TAG | Iraq
We have heard the arguments. We have heard the agendas. Now, the country goes to vote. Will the winner be successful in turning the nation around for the better? Probably not. It will take more than two terms to fix this mess. However, there is something at stake, and that is George Walker Bush paying for his crimes.
Here is the short list: An invasion of Iraq that has not achieved its original purpose (Weapons of Mass Destruction…remember?) Enron, Halliburton truckers being paid exponentially more than the soldiers protecting them along their routes, invasion of privacy via the Patriot Act, waterboarding at Guantanamo Bay, the current economic crisis brought on by companies he allowed to run amok, the Hurricane Katrina relief disaster, a third world energy grid (no one ever thinks of that one) and last but certainly not least, the events of September 11th, 2001. There is a big difference between making inspirational speeches after an attack and doing your real job, which is to prevent the attack in the first place.
Should there be an investigation of Bush? Definitely. Do the American people want it? Of course. Remember, the Michael Moore film “Fahrenheit 9/11” raked in millions for his non-official investigation of the president.
Also, the government spent $60 million to prove Bill Clinton has an affair. Surely, Bush Jr. has to be worth a few pennies.
Now, should the country finally respect the American people and the soldiers who are dying for no good reason in Iraq, after an investigation would come the trial. “Guilty”, and the case better not take weeks either.
Here is where the choice for president comes in, and it is critical. If McCain wins, Bush wins. As soon as the guilty verdict comes down, McCain will pardon Bush, and all of it was for nothing. George will walk, and he will be as the legendary “Die Hard” villain Hans Gruber said, “…sitting on a beach, earning twenty percent.”
Read More at NJ.com
Related articles
- Moore making ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′ sequel.
- Slacker Uprising by Michael Moore, Distributed As A Free Download
- Ultimate Sacrifice: Bush Quit Golf For The Troops
- Barack Obama: Flawless campaign was key to winning the western states
- Moore plans followup to Fahrenheit 9/11
- Next from Michael Moore: ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′ Sequel (’Fahrenheit 9/12′?)
- Oliver Stone Thinks Bush Will Like His Damning Biopic [Film]
- Holy Hell
- Pop Culture Legacy: Bush Image Doomed?
- Memo exposes US powers on interrogation
Image by jmtimages via Flickr
WASHINGTON—After emerging victorious from one of the most pivotal elections in history, president-elect Barack Obama will assume the role of commander in chief on Jan. 20, shattering a racial barrier the United States is, at long last, shitty enough to overcome.
Faced with losing everything, Americans took a long overdue step forward and elected Barack Obama.
Although polls going into the final weeks of October showed Sen. Obama in the lead, it remained unclear whether the failing economy, dilapidated housing market, crumbling national infrastructure, health care crisis, energy crisis, and five-year-long disastrous war in Iraq had made the nation crappy enough to rise above 300 years of racial prejudice and make lasting change.
“Today the American people have made their voices heard, and they have said, ‘Things are finally as terrible as we’re willing to tolerate,” said Obama, addressing a crowd of unemployed, uninsured, and debt-ridden supporters. “To elect a black man, in this country, and at this time—these last eight years must have really broken you.”
Added Obama, “It’s a great day for our nation.”
Read more on The Onion
Related articles
- My Four Commitments to Barack Obama
- Finishing Our Work
- On the election of Barack Obama as President
- Many Years!
- President-Elect Obama Quotes CLB In Acceptance Speech. Well Sort Of.
- Barack Obama - The new era starts
- Concerns over =91change=92 fester
- United States. 30 states in recession: Moody’s
- He did it! A New Day has Dawned. Congrats President-elect Barack Obama.
- Voters tag economy as Issue No. 1
General David Petraeus deployed overwhelming force when he briefed Barack Obama and two other Senators in Baghdad last July. He knew Obama favored a 16-month timetable for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq, and he wanted to make the strongest possible case against it. And so, after he had presented an array of maps and charts and PowerPoint slides describing the current situation on the ground in great detail, Petraeus closed with a vigorous plea for “maximum flexibility” going forward.
Obama had a choice at that moment. He could thank Petraeus for the briefing and promise to take his views “under advisement.” Or he could tell Petraeus what he really thought, a potentially contentious course of action — especially with a general not used to being confronted. Obama chose to speak his mind. “You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument,” he began. “Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security.” Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military.
