The Truth as Left as possible
About the Author
This is our election to lose let us not do so!!
Hello my fellow Democrats,
I know I have been gone for a month but I have been trying to open the Hickory, N.C. office for Senator Obama. Now that is done we need warm bodies in here to fill it up. We are having canvass training March 27, 2008 starting at 7pm.
Also we are going canvassing March 29, 2008
If anyone has any questions please contact me at 828-449-5746
Thank you in advance
Western North Carolina
All Accounted For
I know I have been gone for a month but I have been trying to open the Hickory, N.C. office for Senator Obama. Now that is done we need warm bodies in here to fill it up. We are having canvass training March 27, 2008 starting at 7pm.
Also we are going canvassing March 29, 2008
If anyone has any questions please contact me at 828-449-5746
Thank you in advance
Western North Carolina
All Accounted For
Last night debate showed the world that we can have desagreements as Democrats and still be civil I can't understand why these two people are running for the nomination and they treat each other than we do on this site about them. People we need to pick up where they left off last night. This is the most important election of most of our life, we have to get it right. Let the truth argued the point and if you are not sure about something please don't post it.
Hello, people I have seen, and I have written some posts that have really disturb me lately. Instead of discussing our differences we have started an all out war. I think we need to look past our two candidates and start focusing some of our attacks on the road ahead. We may not agree on who we support, but I hope we all agree on one thing, we can not have another republican in the White House. With that said Ladies and Gents, I think we can disagree with each other but let us stop all the mudslinging on either of the candidates and on each other. Instead let us start the movement against the right and let us start it right now!
We can't let the media create a split in our party, telling us that we have to be either Sen. Clinton or Sen Obama supporters. This kind of thinking is going to leave us torn and without the White House, so let us try and leave the mudslinging for others and not the Democrats at Democrats.org
Maybe this is a little "Wonderlandish" but we all need something to wish for.
We can't let the media create a split in our party, telling us that we have to be either Sen. Clinton or Sen Obama supporters. This kind of thinking is going to leave us torn and without the White House, so let us try and leave the mudslinging for others and not the Democrats at Democrats.org
Maybe this is a little "Wonderlandish" but we all need something to wish for.
I wonder if anyone has notice what Hillary has been doing with her campaign. No, I'm not talking about attacks (they happen on both sides), but she just pick and choose what states she's going to run in. I guess her plan is win 4 or 5 big states and she will have enough delegates to keep her in it until the DNC where she can use her "Mojo" to muscle the nomination. People please pay attention to what has and will continue to happen; Obama has won a total of 24 states (that is a majority) and the U.S. Virgin Island. Please annie mcliberal say your self the post I don't want to hear that 24 is not a majority because we have 50 states let me remind you that Mi and Fl lost there seats.
Good morning my fellow Democrats today's date is Sunday Feb. 17th, 2008 and I am about to head out to church (yes you right-wingers, we do attend church). I am very afflicted at the degree of seperation that has transpired as a result of our candidates. Make no mistakes, the right would love for this to continue well into the Summer months as it benifits them 110% as long as we are jousting each other then they can spend that much more time making Sen. McCain look like a conservative. We as Democrats had better ameliorate our blueprint on how we are going to arrive on Pennslyvania Ave. Please keep going back and forward over nothing and watch how the Republican win the White House befor we even realize.
Wake up people and do it now!!
Wake up people and do it now!!
Don't spend too much time on govtrack.us, because this site is not a goverment site. It is not from or related to our government in any way, shape, or form. Even though Hillary and Obama are both rated as average as far as getting bills passed. There are some differences between the two candidates, Obama is rated more Liberal than Hillary. If you would like good information just go to senate.gov and this link is all you need. Keep in mind people, we should pay more attention to the candidates and what they stand for or what they are trying to get through rather than what does get through. This is the best way to see who the candidate is. Each candidate only has one vote and really can't pass a law without the majority of votes. At least if you read what this candidate tried to pass you know who he/she is.
Sen. McCain will get the endorsement of Bush Sr. This is a prime example of the alignment of Bush policies with McCain's candidacy. This is a great endorsement for Sen. McCain because it leads the conservatives to believe that he is an extention to the Bush years and we all know how they feel about that!! We have to act now as a Party and unite behind a candidate and not wait until the last minute, because it just may cause us another trip to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Heed my warning this is endorsement is awe-inspiring and we better not ignore it!
By now we all have heard what James Carville has said about Sen. Clinton bid for the White House. "If she loses either Texas or Ohio this thing is done." Those words are so funny not because Hillary Clinton will be out of the race, but because this race is already over and James and the Clinton Camp know this. Instead of trying to better our Party and keep from the "back-room deals" that she is counting on, she rather stay in this race and risk us losing the White House again.
If you like Hillary or Obama you have to see what is going on here. This is not democracy this is deals being made in Washington or dare I say it "Politics as normal"
If you like Hillary or Obama you have to see what is going on here. This is not democracy this is deals being made in Washington or dare I say it "Politics as normal"
John McCain has started the attacks on Barack Obama, it's not that I am surprised that he did, I'm surprised at the time that he has started the attacks. With the Democrats running a race that is so close, Mccain must have psychic powers, because he has already picked his opponent for the General Election. Maybe if he spent as much time doing research as he did reading palms then he would understand what Obama's plans are and also he might even get a chance to notice that he still has not wrapped up the conservatives yet?
As if McCain is not enough, Sen. Clinton follows behind him (McCain) in Texas claiming that she is the candidate of action and not the candidate of promises, well we already her actions (agreed with Bush on Iraq, and Iran). At least with Obama's promises we are not headed to another destructive President!
