCons.

WTF?

Wait are you buying the Hegelian Dialectic?

Have you read the Grand Chessboard?

Do you know what the Trilateral Commission is?

Do you realize he played a part in 911?

Please explain what the difference is.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Red7Paladin

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2008, 07:29:40 am »
I'll take Brzezinski over the neocons any day.  He has the guts to criticize AIPAC and the neocon war mongers.  His new book is a sustained attack on the Bush Cheney neocon faction.  Of course he still wants America to be an empire that rules the world, but in his vision this is done through economics and diplomacy, not war and mass murder.  He also argues that we will only prosper if we include the third world in the bounty, and not treat them as sub-human colonial subjects as the neocons and the corporate Republicans want.

Do you really know who Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the founders of the Trilateral Commission, is and what sort of madness he is capable.  He is just as much a servant of the Illuminati as is Kissinger.

Anyway, are you saying you support Obama?  Do you think you can really trust the man?  Why?  Less evil is still evil.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2008, 07:32:39 am »
Less evil is still evil.

WHY VOTE FOR "LESSER OF TWO EVILS" WHEN YOU HAVE RON PAUL? [ Post 296100669 ]
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_politics&Number=296100669

In 1952, the country was on fire (as usual). The Democrats had ruled for twenty years. Swindler, mass murderer and traitor Franklin Roosevelt was safely dead. Harry Truman, who to everyone’s amazement had beaten Republican globalist Thomas Dewey in 1948, was now completing his term. And the truth about Communist infiltration and influence under the Democrats was oozing out.

If the magnitude of that infiltration became generally known, the conspiracy for world government could have suffered a devastating defeat. The Communists had literally been directing federal policy. Because of that policy, Patton’s advance had been stopped, so Stalin could seize all of Central Europe. Soviet agent Alger Hiss, a top official of the Department of State, ran the San Francisco meeting that founded the Communist United Nations. And on and on!

And waiting in the wings to succeed Truman was staunch Republican patriot Robert Taft, of Ohio. In 1952, it would not have mattered whom the Democrats decided to nominate. Immensely popular Bob Taft would have won. And Taft would have conducted the exposé the world government traitors so feared. They had to find a way to deny Taft the nomination. But how?

First, they recruited Dwight Eisenhower, an unimportant colonel in the 1930s with no military talent, who didn’t need any because he was a favorite of Eleanor Roosevelt’s. Promoted to general over the heads of more experienced, more talented men, Eisenhower had been Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, but he had never seen a battle, except in the movies and maybe when Mamie found out about Kay Sommersby.

There was nothing more to Eisenhower than the fact that he was a factotum of the conspiracy for world government. He fired Patton. He conducted Operation Keelhaul, in which he forcibly returned to the Soviets a couple of million people who had used the war to escape. Some of those people had served in our military in our uniform. Many committed suicide rather than return to Stalin. Mothers threw their babies off bridges and then jumped off themselves. Eisenhower was merciless.

In another incredible war crime, Eisenhower killed a million or so demobilized German soldiers, ordinary men who had nothing to do with any Holocaust and maybe didn’t even know about it. He kept them caged in the open, utterly without shelter and starved them to death. So, Eisenhower should have been on trial beside Hitler. Like Roosevelt, he was a Soviet front man and a mass murderer.

But the conspiracy for world government not only destroys the reputations of its enemies; it also creates spurious reputations for its own. So it created a reputation for Eisenhower. They made him NATO commander. He still had never been in combat, but was the hero who had “defeated Germany.” They brought him back to become president of Columbia University.

They couldn’t run at Taft directly. He was too popular. So, they devised a brilliant slogan: “I like Taft, but he can’t win.” As soon as they had maneuvered Taft out of the nomination – thereby preventing the exposé and preserving the conspiracy – they transmogrified the slogan. Now it was, “I like Ike.” Thereby, they piggybacked Taft’s popularity onto Eisenhower. The implication was that Ike could win and of course he buried the Democrat, Adlai Stevenson.

What do we have now? Wherever I go, I find very few people who dislike Ron Paul. Because you will never meet a man more humane, what could a normal person dislike? I go out of my way to ask black people about him. Those who have heard of him smile. So far, I have not found one who dislikes him. There is no reason to believe your experience is any different. Everyone but the totalitarians likes Dr. Ron, but many won’t vote for him because “he can’t win.”

