Al-Qaida No. 2 insults Obama with racial epithet

Wow, to think that many voters assumed President-elect Barack Obama is an ally to Al-Quaida and their number one guy and a Muslim.  Come to find out he's another enemy added to Al-Quaida long list of existing others and they view him as nothing more than a "HOUSE NEGRO" or servant to whites and assumed will carry out white high profile leaders' plans. Is there any name this man hasn't been called?  For sure, he has been labeled every other one with the exception of A CHILD OF GOD. Who cares what they think? Pathetic, isn't it?

Obama has never been bothered by name calling.  He is certainly used to it after a long campaign.  He generally sticks to the issues instead.  I'm sure he could care less and instead is working on his transition to President.

When we were kids, we would chant "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me".  Name calling didn't hurt him before and won't hurt him now.

Well this is odd.... I coulda' swore I got about a galillion emails assuring me that Obama was a Muslim terrorist. Why are they calling one of their "brothers" names?! 

</sarcasm>

Way too much time is spent worrying over what ALQ says. It's mostly propaganda and reacting to it like it's reality based often leads us to wrong conclusions. That nonsense about who ALQ or Hamas favored as a presidential candidate is a prime example and Republicans in particular should be very embarrassed about this. Do we really want to let groups like this influence our politics?

Does this mean some Anti-Right Wing Conservatives are suddenly going support Obama?

This should endear Obama to some Republicans. "Hey, if al-Qaeda hates him, he must be doing something right."

That's how their 'thinking' goes. 

It's a perverse world.

Well, Al-Quaida and the Taliban and all our enemies can call Barak Obama anything they want.....they can call America anything they like......but I have a strong feeling....that once Barak gets through with them......

They can all call themselves D O N E.

what i found so obviously betraying about that last video was the dyed black hair and beard of osama...it most definitely had been doctored to the point it was unbelieveable...

This evil al-Zawahri just dug himself a deeper grave. The more threats he launches against Obama as the U.S. President, the more America´s allies- UK, Germany, France, Italy are resolved to hunt down Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Look, Bin Laden is holed up, just struggling to survive as he is virtually surrounded in Pakistan.

This Al Qaeda no. 2 can say whatever he wants, but the U.S. is not without allies and in Obamas case, as opposed to Bush,  the U.S. allies are backing up the U.S.   under Obamas leadership. For this, I am glad Obama won the respect of our allies as we need them in our fight against terror.

A threat to the U.S. is a threat against all its allies  and  Al Qaeda should be wiped out from the face of the earth, regardless of who they choose to be their victims. A terribly evil organization which should be dealt by a strong, fatal blow in all the places where they exist, regardless of how many tentacles and sleeping cells it has. 

When the U.S. and its allies cooperate to fight the world´s greatest enemy, nothing is insurmountable, even those who have plotted evil all their lives - including drugs, counterfeiting, and other illegal activities they have resorted to to finance their nefarious activities.

And that is why we are hunting the Al' Queda now.

And that is why we are hunting the Al' Queda now.

Yes and for how many years now?  I truly don't understand it. If the US knows where these people are, why are they still in mountains or wherever freely walking around and us constantly looking over our shoulders?  Just doesn't many any logical sense at all.

Does this mean some Anti-Right Wing Conservatives are suddenly going support Obama?

Anti-Right Wing Conservatives?

I'm confused who this describes.  Anti-Right would be Left?  Left Conservatives are whom?

As for the name calling, it hasn't been a month since Sarah Palin was blasting Obama with nasty names and suggesting he's a piece of %$#@, so why should slightly different terms from the enemies be any worse than the ones used by his fellow Americans.  Maybe that's where the Al Queda folks took their cues and learned that mud gets covered in American news much more than real issues.  They can even get on Access Hollywood with this!

You know Pamela, you're probably closer to right than you are wrong.  After all Palin came here from Alaska (though a part of US), took cues, and learned how to fling mud, even though she barely knew the persons teaching her and less of the one she was flinging mud at. So, why not Al-Queda too, since the mud slinging...her's and everyone else's is covered all over American broadcast.  Someone once said that if anyone wants to know what goes on in this country, don't ask its citizens, just watch television.

Tell me I am wrong... for some reason I find this statement funny considering the souce. Can't stop laughing! Maybe its just me.

Jim,

Well this is odd.... I coulda' swore I got about a galillion emails assuring me that Obama was a Muslim terrorist. Why are they calling one of their "brothers" names?! 

</sarcasm>

No longer brother's keeper?

No, I think he called him a race traitor.

Don't trust the corporate news.  AP stories routinely cheerlead, fracture stories to come up with incomplete comparison, false comparisons that amount to crass opportunism, idelogical opportunism to promote their false imperial class policies. It falsely juxtaposes two sides in the hope most people accept their one sided choices.

First off, neither the Taliban, Al Qaida, or American foreign policies have clean hands. The Mujahadeen, Islamic fighters under the Reagan administration held the same reactionary religious theocratic ideas then that they hold now, and were financed by the CIA, declared "freedom fighters" when they were fighting the secular, Soviet backed regime in Afghanistan.    Osama Bin Laden was Reagans's poster boy for freedo fighter.

Once the Soviet Stalinist Empire collapsed, these same theocratic Islamic fighters and Osam Bin Laden thought that the American Empire would also pull out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden still flush with CIA money, demanded that the American imperial bases pull out of Saudi Arabia.    The PENTAGON naturally refused as they love bases and military occupations, aggressions, ask Iraq.....and then these same freedom fighters turned their fighting experience on to take on American class Empire.  

If we had pulled out of Saudi Arabia, as we were eventually told to leave, by the Saudis themselves, 9/11 might not have happened.   Still the imperial American Empire is still intact, though imploding from its fascist foreign policies.  OVERNIGHT, these same freedom fighters became "terrorists" still flush with CIA money, some of the Taliban even visiting George Bush regarding oil pipelines, before the decision was made to invade IRAQ itself which had nothing to do with the attack.