As if McCain is not enough, Sen. Clinton follows behind him (McCain) in Texas claiming that she is the candidate of action and not the candidate of promises, well we already her actions (agreed with Bush on Iraq, and Iran). At least with Obama's promises we are not headed to another destructive President!
I do not think that Barack and Hillary on the same ticket would be a good idea. If when are going to win the White House we will need to put a more traditional candidate with either one of them. Before anyone say anything, No I am not a white male. I am as black as they come, but I do understand certain things and too much to soon will kill history in the making. I think we need to think in terms of people outside our party (especially independents) because it is going to take their vote along with ours to win this election. We can not afford another term of republicans in office, whatever we do it should be thought out very long and hard and I definitely think it should be in agreement with the popular vote. HINT! HINT!
This post is for all who say Barack has no clue of what is going on in the world and/or has never been attacked:
"I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth,"
~ Barack Obama, 11/08/07
Clinton Claims Obama Engaged In Backroom Deals for A Nuclear Company--Even Though She Cosponsored the Bill
February 11, 2008
RHETORIC: "Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company. Apparently he cut some deals behind close doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry."
REALITY: Clinton Co-Sponsored Obama Bill
Hillary Clinton Cosponsored The Revised Bill After It Was Revised. In 2006, Hillary Clinton's name was added as a cosponsor to an amended version of S. 2348, Obama's Nuclear Release Notice Act. The bill had been introduced in March 2006 and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously on September 13, 2006. [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06]
REALITY: Obama Bill Required Additional Disclosure From Nuclear Industry
National Journal Wrote That "Obama's Bill would Require Any Leak" Exceeding NRC Accepted Levels "Be Reported To State And Local Authorities, And To The NRC Within 24 Hours." "'Obama's bill would require that any leak of radioactive materials exceeding the levels set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA be reported to state and local authorities, and to the NRC within 24 hours. It also would require the NRC to devise reporting requirements for such accidents within two years. Currently, private nuclear companies are not required to notify officials of any leak that is not considered a public health or safety emergency under criteria set by the NRC and EPA. In a statement, Obama said the bill would ensure 'that concerned parents and citizens won't have to rely on the federal government or an image-conscious corporation to get information.'" [National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/25/06]
Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]
Original Bill Required Plants to "Immediately Notify" Commission, State And County. The original version of S. 2348, introduced on March 1, 2006, required plants to "immediately notify" when unplanned releases occurred. "`(A) IN GENERAL- Each license issued for a utilization facility under this section or section 104 b. shall require as a condition of the license that in case of an unplanned release described in subparagraph (B), the licensee shall immediately notify the Commission, and the State and county in which the facility is located, of the release. `(B) UNPLANNED RELEASES- Subparagraph (A) applies to any unplanned release of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances--`(i) in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards; and `(ii) within allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards but that occurs more than twice within a 2-year period originating from the same source, process, or equipment at a facility.'" [S. 2348, Introduced 3/1/06, 109th Congress]
Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]
REALITY: Nuclear Industry Did Not Support Obama Bill -- Believed Congressional Action Was Unnecessary
CQ: Committee Approval Of Revised Obama Bill "Came Despite Industry Assertions That Companies Nationwide Already Are Employing New Measures To Compel An Increase In Reporting, And That Congressional Action Is Unnecessary. "A bill approved Wednesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would increase the reporting of radioactive leaks to state and local officials by operators of nuclear power plants. The committee action came despite industry assertions that companies nationwide already are employing new measures to compel an increase in reporting, and that congressional action is unnecessary. The committee approved by voice vote a revised version of the bill (S 2348) that was written by Illinois Democrats Barack Obama and Richard J. Durbin. The changes include new language that would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission two years to issue regulations governing the reporting of radioactive leaks. The bill drew support from Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla...Obama rejected industry arguments that no new regulation is needed. 'That's what industry always says; they never think that any regulation is appropriate,' Obama said. 'But this is about as modest a regulatory scheme as is possible. We simply want surrounding communities to be notified when these kinds of things happen.'" [CQ Today, 9/13/06]
NEI Spokeswoman: "We Do Not Believe A Federal Law On This Issue Is Necessary" Because Current Regulations Suffice. "NEI spokeswoman Melanie Lyons said in a September 14 e-mail that industry does not disagree with the intent of the Obama bill. 'In fact, the industry's communication protocol already meets what we understand would be required by the legislation,' she said. However, 'we do not believe that a federal law on this issue is necessary,' because all nuclear plant releases are 'well below' NRC radiation safety limits and current regulations 'already include requirements for prompt reporting of significant releases' and annual reporting of all radioactive releases, Lyons said. Also, the industry initiative requires 'prompt notification of state and local officials and the NRC,' she said." [Platts' Inside NRC, 9/18/06]
NEI Considered The Revised Version A "Better Bill" But Still Did Not Believe It Was "Necessary." "Jerry Slominski, senior director of legislative affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he is more accepting of the legislation that passed out of committee, which gives the NRC more flexibility in writing its reporting rules than the original bill. While Slominski said 'we do consider this a better bill,' he added, 'We don't believe this regulation is necessary. The NRC has all the legislation it needs to protect public health and safety.'" [National Journal's Congress Daily, 9/25/06]
RHETORIC: "We still don’t have a lot of answers about Senator Obama and his dealings with Mr. Rezko."
REALITY: "For The National Types To Claim That Obama’s Past Is Mostly Unknown Is Just A Total Crock."