A “spirited” conversation ensued, one person who was in the room told me. “It wasn’t a perfunctory recitation of talking points. They were arguing their respective positions, in a respectful way.” The other two Senators — Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed — told Petraeus they agreed with Obama. According to both Obama and Petraeus, the meeting — which lasted twice as long as the usual congressional briefing — ended agreeably. Petraeus said he understood that Obama’s perspective was, necessarily, going to be more strategic. Obama said that the timetable obviously would have to be flexible. But the Senator from Illinois had laid down his marker: if elected President, he would be in charge. Unlike George W. Bush, who had given Petraeus complete authority over the war — an unprecedented abdication of presidential responsibility (and unlike John McCain, whose hero worship of Petraeus bordered on the unseemly) — Obama would insist on a rigorous chain of command.
Barack Obama has prospered in this presidential campaign because of the steadiness of his temperament and the judicious quality of his decision-making. They are his best-known qualities. The most important decision he has made — the selection of a running mate — was done carefully, with an exhaustive attention to detail and contemplation of all the possible angles. Two months later, as John McCain’s peremptory selection of Governor Sarah Palin has come to seem a liability, it could be argued that Obama’s quiet selection of Joe Biden defined the public’s choice in the general-election campaign. But not every decision can be made so carefully. There are a thousand instinctive, instantaneous decisions that a presidential candidate has to make in the course of a campaign — like whether to speak his mind to a General Petraeus — and this has been a more difficult journey for Obama, since he’s far more comfortable when he’s able to think things through. “He has learned to trust his gut,” an Obama adviser told me. “He wasn’t so confident in his instincts last year. It’s been the biggest change I’ve seen in him.”
Read on at TIME
Related articles
- Matthew Duss: Would al-Qaida test Barack Obama or John McCain as president?
- No Way!!!! No How!!! No McCain/Palin!!!!
- It’s Probably Because He’s Black
- Will Ferrell Goes Back to Only Successful Show He’s Ever Done
- Barack Obama begins visit to Iraq
- McCain’s Foreign Policy Frustration
- US elections: Iraqi government backs Obama’s troop withdrawal plan
- ThinkFast: October 24, 2008
- Former George W Bush press secretary Scott McClellan backs Barack Obama
- McCain’s Foreign Policy Frustration
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.
The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein’s government.
During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.
Timmons’ activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism. His dealings on behalf of the deceased Iraqi leader stand in stark contrast to the views his current employer held at the time.
John McCain strongly supported the 1991 military action against Iraq, and as recently as Sunday described Saddam Hussein as a one-time menace to the region who had “stated categorically that he would acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he would use them wherever he could.”
Timmons declined to comment for this story. An office manager who works for him said that he has made it his practice during his public career to never speak to the press. Timmons previously told investigators that he did not know that either Vincent or Park were acting as unregistered agents of Iraq. He also insisted that he did not fully understand just how closely the two men were tied to Saddam’s regime while they collaborated.
But testimony and records made public during Park’s criminal trial, as well as other information uncovered during a United Nations investigation, suggest just the opposite. Virtually everything Timmons did while working on the lobbying campaign was within days conveyed by Vincent to either one or both of Saddam Hussein’s top aides, Tariq Aziz and Nizar Hamdoon. Vincent also testified that he almost always relayed input from the Iraqi aides back to Timmons.
Talking points that Timmons produced for the lobbyists to help ease the sanctions, for example, were reviewed ahead of time by Aziz, Vincent testified in court. Proposals that Timmons himself circulated to U.S. officials as part of the effort were written with the assistance of the Iraqi officials, and were also sent ahead of time with Timmons’ approval to Aziz, other records show.
Moreover, there was a major financial incentive at play for Timmons. The multi-million dollar oil deal that he was pursuing with the two other lobbyists would only be possible if their efforts to ease sanctions against Iraq were successful.
Read the rest of the article from The Huffington Post
Related articles by Zemanta
- Did Saddam pay for lawmakers’ trip?
- John McCain Back Pedals From His “Iraq Was About Oil” Comment, But Makes Little Sense
- Presidential Debate: Obama Calls Out McCain’s Judgment
- Saddam’s deputy tried for murder of 42 merchants
- Stephen Zunes: Obama’s Hawk VP
- How Iraq’s once effective healthcare system was sold down the nation’s two rivers
- Iraq’s former deputy PM Tariq Aziz faces trial
- Feds: Saddam Regime Financed U.S. Junket
- Punditry Kristolized: Part II