MORAL of the story....neither Al QAIDA nor American fascist foreign policies have clean hands.    IN FACT IF YOU WANT TO COMPARE THE MILLION IRAQIS DEAD VS THE 3000 Americans killed for our fascist foreign policies, the Taliban and AL QAIDA have less blood on their hands.     What is missing from this false comparison, is that now Afghanistan is in full tilt , revolt against Western colonial violence and occupation, that it is no longer about Al Qaida, as you don't fight terrorism through war, but through police channels.

Now let us get to the point that AL Qaida is making, that OBAMA has the same corrupt imperial, fascist, zionist insiders, as Bush and Reagan.    They are correct to point out that OBAMA serves white Western colonial foreign imperialism, and that real change is a farce i.e. he is a 'toadie" for imperial thugs.

I use the word that Ralph Nader uses, because you see to make the same point as NADER makes against OBAMA, does not make NADER a 'TERRORIST' like the fascist Bush grafts on to all its critics.   It is a false juxtaposition to choose between two reactionary military solutions that AP CORPORATE NEWS DOES DELIBERATELY, OPPORTUNISTICALLY, and thus this creates a lot of smoke and mirrors.

These false choices are pushed by the corporate media to cheerlead fascist foriegn policies, because no one wants to be called a supporter of terrorism.   Nader correctly has OBAMA labeled....whether or not the Taliban, AL QAIDA agree or disagree.

This is the test that Joe Biden was referring to, the test of the new President's mettle. Only it seems to be a bit premature.

LOL Dennis. Doesn't modern technology enables us to hover over the mountains via use of satellite or some other type gadget without going there? And if so, what's the deal or preventing administration from doing this?

: Yes, by insulting Obama, Al Qaeda will inflame people throughout the world, people who love Obama., some of which might actually have had sympathies toward Al Qaeda. But, as the old saying goes, "The enemy of my enemy... yada yada." How about that? Al Qaeda has competition for people's hearts and minds. They recognize that in Obama, his ability to unite the peoples of the world, something Al Qaeda has tried to do but failed. Obama has garnered the love and hopes of people all over the world and as such presents a "clear and present danger" to Al Qaeda. This president will be different from all past presidents. Obama will be the hope and light of all peoples -- and Al Qaeda hates that.

Does this mean some Anti-Right Wing Conservatives are suddenly going support Obama?

This comment is a little off, but as for me it is not a matter of supporting or not supporting Obama. It is about sticking to what one believes in.

Back to the topic though.

Al Qaeda will always issue threats and we will always view it as the little boy who cried wolf which is wrong. One day those threats will be followed out and we in arrogance once again will not be ready. No matter how lovely you may think it is going to be with Obama as president if this happens it will either extend this war or become another one and the American people will once again have to decide wether to support our president.

Americasorphan,

I partially agree with you.  Bush is arrogant. However, lack of preparedness wasn't the reason the terrorist attack on this country was able to occur. Bush allowed his arrogance to ignore intelligence officials/warnings, because you know they say America is an arrogant country that feels it is untouchable.  Nonetheless, we were bombed under the Bush administration watch.  Surely this must be a lesson to any future presidents.  Therefore I doubt very seriously if Obama will ignore these type warnings from Al-Queda or any other terrorist organization. If it happens again it won't be because of this. It would be because the terrorists watch the news on which tells everything about this country allowing them to plan and come up with different ways to attack us. As a moral upbringing, I don't support anyone if they are wrong, including the President.

The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration ignored hard evidence from its top intelligence officials between April and September of 2001 about an impending attack by al-Qaeda on US soil. There's no chance that the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping initiative would have saved the lives of 3,000 American citizens if an intelligence memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside US" that President Bush received a month before 9/11 couldn't move Bush to take such threats seriously.

You know what? We've got his 'House Negroe'... I think Al-Qaida will see it swingin'  in their faces soon.....

Wow, what Hawks!!

I believe this guy put this message out, (even before Obama takes office), b/c they realize what impact his election has had on the world! There are borderline would-be radical terrorists, who have hated the policies of the last 8 years, but seeing the son of an African Muslim immigrant, whose race/color is not in the majority nor in power, has made many of them take pause.

Al Qaeda is afraid they will lose those ppl, and want to assure them that although Obama may "look" as though he is on the side of peace & fairness, he in fact will do anything that he is told. And to get the point across of what a "real" Black American is, he quotes and shows Malcolm X (who was not a racist nor radical to those who like to suggest so... do your freakin' research), an African-American converted Muslim. They realize that not only will those borderline radicals take pause, but also those who have become indifferent to possible attacks on our country, are now wide awake & ready & willing to support this incoming administration.

A house negro (house slave) is simply an uncle tom. There are gonna be some ppl calling him similar (traitor, hypocrite) at some point or another (impartial ppl, not Republicans). He can't do everything the way everyone wants it done everytime. As long as he doesn't compromise his morals & our country for some stupid leftist or rightwing agenda I'm good! I have hopes that Obama will keep his campaign promises to his greatest abilities, and that his open-mindedness and fairness will shine through his administration.

"Well this is odd.... I coulda' swore I got about a galillion emails assuring me that Obama was a Muslim terrorist. Why are they calling one of their "brothers" names?! 

</sarcasm>"

Well, some fools will believe anything-- including the fact that Obama's a Muslim. (Strange--especially since he attends a Christian church-- but then he was criticized for that). Not that it should matter-- but the fact is-- Obama is not a Muslim.

However,  I am surprised at your logic-- that Muslims would not call their "brothers" names. In the interest of accuracy-- the Sunni-Shia schism often gets worse than that-- much worse than name calling-- it gets downright violent.

And even amongst the Palestinainas-- the rift between Fatah and Hamas is severe. (see, for example:

-testimonials by Gazans about how the ruling Hamas terror group treats other Palestinians in Gaza (video)

-Nine killed and 95 hurt in Hamas-Fatah violence

-Hamas and Fatah are a bigger threat to the Palestinians than Israel

-IDF allows fleeing Fatah members into Israel

-Middle East: Palestinians 'routinely torture' rival detainees

And-- there's lots more from other Arab countrues.