Miller: "For The National Types To Claim That Obama’s Past Is Mostly Unknown Is Just A Total Crock." Rich Miller wrote, "We’ve been hearing for weeks from the national punditry that Barack Obama hasn’t been fully vetted by the media. I think that’s mostly wrong, and I angrily told that to a national reporter who called me last week…But for the national types to claim that Obama’s past is mostly unknown is just a total crock. All they have to do is comb through the Tribune and CS-T’s archives, or try the Google. A lot of very hard work has already been done, and is still being done today. Too many reporters based in DC, or NY, or LA think that all there is to know is in their own publications. Not so. I often criticize the media, but in this instance I’d like to take my hat off to the locals who have really done a bang-up job on this Obama thing." [The Capitol Fax Blog, 1/23/08]
Chicago Tribune Has Examined Miner Barnhill’s "260 Civil And Criminal Cases," IHDA And DOH Files, Clients From Obama’s "Unusually Frank Ethics Disclosure Reports." The Chicago Tribune reported, "At the Tribune's request, Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans produced a list of all 260 civil and criminal cases in which the firm filed appearances, and the Tribune separately examined 1990s lawsuits that Rezmar Corp. listed in applications for government grants. The paper also examined files from the Illinois Housing Development Authority and the city housing department, as well as the hundreds of clients Obama listed in the unusually frank ethics disclosure reports he filed as a state senator from December 1995 through April 2004. Those and other records disclosed five instances in which Obama did legal work for ventures that included Rezmar Corp. The case of City of Chicago vs. Central Woodlawn Limited Partnership is one example. In 1992, that community group partnered with Rezmar Corp. to rehab the former slum apartment building at 6107-6115 S. Ellis Ave. As work was ongoing, city officials sued the developers, alleging 16 serious code violations at the property, including a dangerously dilapidated porch. Obama and a co-counsel filed appearances in February 1994, but the court records show they appeared on behalf of Central Woodlawn, Rezko's non-profit partner, not Rezko or his company." [Chicago Tribune, 1/23/08]
REALITY: Obama Has Done Nothing Wrong
Slate: There’s No Evidence That Obama Was "Fibbing" And "Obama Hasn’t Tried To Change His Story." Slate reported, "There's no evidence that the senator is fibbing or that the indicted fund-raiser asked anything in return for his neighborly behavior (though that might have been just a matter of time). Obama hasn't tried to change his story, even though Rezko is now talking to investigators." [Slate, 12/14/06]
Factcheck.org: "There’s No Indication Obama Did Anything Improper." Factcheck.org was asked "Was Obama’s real estate deal in Illinois really an issue?" Factcheck.org concluded, "Obama has a relationship with Rezko that dates back many years, but there’s no indication Obama did anything improper." [Factcheck.org, 12/28/07]
New York Times: "There Is Not Sign That Mr. Obama…Did Anything Improper." "There is no sign that Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed for this article, did anything improper." [New York Times, 6/14/07]
Washington Post: "There Have Been No Allegation That Obama…Broke The Law Or Committed Any Ethics Violations." The Washington Post reported, "There have been no allegations that Obama, whose political fortunes are soaring as he mulls a run for president, broke the law or committed any ethics violations." [Washington Post, 12/17/06]
Fact Check: Clinton Does Not Lead in the Popular Vote
February 11, 2008
”I’m still ahead in the popular vote and in delegates” - Hillary Clinton, Fox News, 2/11/08
Reality: Obama Leads in the Popular Vote
Obama Has Won the Combined Popular Vote in States Where It Has Been Tabulated
States Obama Clinton
Alabama 302,684 226,454
Arizona 171,368 204,930
Arkansas 79,411 209,968
California 1,746,013 2,144,251
Colorado 79,344 38,587
Connecticut 179,349 164,831
Delaware 51,124 40,751
Georgia 700,366 328,129
Idaho 16,880 3,655
Illinois 1,301,954 662,845
Kansas 27,172 9,462
Louisiana 220,588 136,959
Massachussets 511,887 704,591
Minn 141,527 68,442
Missouri 405,284 395,287
Nebraska 25,986 12,396
New Hampshire 104,772 112,251
New Jersey 492,186 602,576
New Mexico 67,531 68,654
New York 697,914 1,003,623
North Dakota 11,625 6,948
Oklahoma 130,087 228,425
South Carolina 295,091 141,128
Tennessee 250,730 332,599
Utah 70,373 47,719
Washington 21,629 9,992
8,102,875 7,905,453
Obama Has Won the Delegate Count in States Where the Popular Vote Was Not Tabulated
States Obama Clinton
Alaska 9 4
Iowa 16 15
Maine 15 9
Nevada 13 12
53 40
Fact Check on Clinton's Claim That Obama Has Never Had a Negative Ad Run Against HIm
February 11, 2008
Clinton: "Sen. Obama has never had, I don't think, a single negative ad ever run against him. Until you've been through this experience, you have no idea what it is like, and he hasn't been. He's never had to face this. I am much better prepared and ready to...withstand whatever comes my way," said Clinton.