As the Texas primary approaches, these are the people to whom these comments are directed. What does it mean to like Ron Paul but not to vote for him because “he can’t win?” First, there is the obvious fact that enough such people could add up to the old “self-fulfilling prophecy.” If enough people who believe he “can’t win” don’t vote for him, then obviously he can’t.

Second, we are not talking about the Marx brothers in “A Day at the Races.” The point of all this effort is not to outwit the law of probability and pick the winner; not to be able to boast we did that. This is Election Day. We are choosing the candidate who more likely will work to restore and preserve our constitutional system. If you believe Ron “can’t win,” one possible choice is not to vote for President at all, in which case you are in effect telling other people to choose the winner. You are saying, “Ron can’t win because I made him lose.”

Or you could vote for someone else. Who? The only other candidates for the Republican nomination who remain are McCain and Huckabee. McCain is deranged, he is corrupt, he betrayed his fellow Prisoners of War, which is just one of many good reasons to believe that his Soviet interrogators sent him home as one of their own and his record in the Senate is as far left as Mao Tse-tung, which is another. He says he would happily keep us in Iraq for a century.

It now becomes apparent that Huckabee lost that hundred pounds and wrote the book about it in preparation for his presidential campaign, which in turn is the key to his new career in show business. Recently, I saw this presidential candidate playing straight buffoon on a comedy show. He is in the race for whatever he can get, an Elmer Gantry equivalent to a courtroom shyster. Before he started stealing Dr. Paul’s platform, Pukeabee was a rabid socialist, doing whatever he could to encourage the illegal alien invasion.

The experts tell us Traitor McCain almost has it nailed down. If that is true, there is nothing to lose by voting for Dr. Ron. If he “can’t win,” your vote won’t change anything, except that the more votes he gets, the more obvious it will be that the natives are restless; the more influence Dr. Ron will have at the national convention. So the question is, if you share Dr. Paul’s beliefs, why not go ahead and vote for him in an election in which there is no “lesser of two evils?”

There is something even crazier. Believe it or not, some Texas Republicans say they will vote for B. Hussein Obama to stop the Clinton womanoid. Of course that would ensure the nomination of Republican Traitor McCain and it could win the state for Democrat Hussein, who would be much harder for McCain to beat in November, despite his connections to racism, Islam and Communism.

Remember that the womanoid comes to us with dozens of corpses of the heroes who opposed the Clinton crime family or were just in the way, like Billy Dale and Vince Foster. The names of some Presidents are connected to a single major scandal. If I say “Nixon,” you think “Watergate.” The womanoid comes to us with a decades-long record of major felonies, any one of which would put her away for many years. I would not be surprised to learn that she has been a member of the Communist Party. Her election would trigger an eruption of rampaging bull dykes.

Hussein does not have anywhere near as much smelly baggage. He is movie star charming. He is a novelty. Many brainwashed white victims would vote for him to expiate the guilt they imbibed in government school for something other white people they can’t name allegedly did more than 150 years ago, and the fact that Hussein would impose just as much Communism – and maybe more Islam – as the womanoid is more than overcome by the brilliance of his dictum that the future is before us.

Yes, considerable bad feeling overcame the good between the races for many years after Lincoln’s Communist War to Destroy the Union. It was engendered by “Reconstruction,” calculated by Communist Yankees (some of them foreigners) to humiliate whites, who were thereby inspired to humiliate blacks. Thank God we are done with all that.

Every day I get emails from people who complain in effect that Dr. Ron isn’t perfect. Didn’t I write as much myself a while ago? Again, the only perfect candidate would be Jesus Christ, but so far He hasn’t declared His candidacy, maybe because He already owns the whole place. If you haven’t kicked your wife out yet, stop complaining about Dr. Paul.

Did you forget about what Dr. Ron would do despite his faults? On Inauguration Day he would start to abolish IRS and the Fed. He would secure our borders. He would stop the handouts that inspire the illegal aliens to come. He would restore the Constitution and our national independence.

He would pull us out of the North American Union the world government traitors are trying to trick us into. He would start extricating us from Iraq. He would not make more war in the area. He would restore our military and take good care of our veterans. How is all that for a start? All the other candidates in both parties would do exactly the opposite.