The fact is, quite simply stated-- Obama is not a Muslim. However, to believe that Muslims would never criticize "their brothers"-- and to put this forward as proof of the fact that Obama is not a Muslim-- is naive at best.

krishna

I believe that was also a part of the sarcasm. The idea being spread by the right is that all Muslims would cheer in unison and bow to Obama b/c he also is Muslim. I think the poster was just playing around with the narrative. =D

Apparently Krishna failed Sarcasm101... ;-)

Bush allowed his arrogance to ignore intelligence officials/warnings, because you know they say America is an arrogant country that feels it is untouchable.  Nonetheless, we were bombed under the Bush administration watch. 

Before people start screaming at me when I finally get to asking my question I want to say that the Bush administration will be over soon, so it's probably best if we quit pointing fingers, after all, we vote in the Presidents. To be honest I was a bad American and quit paying attention to politics after Perot, so I need a lot of refreshing but, was Bush even in the whitehouse on 9/11?  I thought our Presidents didn't officially take office until January, which would have made 9/11 under Clintons watch?

Bush won the election in Nov. 2000 and was sworn in Jan. 2001. 9/11 2001 was almost nine months after that. 

and he was on vacation for six of those nine.

Jim,

Thanks for saving me the time to answer this one. The question was directed at me, since the quote was taken from one of the responses I posted.

Well, he's certainly a whole lotta #2.

Thanks guys, I was seriously just not getting my dates together.

 But even so , When do we take responsibility for who we VOTED in. We just voted in Obama, if he does well people will shout from the rooftops, if he lets us down too, will people still be dancing on the roofs. It doesn't who the president is we will always hide behind a figurehead.

". The idea being spread by the right is that all Muslims would cheer in unison and bow to Obama b/c he also is Muslim."

Well,strange as it may seem-- there are people who actually do believeObama is a Muslim (in fact, some of them are living in Musklims countries.).

Democrat in CT

Obama has never been bothered by name calling.

His sycophants here on Newsvine sure are though. The slightest hint of a slur drives them into a froth.

Who are you calling a sycophant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

Rixar, I am sure they already know and are attempting to get a response anyway. They're not worth the attention in this sense, energy, or entertaining. And the insults to Barack Obama keep coming. I thought Al-Quaida was his friends or maybe not.  What happened?

No need to spare us, I believe we are thinking the exact same thing!

Sounded like an invitation to step outside and settle this to me. They don't want us to leave, it saves them the airfare of coming over here. I believe they are afraid the liberals will abandon them and then who will they have to shoot at.

Al-Zawahri is a muppet. Have you ever seen his legs? Just wondering who's hand is shoved up his a$$ making his lips move.

I was thinking the same thing PalmettoArmadillo. Al-Q is benefitting from the subdued attention they have been getting from the Bush administration, and are now concerned that a new administration will erase them from the media. I think this is an attempt to feed a dying flame.

Dennis,

If I come with you, would you share a percentage?

PalmettoArmadillo,

While he does have kind of a catfish muppet-head, I happen to think the Muppets were among the coolest and most undeniably good things that TV ever put on. Please don't compare them to terrorist idiot-faces like al-Zawahiri. It makes my memories hurt.

Besides, if he were a Muppet, he might be embarrassed about those skinny slacklegs they have.

Pamela, goes to show us....they study our history and beliefs  just as we study theirs.... House Negro? I haven't heard this term in awhile.

they study our history and beliefs  just as we study theirs

I don't think they studied hard enough. I suspect most blacks were willing to step away from the war on terror.

Until now. Oh no he didn't just call our Pres 'house @!$%#?'

Wow, well they must be a few years behind.  Its been a long time for me as well since I've actually heard that term

Maybe that should study more the philosophy of Dr. Seuss...

"You star belly Sneetches with stars upon thars, feel the wrath of our Zax's"!

James, what is the purpose of your response or better stated what are you trying to insinuate? Because if it what I think....black people were for the war up until this point, the suggestion is based solely on ignorance. And I really don't know why your trying to make this a black vs. others argument.  What does color has to do with this and how do you know some of these comments not in support of what is written in this article weren't written by individuals other than black people? Boy, I am telling you...Newsvine lied, because some of us aren't getting smarter as it suggests we will. James is now officially added to the Newsvine do-opposite list.

Jim,

I think that is a inaccurate generalization and an incorrect assumption about "most blacks". But if you have factual info, I'd like to see it.

"I don't think they studied hard enough. I suspect most blacks were willing to step away from the war on terror. Until now. Oh no he didn't just call our Pres 'house @!$%#?'"

James is now officially added to the Newsvine do-opposite list.

What are you on about dear?

I was joking. My point is that most blacks are against war, and the war on terror. Most blacks voted for Obama. Most blacks find the term used by al-Zawahri offensive.

While he may understand the negative connotations of such an epthet, I don't think he understood how he potentially turned a segment of the population that was indifferent to him and his cause into a segment that actively despises him.

Of course it is all just propaganda and blather. So I made a joke. As far as getting smarter, it may be a good idea to ask questions before passing judgment.

I think that is a inaccurate generalization and an incorrect assumption about "most blacks".

It is simple. The majority of the country thinks we are on the wrong track. The majority of the country thinks the war on terror has been poorly prosecuted. I think the polling is quite clear.

There is a huge difference between house "n" and House Negro

I think the man's intent is clear. No need to try to pretty it up IMO.

Dennis-

I read in another article the the exact translation was "house slave", the English translation stated "house Negro". Given the context, I don't think it is wrong to assume he meant the latter. Not to mention the historical connotations. I am just answering your first post here because the other one got too long. ;-)

As for this issue in general... I'll echo what I said in another article about the same thing... This sort of demogogic language is not new, uncommon, or solely the use of al-Qaeda. It is wrong no matter what, but it appeals to the masses. Consider how our government talks about al-Qaeda, about the war in Iraq, and the war on terror in general. Ultimately I think people need to be aware of the situation, but if we are serious about making a change, we shouldn't respond with more insults. A harsh response is exactly what they are looking for to prove their point.

Why are u making me defend the #2?