--Los Angeles Times, 2/11/08
Reality: Senator Clinton And Her Allies Have Run A Number Of False, Negative Ads Against Obama
2008: Clinton Campaign Falsely Attacked Obama In A Radio Ad In SC For Suggesting That Republicans Were The Part Of Ideas And Suggested That Obama Favored "Disastrous Republican Ideas." Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is seeking to draw even more attention to a remark rival Barack Obama made last week that Republicans were the "party of ideas" for much of the 1990s. The Clinton campaign is now airing a radio ad on stations around South Carolina broadcasting a tape of the remark that suggests Obama supports--or at least does not oppose--some unpopular Republican policies. The ad juxtaposes Obama's comment with declarations that Clinton opposes "disastrous Republican ideas" such as corporate tax breaks, refusing to raise the minimum wage and running up the national debt. [Chicago Tribune, 1/23/08]
2008: Clinton Campaign Sent Out A Mailer In Massachusetts and Arizona Attacking Obama On Social Security, The Economy And The Energy Bill. The Clinton campaign sent out a mailer in Massachusetts that hit Obama on economic issues and said that he "has no plan to put a moratorium on home foreclosures," that he "voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill" and that he "wants to raise Social Security taxes by a trillion dollars." The mailpiece also landed in Arizona. [Hotline, 2/4/08; Marc Ambinder, 2/5/08]
2008: Clinton Campaign Sent A Mailer in New Hampshire and Oklahoma That Distorted Obama's State Senate Record. An attack mailer from Hillary Clinton's campaign appeared in some New Hampshire mailboxes in the last few days. The flyer questions Barack Obama's pro-choice credentials, citing seven "present" votes he cast in the Illinois state Legislature. The implication is that Obama lacked the courage to stand up to the anti-abortion crowd. What the mailer leaves out is that pro-choice leaders in Illinois asked legislators to vote "present" viewing the bills in question as cheap election-year stunts from anti-abortion politicians, and that Planned Parenthood leaders from Illinois have defended Obama against Clinton's attacks on the votes. The mailpiece also landed in Oklahoma. [NY Observer, 1/8/08; Politico, 2/4/08]
2007: Clinton Sent Out A Mailer In New Hampshire Attacking Obama, Distorting His Position on Social Security. Hillary has dropped in New Hampshire, attacking Obama on Social Security taxes. The mailer said "New Hampshire families need to keep more of their hard-earned dollars -- not less" and "We need a President that will help hard-working families keep more of what they earn." [Talking Points Memo, 1/7/08]
2007: Clinton Campaign Chair Vilsack Launched An Attack In A Letter Sent To Iowa Voters on Obama’s Universal Health Care Plan. Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, working on behalf of Hillary Clinton, is launching an attack on Barack Obama's health-care plan in a letter sent to Iowa voters. In the missive, Vilsack argues Obama's plan would leave as many as 15 million Americans without health-care coverage. "That's not really universal coverage at all," Vilsack writes. "And when questioned about the flaws in his plan, Mr. Obama threw back talking points worthy of Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney." [Quad-City Times, 12/12/07]
2004: 527 Ran Ad Attacking Obama's Record on Choice, CREW Filed Complaint Alleging Keyes Coordinated With The Empower Illinois Media Fund On The Message Of The Ads. The AP reported, "Also Thursday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed an FEC complaint alleging that Keyes current Senate campaign had improperly coordinated with a group running ads that target his opponent, Democrat Barack Obama…The new complaint focuses on ads by the Empower Illinois Media Fund. The ads claim Obama supports legislation to "teach sex to kindergartners" and backs "aborting children even when they are born alive." Empower Illinois is run by Jeffrey Davis, a former aide to Jack Ryan, the Republican Senate nominee who dropped out of the race and was replaced by Keyes. A wealthy Keyes supporter, Jack Roeser, says he has given Empower Illinois $40,000. Keyes and Roeser have acknowledged meeting to discuss Keyes' position on the issue of slavery reparations when Roeser was deciding whether to donate money to the campaign. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics argues that Roeser's subsequent donation to Empower Illinois suggests his actions were coordinated with the Keyes campaign. "There's a relationship there, a communicative relationship," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics." [AP, 10/14/04]
PRESIDENT BUSH FALSELY ATTACKS BARACK OBAMA AFTER FAILING TO KILL OR CAPTURE OSAMA BIN LADEN FOR OVER SEVEN YEARS
February 10, 2008
"I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad." -George W. Bush, February 10, 2008
"You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda." -Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
The Bush-McCain decision to take our eye off of Afghanistan to launch a misguided war in Iraq diverted resources from the fight against terrorism, allowed Osama bin Laden to escape justice, and has enabled al Qaeda's core leadership to reconstitute a sanctuary in northwest Pakistan. Now, President Bush is issuing false attacks on Barack Obama to try to distract the American people from his disastrous record and Obama's superior judgment on terrorism.,
FACT: Barack Obama has never said he would "attack Pakistan"--he has said that he would attack "high-level terrorist targets."
Obama's statement of policy--in his August 1 terrorism speech--dealt directly with high-level terrorist targets like Osama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri, not the Pakistani government.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Obama has voted for hundreds of millions of dollars to support the Pakistani government's efforts to root out al Qaeda, and would prefer that Pakistan take action. But he will not stand by if he has actionable intelligence about high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan's northwest tribal regions: "But relying on Pakistan while we fight the wrong war in Iraq has not worked. Because of that policy, bin Laden and members of his inner circle who bear direct responsibility for the murder of 3,000 Americans are plotting new attacks. If Pakistan cannot or will not take out these high-level terrorist targets and we have actionable intelligence about where they are, then I would take action to protect the American people. I firmly believe that if we know the whereabouts of bin Laden and his deputies and we have exhausted all other options, we must take them out."
The co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission--Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton--endorsed Obama's stance just over a month after his terrorism speech, writing in the Washington Post: "Pakistan should take the lead in closing Taliban camps and rooting out al-Qaeda. But the United States must act if Pakistan will not."
FACT: In the weeks following Obama's speech, President Bush echoed Obama's words
When asked at a new conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in August 2007 whether he would act on actionable intelligence about al Qaeda leaders within Pakistan, President Bush said, "I am confident that with actionable intelligence, we will be able to bring top al Qaeda to justice."
When asked about Pakistan at a separate news conference in August 2007, President Bush echoed Senator Obama's words once against, saying: "I have indicated to him (Musharraf) that the American people would expect there to be swift action taken if there is actionable intelligence on high-value targets inside his country."