So who is the “lesser of two evils?” Why not vote what you want for a change? Traitor McCain still does not have it. Because he is deranged, he could unravel at any moment. If he still doesn’t have it at the national Convention, there could be a deadlock and a “brokered convention.” Is that a long shot? Yes, about as long as it can get. Why not go for it?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline A K

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,132
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2008, 07:43:35 am »
There are factions within the American elite.  The neocons are advocates of "Israel First", supported the war in Iraq and now want to attack Iran.  Obama was against the Iraq War, and has come out against attacking Iran.  He has said he wants significant changes in NAFTA and voted against CAFTA.  Unlike Hillary and McCain, he voted against selling cluster bombs to Israel - a country that has used them against civilian populations.  Obama has said he favors marijuana decriminalization, and as a state rep led the effort in death penalty reform and ending abusive police confessions.  The neocon/AIPAC/military-intel faction that controls Hillary and McCain wants war all the time, full globalization, more prisons, more police state tactics.  Zbig was a JFK advisor, and has argued strongly against the neocon plans for a world military empire.  He broke from Kissinger and argued that we should confront the Soviet Union - in fact he is directly responsible for the start of the end of the Soviet Empire, a brutal regime that killed more people than Hitler.  Of course, he also is responsible for the birth of the Taliban.  

But if you believe the Edmonds allegations - and I do - then the neocons are not merely crazies, not merely stupid, not merely blood thirsty.  They are flat out traitors willing to let a nuke go off in an American city to further their agenda.  They must be destroyed, they must be driven from goverment power and returned to their magazines and think tanks where they can spew their venom to a smaller and smaller audience.  The Obama/Zbig/Richard Clark faction is better than them, as a stopgap until Ron Paul or another real Constitutional patriot is in a position to win.  I think anyone who lives in a blow out state should vote Libertarian or write in Ron Paul.  But I advocate anyone in a battleground state like Florida or Ohio vote Obama.  Yes with Obama we will get the same taxes and spending we will get under Hillary or McCain, but getting the neocon traitors out of government is worth it.  That is the way I feel.  

Offline Kregener

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,727
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2008, 07:52:42 am »
I am unsure why the Power Elite from the RIGHT are waging a 'war' on him, he is just like them, only younger and more inexperienced.

I am waging MY 'war' on Obama because he is a Socialist change agent for the NWO. Just like the Power Elite on the 'right'.

I could as soon vote for satan as for ANY profferred 'candidate' of the Machine.
Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than going to a hospital makes you a doctor.

Stop thinking in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of right and wrong

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2008, 07:54:46 am »
There are factions within the American elite.  The neocons are advocates of "Israel First", supported the war in Iraq and now want to attack Iran.  Obama was against the Iraq War, and has come out against attacking Iran.  He has said he wants significant changes in NAFTA and voted against CAFTA.  Unlike Hillary and McCain, he voted against selling cluster bombs to Israel - a country that has used them against civilian populations.  Obama has said he favors marijuana decriminalization, and as a state rep led the effort in death penalty reform and ending abusive police confessions.  The neocon/AIPAC/military-intel faction that controls Hillary and McCain wants war all the time, full globalization, more prisons, more police state tactics.  Zbig was a JFK advisor, and has argued strongly against the neocon plans for a world military empire.  He broke from Kissinger and argued that we should confront the Soviet Union - in fact he is directly responsible for the start of the end of the Soviet Empire, a brutal regime that killed more people than Hitler.  Of course, he also is responsible for the birth of the Taliban.  

But if you believe the Edmonds allegations - and I do - then the neocons are not merely crazies, not merely stupid, not merely blood thirsty.  They are flat out traitors willing to let a nuke go off in an American city to further their agenda.  They must be destroyed, they must be driven from goverment power and returned to their magazines and think tanks where they can spew their venom to a smaller and smaller audience.  The Obama/Zbig/Richard Clark faction is better than them, as a stopgap until Ron Paul or another real Constitutional patriot is in a position to win.  I think anyone who lives in a blow out state should vote Libertarian or write in Ron Paul.  But I advocate anyone in a battleground state like Florida or Ohio vote Obama.  Yes with Obama we will get the same taxes and spending we will get under Hillary or McCain, but getting the neocon traitors out of government is worth it.  That is the way I feel.  