I don't think it's a racial slur. It's nowhere near the n-word! Not to mention he actually said "slave" not negro, I'm sure if he wanted to use an offensive term for Black people there are plenty of them in Arabic. Plus, he was quoting Malcolm X, who practically coined the term.

House Negro = Uncle Tom = a Black person who will abandon all principles & pride in order to cater to White people lest the suffer any discomfort.

your totally wrong with your most blacks ...... your totally off on that one.

Really? I guess every poll that has been done this year is wrong...

Joking doesn't use the real "n" word like you did. Then again ? Your going to justify it anyway.

Quite ironic that you decry my use of the word "@!$%#" and your post is followed by someone who feels that calling a black a "house slave" isn't a racial slur.

I guess "house slave" doesn't fully convey how offensive al-Zawahr's comment was. I suppose a terrorist descendant of slave traders calling the President-elect a "house slave" is FAR less offensive than me typing what he really meant.

My bad.

"a black"... yep, you're sure hip w/ the p.c. lingo.

I am entitled to my opinion & I wasn't offended by that phrase. ((Offended at him trying to raise anger in the Muslim communty toward our new president while insulting his character, yes!)) If someone attributes the word "slave" to a black person, it means nothing more nor less than it does to any other race! The actual "house negro" quote he was referencing was made by Malcolm X (who's Black)...

"Terrorist decendant of slave traders"??... Look, you guys can't have it both ways. LOL. On one hand it's suggested that slavery is so long ago that it should be forgotten & White ppl today had nothing to do w/ what the atrocities their ancestors commited against Black people; yet slavery can be referenced when we're speaking about Middle Eastern people?

 Hmmm, something about that seems a bit hypocritical, no?

And the "terrorist" thing has nothing to do with whether "slave" is meant in a "racist" way, since terrorists come in all races & colors... as did the slave traders for that matter. I guess I should think any Black person who uses the word slave could also mean it in a racist sense, not just a derrogatory one, since a percentage of they too took part in selling slaves to the Europeans!

BTW "James", I'm sure all the families of the soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan appreciate your extremely bigoted statement which questioned the degree of patriotism & loyalty Black people have for this country!! I'm sure you've really done justice to the memory of the many Black people who have been fighting for this country and what it stands for since the American Revolution; since before they could fight in an integrated military, since before they even had civil rights at home!

Do some research on the history of blacks in the military you... & check out the demographics today...

"Look, you guys can't have it both ways. LOL. On one hand it's suggested that slavery is so long ago that it should be forgotten & White ppl today had nothing to do w/ what the atrocities their ancestors commited against Black people; yet slavery can be referenced when we're speaking about Middle Eastern people?"

Contrary to what anyone believes, albeit "White people today had nothing to do w/what the atrocities their ancestors committed against Black people.... but aren't decedents of slave owners still benefiting from money earned from work completed by black slaves, no offense intended?  For anyone to suggest that slavery should be forgotten about is insane, especially when our children are still being taught the lie that Christopher Columbus discovered America and we still celebrate a  holiday under his name.  This should be forgotten about, because it is an untruth; slavery isn't and is an actual part of American history.  This can not be denied or forgotten under any circumstances regardless of what is suggested.

Dennis,

House Negro House Slave Field Negro Field Slave is nothing compared to "n"

This is true. Whether a black person was house slave or a field slave, they were all considered and called "Negroes, @!$%#s, or slang term, Niggas." I don't particularly like using these words or writing them out, because they simply sound bad, considering the negative connotation behind them, but needed to for explanation reasons.

House Negro House Slave Field Negro Field Slave are all states of mentality.

This is also true. House slaves were considered to be and thought they were better than field slaves. House slaves worked in their master houses...cooking, sewing, caring for slave owner children... while field slaves worked in the hot the field, picking cotton, maintenance the fields....   Overall house slaves were treated better than field slaves and were given more privileges, which is the reason "better" and "less than better" are states of mentality and only existed in the minds of slaves, because as I wrote, they were all considered Ns by the white man/slave owners.  To be perfectly frank, slavery is what taught black people to fight against one another. Masters use to play our ancestors against one another and this learning was passed down from one generation to next as was many other things were.  Different topic, different forum...don't want to go to far off topic.

Perhaps if James study Black History, he'll have a better understanding of this ethnic group and his responses would make more sense, because after all one cannot write about what they don't know or do not have a clear interpretation of....

", I don't think he understood how he potentially turned a segment of the population that was indifferent to him and his cause into a segment that actively despises him."

Actually, I think he understands more than you give him credit for. However, i seriously doubt if he cares-- I don't think he cares what Americsans-- of any race-- think about him. I think his stsatement was designed for consumption by the Arab masses.

I beg to disagree Krishna. While I'm sure he isn't concerned w/ the opinions of Americans toward him. I think he is concerned w/ the opinion of the world toward America. If we are viewed positively, that's bad for them in at least two ways I can think of. For one, we will have strong allies & "neutral" enemies. And second, it's bad for recruiting. If a percentage of Muslims in the demographic from which al qaeda normally picks from, are viewing America as less of an enemy or even favorably, the fewer people they have to do their dirty work...

I don't think this was meant for all Arabs. I believe it was meant for Muslims who probably had disdain growing toward our country for the past few years but see Obama as a possible change toward the good. That's why he mentioned Obama desserting his father's religion, Islam & why he showed a picture of Obama praying in Israel.

I think his stsatement was designed for consumption by the Arab masses.

Ah, krishna! A voice of reason. Yes, you are probably correct, thus the tongue in cheek nature of my original post. I would be quite disappointed if Blacks were so easily manipulated by a word or phrase, or if they were as disappointingly reactive as a group as some of the posters here seem to be.

Perhaps if James study Black History, he'll have a better understanding of this ethnic group

Ann, my dear, I don't want to be condescending, but your snide assertions are really quite amusing. Particularly when I don't even know what you are criticizing me for. Perhaps if you actually responded to one of my posts, we could get to the bottom of our apparent disagreement.

What person with he 2 names of a man calls another man dear.