FACT: George Bush has failed to bring Osama bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the core of al Qaeda's leadership to justice since 9/11.
Bush Failed to Strike Al Qaeda: President Bush has reportedly failed to act on intelligence reports that identified senior al Qaeda leadership targets within Pakistan--including bin Laden deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. The New York Times wrote: "A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials. The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group's operations". The decision to halt the planned "snatch and grab" operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military's secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.
Bush Shortchanged the Fight Against Al Qaeda: Substantial military, intelligence, and diplomatic resources were shifted from Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden to the disastrous war in Iraq. These resources shortchanged our efforts to bring to justice the people responsible for 9/11, and have left the American people less safe. As the New York Times reported last summer: "Throughout late 2002 and early 2003, Mr. Grenier said in an interview, 'the best experienced, most qualified people who we had been using in Afghanistan shifted over to Iraq,' including the agency's most skilled counterterrorism specialists and Middle East and paramilitary operatives. If we were not in Iraq, we would have double or triple the number of Predators across Afghanistan, looking for Taliban and peering into the tribal areas. We'd have the 'black' Special Forces you most need to conduct precision operations. We'd have more C.I.A. We're simply in a world of limited resources, and those resources are in Iraq,' the former official added. 'Anyone who tells you differently is blowing smoke.'"
FACT: There is a high-level terrorist sanctuary in Pakistan that is serving as a training ground for al Qaeda, and President Bush's own senior military and intelligence community officials are contemplating action against al Qaeda.
George Bush Has Made Us Less Safe: The NIE in July 2007 warned of a reconstituted al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan: "Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa'ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.
Al Qaeda is Resurgent in Pakistan's Tribal Areas: The New York Times reported today that a foiled plot in Spain may demonstrate a larger threat from Pakistan-trained terrorists: "The largely Pakistani cell formed quickly in Barcelona with support, and perhaps direction, from the tribal areas of Pakistan, the authorities said. According to the arrest warrant in the case, three suicide bombing suspects arrived in Spain within the last four months and the bomb making suspect had recently spent five months in Pakistan."
The Pentagon Favors the Obama Approach: The Pentagon is very concerned about the sanctuary. According to the New York Times, " the Pakistanis are still years away from fielding an effective counterinsurgency force. And some American officials, including Defense Secretary Gates, have said the United States may have to take direct action against militants in the tribal areas."
Please enjoy this guys there are more to come from me
"I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth,"
~ Barack Obama, 11/08/07
Clinton Claims Obama Engaged In Backroom Deals for A Nuclear Company--Even Though She Cosponsored the Bill
February 11, 2008
RHETORIC: "Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company. Apparently he cut some deals behind close doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry."
REALITY: Clinton Co-Sponsored Obama Bill
Hillary Clinton Cosponsored The Revised Bill After It Was Revised. In 2006, Hillary Clinton's name was added as a cosponsor to an amended version of S. 2348, Obama's Nuclear Release Notice Act. The bill had been introduced in March 2006 and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously on September 13, 2006. [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06]
REALITY: Obama Bill Required Additional Disclosure From Nuclear Industry
National Journal Wrote That "Obama's Bill would Require Any Leak" Exceeding NRC Accepted Levels "Be Reported To State And Local Authorities, And To The NRC Within 24 Hours." "'Obama's bill would require that any leak of radioactive materials exceeding the levels set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA be reported to state and local authorities, and to the NRC within 24 hours. It also would require the NRC to devise reporting requirements for such accidents within two years. Currently, private nuclear companies are not required to notify officials of any leak that is not considered a public health or safety emergency under criteria set by the NRC and EPA. In a statement, Obama said the bill would ensure 'that concerned parents and citizens won't have to rely on the federal government or an image-conscious corporation to get information.'" [National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/25/06]
Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]
Original Bill Required Plants to "Immediately Notify" Commission, State And County. The original version of S. 2348, introduced on March 1, 2006, required plants to "immediately notify" when unplanned releases occurred. "`(A) IN GENERAL- Each license issued for a utilization facility under this section or section 104 b. shall require as a condition of the license that in case of an unplanned release described in subparagraph (B), the licensee shall immediately notify the Commission, and the State and county in which the facility is located, of the release. `(B) UNPLANNED RELEASES- Subparagraph (A) applies to any unplanned release of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances--`(i) in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards; and `(ii) within allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards but that occurs more than twice within a 2-year period originating from the same source, process, or equipment at a facility.'" [S. 2348, Introduced 3/1/06, 109th Congress]
Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]
REALITY: Nuclear Industry Did Not Support Obama Bill -- Believed Congressional Action Was Unnecessary
CQ: Committee Approval Of Revised Obama Bill "Came Despite Industry Assertions That Companies Nationwide Already Are Employing New Measures To Compel An Increase In Reporting, And That Congressional Action Is Unnecessary. "A bill approved Wednesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would increase the reporting of radioactive leaks to state and local officials by operators of nuclear power plants. The committee action came despite industry assertions that companies nationwide already are employing new measures to compel an increase in reporting, and that congressional action is unnecessary. The committee approved by voice vote a revised version of the bill (S 2348) that was written by Illinois Democrats Barack Obama and Richard J. Durbin. The changes include new language that would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission two years to issue regulations governing the reporting of radioactive leaks. The bill drew support from Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla...Obama rejected industry arguments that no new regulation is needed. 'That's what industry always says; they never think that any regulation is appropriate,' Obama said. 'But this is about as modest a regulatory scheme as is possible. We simply want surrounding communities to be notified when these kinds of things happen.'" [CQ Today, 9/13/06]
NEI Spokeswoman: "We Do Not Believe A Federal Law On This Issue Is Necessary" Because Current Regulations Suffice. "NEI spokeswoman Melanie Lyons said in a September 14 e-mail that industry does not disagree with the intent of the Obama bill. 'In fact, the industry's communication protocol already meets what we understand would be required by the legislation,' she said. However, 'we do not believe that a federal law on this issue is necessary,' because all nuclear plant releases are 'well below' NRC radiation safety limits and current regulations 'already include requirements for prompt reporting of significant releases' and annual reporting of all radioactive releases, Lyons said. Also, the industry initiative requires 'prompt notification of state and local officials and the NRC,' she said." [Platts' Inside NRC, 9/18/06]
NEI Considered The Revised Version A "Better Bill" But Still Did Not Believe It Was "Necessary." "Jerry Slominski, senior director of legislative affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he is more accepting of the legislation that passed out of committee, which gives the NRC more flexibility in writing its reporting rules than the original bill. While Slominski said 'we do consider this a better bill,' he added, 'We don't believe this regulation is necessary. The NRC has all the legislation it needs to protect public health and safety.'" [National Journal's Congress Daily, 9/25/06]
RHETORIC: "We still don’t have a lot of answers about Senator Obama and his dealings with Mr. Rezko."