That is exactly the plan, just like Pelosi in 2006.

Hey, look at who wants to regulate the Internet...OBAMA

Hey, look who voted for unbalanced budgets to continue the Iraqi genocide...OBAMA

Hey, look who lies about what is wrong with the Iraq war...OBAMA (he says it was a blunder, sorry no pass, we do not genocide over 1 million people because of a blunder.  the problem is the war is illegal.)

Hey, look who wants to raise taxes and stop any possibility of recovery from the depression...OBAMA

Hey, look who wants to expand NAFTA...OBAMA

Hey look who wants to give 40 million illegal immigrants driver's licences...OBAMA

Hey look who kisses AIPAC's ass and cannot wait to give more DU to Israeli Neo-Cons...OBAMA

you are kidding right, you gotta be shiting me about the Obama crap.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Kregener

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,727
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2008, 07:57:07 am »
Look who supports Obama...NAOMI WOLF
Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than going to a hospital makes you a doctor.

Stop thinking in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of right and wrong

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2008, 08:12:06 am »
Look who supports Obama...NAOMI WOLF

huh? in what way?  I support Obama in his finally saying the Iraq war is causing the depression and I do not support Obama in being "Super President" (because the position does not exist under our constitution).

I support Bush on tax cuts, but I think he needs to be tried for treason.

So what does that mean that she supports him?

Has she ever said that she supports him?

As far as I have seen she wants to clarify the BS concerning the lies about him (as I do as well).

The whole Obama is a muslim in waiting or a black national in waiting is total BS.  He is an elitest who has been granted some temporary puppet powers.  those powers can be taken away at any time.
Ron Paul is teaching us the truth.  We have the power.  With 300 million people, you cannot control us with puppet skills.

UPDATE: Why Barack Obama Got My Vote by Naomi Wolf
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/29/7373/
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline lazarus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Physician
    • kalamation
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2008, 08:14:05 am »
Look who supports Obama...NAOMI WOLF

Thy are salivating to get any "leftist" elitist/neolib in there, after the "right" elitist/neocon is gone. Can you imagine their ecstasy when the new regime inherits all the new toys: waterboarding, surveillance, gun control, tasers, eminent domain, internet control, etc. Maybe then the so called christians will start complaining about these things. Brought to you by their man Bush.
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2008, 08:25:36 am »
NEW! THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA
http://www.actindependent.org/

2/23/08—Brzezinski Seizing Control Over US Policy in Slow-Motion Creeping Coup by Webster G. Tarpley

2/17/08—Barack Obama Fronts Wall Street's Infrastructure Swindle: What Change Really Means by Bruce Marshall

Do not be fooled! Barack Obama's call for National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank (NIRB) does not signal the return of the Democratic Party to the values of FDR and a revival of the Constitutional prerogative to "promote the general welfare," but would rather provide more welfare for Wall Street, and worse. Obama's plan is nothing more than the direct means of instituting the Rohatyn-Rudman National Investment Corporation (NIC) plan called for in 2005, which in essence is a revival of Mussolini's methods of corporatist control of the state in a politically correct post modern fashion. [more]

2/8/08—Obama Candidacy Means No Impeachment of Bush-Cheney

2/8/08—Obama's Plan to Privatize Social Security and Other Right-Wing Economics

2/8/08—After Super Tuesday: Why Obama is a Sure Loser — and the Prelude to a McCain-Lieberman Disaster

2/3/08—Obama Campaign Linked to Chechen Terrorism; Grant Of Taxpayer-Funded US Asylum For Chechen Terror Envoy Gave Obama Foreign Policy Guru Zbigniew Brzezinski "One of the Happiest Days of My Life" by Webster G. Tarpley