Dennis, my friend, long before the beginning of this thread I sent you a friend request because of the convictions and sentiments evidenced in this seed. It is too bad that those same qualities appear to be blinding you to the true nature of the person you have been corresponding with - me.

When I said "my dear" I was referring to AnnForTruth, whose criticisms I did not and still don't understand. As for your criticism of my use of the word "@!$%#," it appears to be the only debate of consequence on this thread. However, as much of the discussion seems to consist of ad hominem attacks against me, it is doubtful that we will discuss much of value. Disappointing.

Also disappointing are your tangential remarks about same-sex marriage, but that is a discussion for another article, and another thread.

deliziosa, my, what is there to say?

Your confused and condescending post at #3.13 is quite a marvel. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Was that ever in question?

As far as "you guys" trying to have it "both ways," I don't know who you could be referring to. Blacks? The people on this thread? Impossible to tell, as I have made none of the assertions you attribute to this ill-defined group you call "you guys." Slavery should be forgotten or should or should not be referenced? I really don't know what you are getting at.

As far as the label "terrorist" having nothing to do with the offensive nature of al-Zawahr's remarks because terrorists come from all races, what is your point? Certain remarks can only be considered offensive if they come from certain races? And please don't go on about rappers using the word '@!$%#.' To me they are the most offensive.

Finally, deliziosa, you end your post with one of the most disgusting spins one can make on a statement by another; a take on my remarks I find so disgusting that if someone wrote the word "@!$%#" a thousand times on this thread I would never be as angry and offended as I was to read your accusation of bigotry and defamation of Black patriotism.

Consider this; you don't know me. Perhaps you have simply misunderstood what I said, and blind ignorance has led you to become the most offensive person on this thread.

True PeaceTalk, one never knows.

peace...i suppose i'll be wondering till my last breath why we can't find one man in a cave...

Well if you are referring to Usama it is because he has been dead since 2004.

yep...probaly in some underground cia crypt...

Peace Talk,

I wouldn't put it past the CIA to behind all these recent terror videos.  Hell I'm sure Osama's been dead for awhile.  It just seems odd that he always appears when the goverment needs a dose of fear to snap us back in line.

kakael,

peace...i suppose i'll be wondering till my last breath why we can't find one man in a cave...

Because our current administration keeps using caveman tactics.  Maybe if they update their way of thinking, we'll get out of Iraq and go back to the caves and start looking to find this one man, because we sure as hell not going to find him in Iraq, because this man is like the WMD.  He's not there. What a tangled web they've weaved.

How is that the right wingers are the very first to say "we have the best military in the world", but easily believe that Bin Laden is chillin' out in a cave somewhere. I'm sorry, either he's dead, captured, or sipping mojitos on an Island somewhere (or perhaps some combination of the three)

"Well if you are referring to Usama it is because he has been dead since 2004."

Source?

Usama Dead

I agree.  Obama is far too intelligent and even-tempered to let something like that bother him.   He knows better, and so do most Americans (at least those of us who've bothered to find out who the real Obama is).

They (ALQ) will post garbage like this just to see how far they can push him before he does something rash to make it appear as if they were right about him all along.  But they have yet to learn that Obama is NOT Bush, and isn't about to act rashly or let a moment of anger cause him to make a mistake. 

I wonder if they will ever come to realize that they are actually dealing with an intelligent man now - not to mention a man who loves peace, but isn't afraid to do what is necessary to secure that peace. 

"They (ALQ) will post garbage like this just to see how far they can push him before he does something rash to make it appear as if they were right about him all along"

What makes you think that those remarks were intended to influence Obama? Consider the possibility that he doesn'rt care what Obama-- or any Americans think. Its quite possible that those remarks were aimed at influencing the masses in ther Arab world. (To show how "cool' al-Qaeda is-- and how bold they are...in confronting the "Great Satan").

Marine Veteran, and you know even less than the majority you're referring to. Empty suit? Apparently, Barack Obama knows something and even more than individuals he campaigned against, because guess what? He is our newly elected president, which includes yours too. So, get over it and accept fair defeat like a man or woman. Additionally, perhaps you should stop aggravating yourself for no reason. That is naive and not us as you claim....

 Thank you to all of the naive people who bought in to the spin machine.  

Do you happen to remember 911.......and who's administratioon were we under?

I guess you fall under your "naive" statement.

marine vet, can you honestly be that blind?  That is truly difficult to believe and scary as well.  Do you really believe yourself to be the single thinking person left in America?  and the rest of us are mumbling idiots.  Thank God, you are in the minority.  By the way, you are part of the problem.  Are you reasonably intelligent enough to realize that? 

Do you really believe yourself to be the single thinking person left in America?  and the rest of us are mumbling idiots. 

No, he's not saying that.  Actually he can speak for me . . . I totally agree with Marine Vet!  He said the "majority of Americans" (assuming he meant the majority that voted for your "empty suit"). 

Incidently there are still a lot of us out here, thank you very much!

You go Marine Vet!!!

J.

Well go join Al-qaeda then already, Marine Vet.

Don't you all dare let THAT MarineVET give all Marine Vets a bad name... 'cause I'm one too.  Actually a dual Vet.  He does not speak for all of us, not by a longggggggg shot!

Amen.

Vet -

He's worse than an empty suit - he made his bones through graft. For coordinating with his fellow dems in Congress to stonewall Republican attempts to defuse ticking time bombs Fannie and Freddie, he and his cronies received lavish campaign contributions from F&F executives. Designated chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was mixed up in it too.

And damn, what a spin machine he had. Some dreamy-eyed fools on the Vine have likened him to MLK. Oprah anointed him The One.

Thank you for your service in the Marines sir. A young USMC first lieutenant who grew up across the street from me was KIA in Iraq in 2004. In a moving ceremony on Veterans Day with a Marine Corps color guard, our village co-named my street in his honor, and as a reminder to all that the Marines and all U.S. armed forces place themselves valiantly in harm's way to preserve and protect the liberties we enjoy here in America.

I'd never met Lt. Winchester, but I will never forget him and his mom and his service to our nation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this off topic, because the article is about Al-Qaida insult to Obama and not Marines and who served where and for how long, Fannie and Freddie....? This is typical of someone else we're familiar with... who tried to changed the focus during the election in an attempt to change the obvious direction of the outcome... and for the purpose of benefiting their own cause.