REALITY: "For The National Types To Claim That Obama’s Past Is Mostly Unknown Is Just A Total Crock."
Miller: "For The National Types To Claim That Obama’s Past Is Mostly Unknown Is Just A Total Crock." Rich Miller wrote, "We’ve been hearing for weeks from the national punditry that Barack Obama hasn’t been fully vetted by the media. I think that’s mostly wrong, and I angrily told that to a national reporter who called me last week…But for the national types to claim that Obama’s past is mostly unknown is just a total crock. All they have to do is comb through the Tribune and CS-T’s archives, or try the Google. A lot of very hard work has already been done, and is still being done today. Too many reporters based in DC, or NY, or LA think that all there is to know is in their own publications. Not so. I often criticize the media, but in this instance I’d like to take my hat off to the locals who have really done a bang-up job on this Obama thing." [The Capitol Fax Blog, 1/23/08]
Chicago Tribune Has Examined Miner Barnhill’s "260 Civil And Criminal Cases," IHDA And DOH Files, Clients From Obama’s "Unusually Frank Ethics Disclosure Reports." The Chicago Tribune reported, "At the Tribune's request, Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans produced a list of all 260 civil and criminal cases in which the firm filed appearances, and the Tribune separately examined 1990s lawsuits that Rezmar Corp. listed in applications for government grants. The paper also examined files from the Illinois Housing Development Authority and the city housing department, as well as the hundreds of clients Obama listed in the unusually frank ethics disclosure reports he filed as a state senator from December 1995 through April 2004. Those and other records disclosed five instances in which Obama did legal work for ventures that included Rezmar Corp. The case of City of Chicago vs. Central Woodlawn Limited Partnership is one example. In 1992, that community group partnered with Rezmar Corp. to rehab the former slum apartment building at 6107-6115 S. Ellis Ave. As work was ongoing, city officials sued the developers, alleging 16 serious code violations at the property, including a dangerously dilapidated porch. Obama and a co-counsel filed appearances in February 1994, but the court records show they appeared on behalf of Central Woodlawn, Rezko's non-profit partner, not Rezko or his company." [Chicago Tribune, 1/23/08]
REALITY: Obama Has Done Nothing Wrong
Slate: There’s No Evidence That Obama Was "Fibbing" And "Obama Hasn’t Tried To Change His Story." Slate reported, "There's no evidence that the senator is fibbing or that the indicted fund-raiser asked anything in return for his neighborly behavior (though that might have been just a matter of time). Obama hasn't tried to change his story, even though Rezko is now talking to investigators." [Slate, 12/14/06]
Factcheck.org: "There’s No Indication Obama Did Anything Improper." Factcheck.org was asked "Was Obama’s real estate deal in Illinois really an issue?" Factcheck.org concluded, "Obama has a relationship with Rezko that dates back many years, but there’s no indication Obama did anything improper." [Factcheck.org, 12/28/07]
New York Times: "There Is Not Sign That Mr. Obama…Did Anything Improper." "There is no sign that Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed for this article, did anything improper." [New York Times, 6/14/07]
Washington Post: "There Have Been No Allegation That Obama…Broke The Law Or Committed Any Ethics Violations." The Washington Post reported, "There have been no allegations that Obama, whose political fortunes are soaring as he mulls a run for president, broke the law or committed any ethics violations." [Washington Post, 12/17/06]
Fact Check: Clinton Does Not Lead in the Popular Vote
February 11, 2008
”I’m still ahead in the popular vote and in delegates” - Hillary Clinton, Fox News, 2/11/08
Reality: Obama Leads in the Popular Vote
Obama Has Won the Combined Popular Vote in States Where It Has Been Tabulated
States Obama Clinton
Alabama 302,684 226,454
Arizona 171,368 204,930
Arkansas 79,411 209,968
California 1,746,013 2,144,251
Colorado 79,344 38,587
Connecticut 179,349 164,831
Delaware 51,124 40,751
Georgia 700,366 328,129
Idaho 16,880 3,655
Illinois 1,301,954 662,845
Kansas 27,172 9,462
Louisiana 220,588 136,959
Massachussets 511,887 704,591
Minn 141,527 68,442
Missouri 405,284 395,287
Nebraska 25,986 12,396
New Hampshire 104,772 112,251
New Jersey 492,186 602,576
New Mexico 67,531 68,654
New York 697,914 1,003,623
North Dakota 11,625 6,948
Oklahoma 130,087 228,425
South Carolina 295,091 141,128
Tennessee 250,730 332,599
Utah 70,373 47,719
Washington 21,629 9,992
8,102,875 7,905,453
Obama Has Won the Delegate Count in States Where the Popular Vote Was Not Tabulated
States Obama Clinton
Alaska 9 4
Iowa 16 15
Maine 15 9
Nevada 13 12
53 40
Fact Check on Clinton's Claim That Obama Has Never Had a Negative Ad Run Against HIm
February 11, 2008
Clinton: "Sen. Obama has never had, I don't think, a single negative ad ever run against him. Until you've been through this experience, you have no idea what it is like, and he hasn't been. He's never had to face this. I am much better prepared and ready to...withstand whatever comes my way," said Clinton.