If the American public were generally aware that the "foreign minister" of one of the most murderous terrorist organizations in the world, a man whose extradition on terrorism charges is sought by at least one UN Security Council permanent member, is living openly in Washington DC, they might be indignant. If Americans knew that this is the "foreign minister" of a terrorist group specializing in killing women and children, first in a hospital, then in a school, and later defenseless civilians in a theater, their indignation might grow into rage. If they knew that this envoy for terrorists is living in the comfortable Woodley Park neighborhood of Washington DC with a lifestyle most Americans could not afford, with an office, a secretary, a travel budget, and a public relations budget all paid for at the expense of the US taxpayers, with State Department checks signed by Condoleezza Rice, they might be furious. If they knew that this ambassador for terrorists had been set up in his current all-expenses-paid, taxpayer-funded lifestyle by a man who is the main image adviser and the main foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, their view of the Illinois senator and his qualifications for the presidency might well undergo a radical change. [more]

Addendum: Obama Economic Controller Is Skull And Bones Member: Austan "The Ghoul" Goolsbee, Yale '91

2/1/08—Coup and Counter-Coup in New Hampshire: Brzezinski Clan Color Revolution vs. Diebold Vote Fraud by Webster G. Tarpley (1/19/08)

The New Hampshire Democratic primary was no exercise in grass roots retail politics, but rather a clash between two cynical covert operations run by contending factions of intelligence community professionals. On the one side was an attempt to replicate here in the United States on behalf of Obama the sort of "color revolution" or "CIA people power coup" which the National Endowment for Democracy and the Brzezinski intelligence faction have carried out in such countries as Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine. On the other hand, an opposed intelligence faction was able to win the day by a more traditional type of Diebold voting machine pattern fraud in favor of Mrs. Clinton.... [more]



1/21/08—18-Point Draft Emergency Economic Recovery Program to Stop the Bush Depression (105K pdf)

1. Stop all foreclosures immediately for at least five years and for the duration of the depression by means of a compulsory federal law carrying criminal penalties. No foreclosures on homes, family farms, factories, public utilities, hospitals, transportation and other infrastructure. Outlaw adjustable rate mortgages.

2. Raise the federal minimum wage immediately to a living wage of at least $15 per hour, with the short-term goal of attaining a federal minimum wage of at least $20 per hour.

3. Immediate enactment of a securities transfer tax (STT) or Tobin tax of 1% to be imposed on all financial turnover in all financial markets to include the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ, the Amex, the Chicago Board of Trade, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the market in federal securities, the foreign exchange market, the New York Mercantile Exchange, and all other financial markets. This tax will be paid by the seller. This tax will be extended to the notional value of all derivatives, including over-the-counter derivatives, exchange traded derivatives, structured notes, designer derivatives and all other financial paper. Derivatives will become reportable under penalty of law....
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline A K

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,132
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2008, 08:47:04 am »
As I have said before, I voted for Perot in 92 and 96, Libertarian in 2000, Kerry in 04 as an anti-Bush anti-neocon vote, supported Ron Paul in 08.  While the three people left standing are all bad and all establishment, I would take Obama over Clinton, and Obama over McCain.  Now Paul has said he will not run third party in 08.  So it looks like either Obama or McCain will be the next President.  In 2000 the actual vote in Florida was decided by 8 - yes 8 - votes.  Perhaps 100 former Ron Paul supporters in Florida will read my words here.  They can either stay home - which is what the neocon traitors want, write in Paul - which accomplishes what exactly, or vote Obama.  Yes Obama is bad on a hundred things.  But he is no worse than McCain on taxes and spending.  It is the difference between a man who was against the illegal war and murder in Iraq from the start and now wants our troops out, and a man who supports the war, wants to expand it and wants our troops there for 100 years.  Between someone who is against war with Iran and someone who favors it.  Between someone who fought against police state tactics in his state and the US Senate and someone who has voted for every Constitution shredding measure and increase in government power.  Someone who has at least criticized and voted against aspects of the global corporate NAFTA/WTO government and someone who is a 100% cheerleader.  Someone who has fought the Bush regime on ending Habeas Corpus and allowing torture and someone who caved in and supports these travesties.  So yes, I would prefer Obama over McCain.  Really, anyone who an absolute evil traitor like Kristol attacks is a sign that that person represents a threat to the neocon war party.  Reason enough to support him! 

Offline Kregener

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,727
Re: Why the war on Obama?
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2008, 09:35:15 am »
If you have not learned by now to TOTALLY disregard everything a professional politicians SAYS, then I do not know what to tell you.
Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than going to a hospital makes you a doctor.

Stop thinking in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of right and wrong