I'd never met Lt. Winchester, but I will never forget him and his mom and his service to our nation.

How is it possible to forget someone you never met?

You know, all of you who are so ready to criticize Obama, do you realize that you're doing exactly what Al Qaida wants you to do?  

Don't think for a second that they aren't aware of what is going on in this country, or how divided we were during the campaigns.  They would love to see that continue, because a divided America is an America they can control.  

So every time you perpetrate those same divisions now that the election is over and the votes counted, you are helping to convince Al Qaida that they are winning their psychological war on us.

Is that really what you want to do, especially for those of you who claim to be veterans of our armed services, or want us to believe that you're so "patriotic"? 

PS - I'm not saying you shouldn't ever criticize him.  However everything that has been mentioned on this section is the same rhetoric that has been hashed out over and over again during the interminably long 2 year campaign.  

Obama was never disqualified from running for President.  None of those who ran against him ever were able to make any charges against him stick.   And in the end, despite all the criticism and allegations against him - he still won the election. 

Now, he's not even officially in office yet, and the backbiting has begun.

So all I'm saying is, until he's actually sworn in and then does something worthy of criticism, let's not play into the hands of those who want to do us harm by trying to remain divided. 

You know, all of you who are so ready to criticize Obama, do you realize that you're doing exactly what Al Qaida wants you to do?

Maureen Mower

There's a lot of Bush-bashing by the lefties all over the Vine. They're helping al qaeda too by your reasoning. Are you lecturing those people as well?

So every time you perpetrate those same divisions now that the election is over and the votes counted, you are helping to convince Al Qaida that they are winning their psychological war on us.

LOL yeah. Somewhere on the other side of the globe there's a guy in an al Qaeda stronghold browsing the Vine on his laptop and jumping for joy and screaming Allahu Akbar when he reads my posts.

You're right - there's plenty of Bush bashing on the Vine, and all over the Internet.  I've contributed to that quite a bit in the past as well.   I am certainly not a fan of Bush, and I personally think that he has so badly mishandled the "war on terror" (not to mention many other things), that he has done more to help the terrorists than to hurt them. 

However, you apparently missed the last part of my statement, where I explicitly stated that I was NOT saying that we should never criticize Obama, but rather that we should at least wait until he actually takes office and does something worthy of criticism, instead of continuing to rehash those same tired arguments from before the election that, at this point, are nothing more than sour grapes. 

instead of continuing to rehash those same tired arguments from before the election that, at this point, are nothing more than sour grapes. 

Not rehashing them.  We still have a lot of questions about him that have not been answered!  Until he addresses these issues himself (I won't hold my breath), we will not forget about them.  I believe Mr. O thinks that if he ignores them, they will go away . . . NOT!

So, get used to it.  Just ask Bush (it comes with the territory).

J.

Marine Veteran; Semper-fi Brother,

I disagree with your statement;

It's interesting that Al Qaida knows what the majority of Americans don't.  He's an empty suit and this country is in serious peril now.  Thank you to all of the naive people who bought in to the spin machine

because your comment sounds like an insinuation that call AlQaida is better, more knowledgable and more honest than the MAJORITY of America. I'm sure if you are upset that perhaps YOUR candidate did not win this election, that you can appreciate democracy has won another day in OUR great country.

I would think there's greater interest from Al Qaida, in statements like yours because of your support for them, than in anything else. It is THAT type of support, that they feel they are winning hearts and minds of Amemricans to their cause.

Be careful how you choose to attack another American Brother.

Actually, Joyce, I think Obama is wise enough to know that "addressing" these allegations only gives them credence, and that the best way to fight against false rumors and accusations is to dismiss them out of hand.  

I'll say this again - IF there were any legitimacy to these issues, don't you think that between the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Obama's Dem opponents in the primaries (especially Hillary), McCain and the GOP, and the conservative side of the media - that SOMEONE would have been able to come up with some actual evidence instead of just spouting off innuendo and supposition by now? 

I explicitly stated that I was NOT saying that we should never criticize Obama, but rather that we should at least wait until he actually takes office and does something worthy of criticism,

Maureen Mower

Did you even take the time to follow my link in #8.8 and read the article? He already has done something worthy of criticism during his tenure in the Senate. He and his cronies in Congress did the bidding of the corrupt executives of Fannie and Freddie in return for handsome contributions to their campaigns. This is called graft, and it's bad for our government and our nation. Yeah, I have a problem with that, but there's not a damned thing I can do about it. At least he didn't get my vote.

If it had been Republicans doing it, the lefties would be all over it. Dems do it? No problemo.

Yeah, I have a problem with that, but there's not a damned thing I can do about it. At least he didn't get my vote.

Agreed.  I understand there is talk of an investigation into the whole "Fannie Mae, Freddie'Mac, etc."  ANYONE (including Mr. O) who is found to have any connections at all should be held criminally accountable in my opinion.  As tax payers we shouldn't accept anything less!!!

J.

addressing" these allegations only gives them credence

You mean "ignore them and they'll go away"?

J.

I mean when someone is making a determined effort to spread lies about you, answering those allegations only serves to provide your opponent with more ammunition (this is especially true of the GOP, who have made an art form out of twisting anything anyone says into something they can use against their target).

Obama has learned that actions speak louder than words, so he is answering his critics in the only way that is truly effective - with what he actually DOES as President (once he actually gets sworn in), and even with what he does now as he puts together his cabinet. 

Joyce -

I'd like to see the culprits who empowered Fannie and Freddie to self-destruct be brought to heel, but many will likely skate. Members of Congress including Obama were apparently legally bought and paid for, so unless they actually did something criminal they'll go on their merry ways.

I'll settle for seeing Obama and Congress get barbecued by the electorate after it becomes clear that the "bailout" plans are nothing but ineffective financial bungling on an epic scale. With economic collapse and depression right around the corner, this is a very, very bad time to be the party in power. Losing the election was the best possible outcome for McCain.