--Los Angeles Times, 2/11/08
Reality: Senator Clinton And Her Allies Have Run A Number Of False, Negative Ads Against Obama
2008: Clinton Campaign Falsely Attacked Obama In A Radio Ad In SC For Suggesting That Republicans Were The Part Of Ideas And Suggested That Obama Favored "Disastrous Republican Ideas." Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is seeking to draw even more attention to a remark rival Barack Obama made last week that Republicans were the "party of ideas" for much of the 1990s. The Clinton campaign is now airing a radio ad on stations around South Carolina broadcasting a tape of the remark that suggests Obama supports--or at least does not oppose--some unpopular Republican policies. The ad juxtaposes Obama's comment with declarations that Clinton opposes "disastrous Republican ideas" such as corporate tax breaks, refusing to raise the minimum wage and running up the national debt. [Chicago Tribune, 1/23/08]
2008: Clinton Campaign Sent Out A Mailer In Massachusetts and Arizona Attacking Obama On Social Security, The Economy And The Energy Bill. The Clinton campaign sent out a mailer in Massachusetts that hit Obama on economic issues and said that he "has no plan to put a moratorium on home foreclosures," that he "voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill" and that he "wants to raise Social Security taxes by a trillion dollars." The mailpiece also landed in Arizona. [Hotline, 2/4/08; Marc Ambinder, 2/5/08]
2008: Clinton Campaign Sent A Mailer in New Hampshire and Oklahoma That Distorted Obama's State Senate Record. An attack mailer from Hillary Clinton's campaign appeared in some New Hampshire mailboxes in the last few days. The flyer questions Barack Obama's pro-choice credentials, citing seven "present" votes he cast in the Illinois state Legislature. The implication is that Obama lacked the courage to stand up to the anti-abortion crowd. What the mailer leaves out is that pro-choice leaders in Illinois asked legislators to vote "present" viewing the bills in question as cheap election-year stunts from anti-abortion politicians, and that Planned Parenthood leaders from Illinois have defended Obama against Clinton's attacks on the votes. The mailpiece also landed in Oklahoma. [NY Observer, 1/8/08; Politico, 2/4/08]
2007: Clinton Sent Out A Mailer In New Hampshire Attacking Obama, Distorting His Position on Social Security. Hillary has dropped in New Hampshire, attacking Obama on Social Security taxes. The mailer said "New Hampshire families need to keep more of their hard-earned dollars -- not less" and "We need a President that will help hard-working families keep more of what they earn." [Talking Points Memo, 1/7/08]
2007: Clinton Campaign Chair Vilsack Launched An Attack In A Letter Sent To Iowa Voters on Obama’s Universal Health Care Plan. Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, working on behalf of Hillary Clinton, is launching an attack on Barack Obama's health-care plan in a letter sent to Iowa voters. In the missive, Vilsack argues Obama's plan would leave as many as 15 million Americans without health-care coverage. "That's not really universal coverage at all," Vilsack writes. "And when questioned about the flaws in his plan, Mr. Obama threw back talking points worthy of Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney." [Quad-City Times, 12/12/07]
2004: 527 Ran Ad Attacking Obama's Record on Choice, CREW Filed Complaint Alleging Keyes Coordinated With The Empower Illinois Media Fund On The Message Of The Ads. The AP reported, "Also Thursday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed an FEC complaint alleging that Keyes current Senate campaign had improperly coordinated with a group running ads that target his opponent, Democrat Barack Obama…The new complaint focuses on ads by the Empower Illinois Media Fund. The ads claim Obama supports legislation to "teach sex to kindergartners" and backs "aborting children even when they are born alive." Empower Illinois is run by Jeffrey Davis, a former aide to Jack Ryan, the Republican Senate nominee who dropped out of the race and was replaced by Keyes. A wealthy Keyes supporter, Jack Roeser, says he has given Empower Illinois $40,000. Keyes and Roeser have acknowledged meeting to discuss Keyes' position on the issue of slavery reparations when Roeser was deciding whether to donate money to the campaign. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics argues that Roeser's subsequent donation to Empower Illinois suggests his actions were coordinated with the Keyes campaign. "There's a relationship there, a communicative relationship," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics." [AP, 10/14/04]
PRESIDENT BUSH FALSELY ATTACKS BARACK OBAMA AFTER FAILING TO KILL OR CAPTURE OSAMA BIN LADEN FOR OVER SEVEN YEARS
February 10, 2008
"I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad." -George W. Bush, February 10, 2008
"You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda." -Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
The Bush-McCain decision to take our eye off of Afghanistan to launch a misguided war in Iraq diverted resources from the fight against terrorism, allowed Osama bin Laden to escape justice, and has enabled al Qaeda's core leadership to reconstitute a sanctuary in northwest Pakistan. Now, President Bush is issuing false attacks on Barack Obama to try to distract the American people from his disastrous record and Obama's superior judgment on terrorism.,
FACT: Barack Obama has never said he would "attack Pakistan"--he has said that he would attack "high-level terrorist targets."
