"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by notfrommensa
I also think Hank won. If you have so many prior statements why didn't you cite on of them?

I did when Hank and I had this discussion the other day. Go back and check.



Even Elvis had socks.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I did when Hank and I had this discussion the other day. Go back and check.



Even Elvis had socks.

no you didn't. actually, I'm not sure I've heard Obama do a flat out "I'll bring the troops home" so can we at least agree that Hillary is dishonest when she says it?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm, nope. my point wasn't that he never said that, I was saying whenever they talk about "pulling out of Iraq" they shouldn't say "bring them home," when they mean "send them to Afghanistan."

You apparently had multiple points going on then.

I certainly thought that your principal point was that BO and HC were liars because they could not possibly both "bring the troops home" from Iraq AND strengthen the Afghani presence.

[Which is incorrect.]

You also made, more than once, the secondary point that the lie was that the Dems would never support a strengthened presence in Afghanistan because their audience is tired of war.

You also commented on the lack of any prominent mention of Afghanistan on BO's website -- until a couple of folks helpfully showed you where it was.

You may want to consider accepting a rare loss on this one, Hank, with the grace and aplomb your admirers have come to expect, rather than stoop to the tactics of evasion that you routinely deplore.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
until a couple of folks helpfully showed you where it was.
S_A_M

cite please?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Not Bob
From the speech I linked to:

• It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

(emphasis supplied, obviously)From Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
no you didn't. actually, I'm not sure I've heard Obama do a flat out "I'll bring the troops home" so can we at least agree that Hillary is dishonest when she says it?

See below.

And, as for Hillary, I haven't researched her web site on the issue. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Obama has been making more of an issue of sending troops to Afghanistan than she has.

eta: Whoops. See post above for when I did.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
cite please?

I'm pretty sure it was a Not Bob post coming shortly after your post about BO's website. I'm sure you can find it.

I claim no credit for doing that, because (as you can tell by the quality of my posts) I don't do research for this Board.

I see your point that the comment in the Ohio debate last night doesn't (by itself) prove you were wrong when you first posted it -- BUT

when you combine it with the earlier statements on BO's website and in his speeches, I think it shows that your interpretation of those earlier "platitudes about Afghanistan" was incorrect. No one seems to think that this is some big policy shift for Obama.

(The quote is from your response to RT/NB.)

S_A_M

P.S. The nice pics y'all are posting really liven up the Board.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
In other TX news, Chicago has nothing on them. The dead endorse Hilllary.

Well, the dead also expressly don't support her, so I guess it's a wash.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Last night:

• TIM RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in the campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments. On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune, "Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago." Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?
  
  OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think they are unacceptable and reprehensible.
  
  I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together.
  
  I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.
  
  RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?
  
  OBAMA: Well, Tim, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy.
  
  You know, I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements. And I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.
  
  RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, the Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism "gutter religion."
  
  OBAMA: Tim, I think -- I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it.
  
  This is not something new. This is something that -- I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.
  
  RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, "Audacity of Hope," you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."
  
  He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."
  
  RUSSERT: What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?
  
  OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.
  
  And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.
  
  You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans, who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.
  
  But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically -- it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign and it's true in this presidency -- is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.
  
  When I was -- just last point I would make -- when I was giving -- had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King's birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti- Semitism within the African-American community. And that's what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I'm president of the United States.
  
  BRIAN WILLIAMS: Senator...
  
  CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Patty, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.
  
  And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.
  
  RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?
  
  CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.
  
  OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
  
  CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.

For starters, the idea that Obama should have to answer for Farrakhan is offensive.

Bunk. If the KKK came out and openly endorsed any white candidate, they would certainly have to answer for it

That aside, the follow-up questions are utterly asinine.

Not when in the context that three of his handpicked top policy advisers are virulently anti-Israel (see Ziggy, Power, Malley)

[SlaveNoMore]

Godspeed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
three of his handpicked top policy advisers are virulently anti-Israel (see Ziggy, Power, Malley)

Not under any meaning of "anti-Israel" that ordinary people speaking English would use. This is a smear by people with a particular view of what sort of policy best serves Israel to use on people with whom they disagree, and they use this smear instead of just talking about policy because they know that the vast majority of people -- and the vast majority of U.S. Jews -- disagree with them on the policy.

But if you think this sort of smear is acceptable, then it would stand to reason that you think it's OK for Tim Russert to smear Obama with spurious crap about Louis Farrakhan merely because he has Samathan Powers and Zbigniew Bzrezinski as foreign-policy advisors. Sure, that follows.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Not under any meaning of "anti-Israel" that ordinary people speaking English would use. This is a smear by people with a particular view of what sort of policy best serves Israel to use on people with whom they disagree, and they use this smear instead of just talking about policy because they know that the vast majority of people -- and the vast majority of U.S. Jews -- disagree with them on the policy.

Two thoughts:

1) You have a very bad habit of labelling everything as a "smear" any time some factually inconvenient point is raised about one of your guys.

2) Your boy Yglesias tried to make your point about a week ago, and he sounded equally as weak.

But if you think this sort of smear is acceptable, then it would stand to reason that you think it's OK for Tim Russert to smear Obama with spurious crap about Louis Farrakhan merely because he has Samathan Powers and Zbigniew Bzrezinski as foreign-policy advisors. Sure, that follows.

Spurious?

One of the most loathsome public figures publicly supported Obama, so he was properly questioned on it (and he thoroughly answered it - so it should not be properly put to rest). That said, because of the totality of circumstances - namely, the people he has chosen to surround him (his pastor, folks he hand-picked as advisors), there could be additional questions and concerns

So yes, it absolutely seems fair to me.

I sure as hell didnt see you crying about "smears" every time on these morons from CNN or MSNBC posed obnoxious, leading questions to the GOP candidates.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Bunk. If the KKK came out and openly endorsed any white candidate, they would certainly have to answer for it

True.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Not when in the context that three of his handpicked top policy advisers are virulently anti-Israel (see Ziggy, Power, Malley)

I'm not sure that is an accurate characterization of them.

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Bunk. If the KKK came out and openly endorsed any white candidate, they would certainly have to answer for it



Not when in the context that three of his handpicked top policy advisers are virulently anti-Israel (see Ziggy, Power, Malley)

Kudos on your use of the word "bunk." Bravo. I myself am working to bring back "boss," in the sense of: "Ty should enjoy Pink Martini; their album entitled 'Hey Eugene' was totally boss."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Godspeed.

That's a shame. He was interesting.

S_A_M