Hey Marine Vet- Have some pride.... Support the President that the people you've fought for have elected. (By a landslide....) 'You can't always get what you want... But if you try sometime- You get what you need!!!!'

Some just want to stir the 'Poop Pot'...

Put the ladle down- And join us in America.

Support the President that the people you've fought for have elected.

Barack Obama is not the president. George H. W. Bush is.

Buzz kill.

Dennis C. Latham

I hate to bring your name in the same presence of good people

"Good" people being of course those who share your point of view, right?

Welcome to my ignore list, windbag.

J o y c e 

I am so glad to read your statement, it shows a real non-partisan effort:

" I understand there is talk of an investigation into the whole "Fannie Mae, Freddie'Mac, etc."  ANYONE (including Mr. O) who is found to have any connections at all should be held criminally accountable in my opinion.  As tax payers we shouldn't accept anything less!!!"

Here's a great link to THE MAN who captained the whole deregulation march.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

"The general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today’s economic turmoil....."

Like Fine Wine,

I stand by my previous statement "anyone" who is involved.  I hope they lock them all up and throw away the key!

J.

Like Fine Wine,

Barack Obama is only saying what he is expected to say.  Bill Clinton has gone on record in an interview stating that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act did not cause the current crisis( aside from that the bill had strong democratic backing, that's why Clinton signed it into law).

Our problems weren't caused by a lack of Gov't intervention in the system, they were caused by to much Gov't intervention in the system.

I was being highly sarcastic there. It's hard to tell sarcasm when it's written sometimes.

DAVETHERAVE613,

I don't think those people are ever going to shut up for next four years or possibly eight (should Obama be re-elected in 2012).  As a matter of fact, don't be surprised if Barack Obama is accused of sending out the message to himself to manipulate us about his true relationship with Al-Quaida. It's not farfetched, because we have learned already the pathetic accusations and things against Obama the others come up with. As for Palin?  Well she has yet to apologize for lying on herself e.g. bridge to nowhere, Troopergate, etc...so we shouldn't hold our breath waiting on an apology to Obama from her. And I thought it couldn't get anymore hilarious.

When will Sarah Palin be calling Pres. Obama to aplologize?

Shortly after hell freezes over.Sarah never said anything bad about Obama. Just ask her -- it was all the nasty media making stuff up.

How will the wingnuts spin this?  The "Obama is a Muslim" balloon seems to have been deflated pretty quickly with this.

When will Sarah Palin be calling Pres. Obama to aplologize?

For What?

J.

When will Sarah Palin be calling Pres. Obama to aplologize?

For What?

Do you have all day?

Do you have all day?

Go ahead, I'm waiting.

J.

Joyce, not suprised that escaped you :-)

Joyce:

We could start here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/05/palin.obama.terrorist.claim/index.html

I actually *don't* have all day, so I'll leave the rest for you to investigate yourself. I know you'll do a great job with this query because of your curious mind and scrupulous honesty.

Or.... not.

Palin was talking about domestic terrorist Ayers, not Al Qaida. Sorry, but your slam at Palin doesn't hold water.

Palin was talking about domestic terrorist Ayers, not Al Qaida. Sorry, but your slam at Palin doesn't hold water.

Palin was talking about Obama and so were Al Queida.  Palin called him names no friend or supporter would ever use and so did Al Queida.  Both were nasty attemts to strike a negative chord emotionally for political points and supporter sympathy.   What's your point?

Palin was talking about domestic terrorist Ayers, not Al Qaida.

I never said it applied to Al-Qaeda.

I think it's quite questionable as to Ayers.

So your slam just got slammed. Thanks for playing.

Pamela Drew,

Palin was talking about Obama and so were Al Queida.  Palin called him names no friend or supporter would ever use and so did Al Queida.  Both were nasty attemts to strike a negative chord emotionally for political points and supporter sympathy.   What's your point?

The above is so true and what Palin and McCain tried to do was connect dots to create an ugly picture of Obama by pointing out his so-call associates and distorting statements he made e.g. meet with considered terrorist leaders without any preconditions.  Ayers is supposedly a terrorist and friend to Obama and Obama's father is a Muslim and Al-Queda are terrorist Muslims. So if voters are scared of Al-Queda, then the assumption is they would be afraid of Obama too, who supposedly is a Muslim and an associate of terrorist Ayers. And if we connect the dots, Obama is also a terrorist Muslim and his sole mission to become president was to "kill off white people" or cause harm to an entire country, which includes his wife and children he loves (Deductive theory).  Nonetheless, the scare tactics did not work in McCain and Palin favor and even more so they were pathetic.

Joyce:

We could start here:

I actually *don't* have all day, so I'll leave the rest for you to investigate yourself. I know you'll do a great job with this query because of your curious mind and scrupulous honesty.

Or.... not.

This is exactly what I refer to when I say there are a lot of unanswered questions.  Palin doesn't have anything to apologize for.  Mr. O has not proven her wrong.  On the contrary, if there is an apology due, Mr. O needs to apologize to the people he scammed (including you).  He has not proven that he doesn't "pal around with terrorists".  In fact, if I was a betting person I would be willing to wager that we will eventually find out just how much palling around he did and still does!

scrupulous honesty.

Oh, and since you have such a great time with these kinds of attacks, I am compelled to ask you what positives you contribute to this site.  All I ever see is your bitterness and never-ending name calling.

J.

Joyce, last I checked, you're betting that Obama is not a US citizen, and Phil Berg has brought a valid lawsuit and that on December 1 he will be 'ordered' to produce a birth certificate.

So, your bets on what's true, what's not, who is being scammed are less than worthless.

As for my positive contributions, I've made well-rated comments, and a group of nice people have friended me. That's something I value. I invite you to make your own judgment, about which I could honestly not care less.

Wow I love how my simple sarcastic comment created such controversy.

Yes I have been there. Twice.  To clarify - 90% of our military did NOT vote for McCain.  Just the opposite in fact.  All of my commrades, with only a few exceptions, voted for Obama.  McCain and Palin were and still are laughable.  The longer the campaign went on the more apparent is became that they were a GOP packaged product up for sale.