Obama's statement of policy--in his August 1 terrorism speech--dealt directly with high-level terrorist targets like Osama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri, not the Pakistani government.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Obama has voted for hundreds of millions of dollars to support the Pakistani government's efforts to root out al Qaeda, and would prefer that Pakistan take action. But he will not stand by if he has actionable intelligence about high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan's northwest tribal regions: "But relying on Pakistan while we fight the wrong war in Iraq has not worked. Because of that policy, bin Laden and members of his inner circle who bear direct responsibility for the murder of 3,000 Americans are plotting new attacks. If Pakistan cannot or will not take out these high-level terrorist targets and we have actionable intelligence about where they are, then I would take action to protect the American people. I firmly believe that if we know the whereabouts of bin Laden and his deputies and we have exhausted all other options, we must take them out."
The co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission--Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton--endorsed Obama's stance just over a month after his terrorism speech, writing in the Washington Post: "Pakistan should take the lead in closing Taliban camps and rooting out al-Qaeda. But the United States must act if Pakistan will not."
FACT: In the weeks following Obama's speech, President Bush echoed Obama's words
When asked at a new conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in August 2007 whether he would act on actionable intelligence about al Qaeda leaders within Pakistan, President Bush said, "I am confident that with actionable intelligence, we will be able to bring top al Qaeda to justice."
When asked about Pakistan at a separate news conference in August 2007, President Bush echoed Senator Obama's words once against, saying: "I have indicated to him (Musharraf) that the American people would expect there to be swift action taken if there is actionable intelligence on high-value targets inside his country."
FACT: George Bush has failed to bring Osama bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the core of al Qaeda's leadership to justice since 9/11.
Bush Failed to Strike Al Qaeda: President Bush has reportedly failed to act on intelligence reports that identified senior al Qaeda leadership targets within Pakistan--including bin Laden deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. The New York Times wrote: "A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials. The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group's operations". The decision to halt the planned "snatch and grab" operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military's secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.
Bush Shortchanged the Fight Against Al Qaeda: Substantial military, intelligence, and diplomatic resources were shifted from Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden to the disastrous war in Iraq. These resources shortchanged our efforts to bring to justice the people responsible for 9/11, and have left the American people less safe. As the New York Times reported last summer: "Throughout late 2002 and early 2003, Mr. Grenier said in an interview, 'the best experienced, most qualified people who we had been using in Afghanistan shifted over to Iraq,' including the agency's most skilled counterterrorism specialists and Middle East and paramilitary operatives. If we were not in Iraq, we would have double or triple the number of Predators across Afghanistan, looking for Taliban and peering into the tribal areas. We'd have the 'black' Special Forces you most need to conduct precision operations. We'd have more C.I.A. We're simply in a world of limited resources, and those resources are in Iraq,' the former official added. 'Anyone who tells you differently is blowing smoke.'"
FACT: There is a high-level terrorist sanctuary in Pakistan that is serving as a training ground for al Qaeda, and President Bush's own senior military and intelligence community officials are contemplating action against al Qaeda.
George Bush Has Made Us Less Safe: The NIE in July 2007 warned of a reconstituted al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan: "Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa'ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.
Al Qaeda is Resurgent in Pakistan's Tribal Areas: The New York Times reported today that a foiled plot in Spain may demonstrate a larger threat from Pakistan-trained terrorists: "The largely Pakistani cell formed quickly in Barcelona with support, and perhaps direction, from the tribal areas of Pakistan, the authorities said. According to the arrest warrant in the case, three suicide bombing suspects arrived in Spain within the last four months and the bomb making suspect had recently spent five months in Pakistan."
The Pentagon Favors the Obama Approach: The Pentagon is very concerned about the sanctuary. According to the New York Times, " the Pakistanis are still years away from fielding an effective counterinsurgency force. And some American officials, including Defense Secretary Gates, have said the United States may have to take direct action against militants in the tribal areas."
Please enjoy this guys there are more to come from me
Hello, Left and Blue people I now know that it is time to for us to unite our party and support what is an improvement over what has been the case. I am 29yrs old and I have been all about politics since 7th grade when I sat down in front of my first debate and wrote down everything that all the Democrats said. The next day I read those papers over and over. When I got older I realize some of those things where not all facts instead just sound bytes. I knew then, when I was able to vote I would not vote for a person with out doing research (I did not mean watching tv) to no limits. Now, I have voted in two elections and in both of those I faught hard and I gave alot of me. That time is almost here again (voting) and nothing is different with the exception of the candidates and my age. I am at the mid-point of the "Eightfold Year and Stages of Life" and my soul is yearning for improvement, for my country, my party, and most importantly me (if I my speak frankly). We have a choice to make as a party; Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama. This election is already history even before we choose a candidate for several of reasons, money raised and voter turnout to name a couple. As much as I respect our elected officials, if they are not serving us then who agendas are they pushing. With that said, I can't see them choosing who we want to serve us as President. We have two options we can either make it known by making sure that our candidate is in a position to win before the DNC or we could wait until they go against us and then when it's their turn we could not show up at the polls, (A LEFT-COUP).
Please elected officials this is not a threat this is a promise from one very concern Lefty. If you blue guys and left-gals go against the majority of this party I will spend so time, energy, and money to get each one of you who out of office when your seat comes up that I'll be you new worst enemy
Please elected officials this is not a threat this is a promise from one very concern Lefty. If you blue guys and left-gals go against the majority of this party I will spend so time, energy, and money to get each one of you who out of office when your seat comes up that I'll be you new worst enemy
Posts By Month
Posts