There's a reason 90% of the Marine Corps voted for McCain.  

Can you give us some proof of your statement?  My guess would be NOT.

9/11 was orchestrated under the Clinton Administration

"Richard A. Clarke, who was President Bill Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, said in an interview that the warning about the Qaeda threat could not have been made more bluntly to the incoming Bush officials in intelligence briefings that he led. "

Link to back it up and I have many more

Bush blew it on all levels.  Please don't tell me you want to argue about that as you will surely LOOSE.

BTW, most marines I personally know, don't wear their service on their sleeves.  They are proud but modest in their service to this country.

Nice try Marine....  Give up already, because so far, you're way behind and chances of getting ahead is strongly against you. CORRECTION: Weakness, not "Weekness." The latter is no such word. The statistics on military votes is incorrect, albeit McCain captured a larger percentage compared to Barack Obama, which was only 68 and not 90 percent and included the entire military count and not just Marine Corp. The statistics can be goggled. You inflated the percentage. Another nice try.  Do have any credible information to back up the claim that "9/11 was orchestrated under the Clinton Administration.." and was "dumped in Bush's lap?" Because if I am not mistaken, Clinton was out of office in 2001 when the attack occurred on WTC and definitely in 2002 when Bush decided to invade Iraq. Are you suggesting the Clinton Administration orchestrated this and Bush followed through on the plan without analyzing the situation first? By your own admittance, Bush is dumb. Please avoid sharing invalid and inflated information to us. Remember, on Newsvine we are suppose to get smarter and we can't if you're going to keep providing us with....

There's a reason 90% of the Marine Corps voted for McCain. 

Proof? Evidence A link?

Also, there are more people who claim to be Marines online than any other service branch, but aren't they numerically smaller? Why is this, I wonder? Seen it myself for years.

9/11 was orchestrated under the Clinton Administration.  It was dumped in Bushs' lap

We were attacked under Bush's administration, why didn't  he  prevent it? Wasn't that his job too?

Do have any credible information to back up the claim that "9/11 was orchestrated under the Clinton Administration.."

Read the 9/11 commission report. As I recall, the terrorists were moving into the US either late in the Clinton administration or early Bush. The planning had been done previously during the Clinton administration.

This Marine didn't support McCain, and I don't believe 90% did either.

and see my comment #8.14

Marine Vet,

Sorry dude, you comments are so "civilian" in nature. You talk as though the first pair of shoes you ever had were from the Corps. I've never heard a Marine talk less like a Marine, than you. I just don't buy it.

Best Regards,

A Marine's Wife, Daughter, and Grand-daughter

You see Dennis, what you don't understand, is that Bin Laden is more valuable to us alive than dead.  If we kill Bin Laden, then this organization fractures into a hundred or a thousand different points.  With Bin Laden alive, we are able to monitor their activities and stay a step ahead of them,  get it? 

And I suppose the thousands of Al Qaida fighters we have killed in Iraq were also there for the money and oil, right? 

I keep wondering when the left is going to realize that their actions to get Bush, have cost American lives.  The left has done nothing but provide aid and comfort to our enemies......and reading through these posts, I was hoping that perhaps the left could join us in the effort of wiping these radicals off the face of the earth. 

Mike, maybe I missed it but never once saw a post saying Al Qaida wasn't real just a tool for Bush. Are you making that up? I did however see several and thought myself that the war on terror was being handled wrong- I think the proof of that is evident.

I referred to nobody individually as left or right here.  Those on the left know who they are without me pointing them out.  They are the ones that have concerned themselves more with discrediting Bush, than destroying our enemy.  There has been enough politics played with this war and I for one am hoping that now we can finally come together as one nation, and defeat these radicals that have made their sole mission in life destroying our country. 

Just because you're conservative and right-wing doesn't mean you have to like Bush at all.  I'm a right-wing conservative and voted for Obama because I don't trust the Republican political machine anymore -- not until it changes its internal powerstructure at least.  They lied to get us to go to war.  I don't mind us fighting for other people's freedom, but lying in order to put our soldiers in harm's way is a new low that not even the blowjob Democrats have stooped to in quite a long long time.

I've got a question about this, "Lied to go to war" thing we have heard so much about.  If I told you I was married to Hillary Clinton, and you belived me and told your friend, even though it's not true, would you be a liar because you believed me?

Now with hindsight, we have all learned that the intelligence we had wasn't accurate, but it was believed by Republicans and Democrats alike.  Sometimes it seems people want to forget that Congress voted for us to go into Iraq, Bush didn't just wake up one morning and invade Iraq.......Congress voted to do so based on the intelligence that was available.

Congress voted to do so based on the intelligence that was available.

I am sick of hearing this excuse, Obama voted NO and had the same information available.

Obama didn't have a vote......shezzzzz

He expressed his opinion, actually after much of the hindsight was made evident...but he wasn't even in national politics at the time.

your right mike...bush didn't just wake up one morning and decide to invade iraq...he and cheney were planning that invasion way prior to 9/11...and i still believe 9/11 was a false flag event to set the ball rolling...

WhyIt,

Just because you're conservative and right-wing doesn't mean you have to like Bush at all.

This is true and the same holds true when it comes to democrats and Obama, particularly those who did not vote for him. A strong dislike for Bush (among other reasons) is probably the main one some in this group voted against McCain and the same could be said about democrats who voted against Obama. The "lie" about Iraq had something to do with it too, which hurt McCain also, since many felt republicans, mostly Bush, were responsible for this country's current situation.  This isn't to suggest some democrats weren't responsible in some way too.  But, political scholars said parties in power are always blamed when things go soar while under their leadership.  So if we take into account, the war, the economy, and everything else unfavorable under the Bush administration, the odds of McCain winning was against him. It's kind of hard to predict if the economy didn't plummet as it did and continues to do, whether or not McCain would have won the election, considering everything thing else that was going on. Though I supported Barack Obama too, I believe if a war had broke out before the election ended, the probability of McCain winning would have been higher.  But we'll never know this for sure.

whyit,

If republicans lied to us about WMD's,  then the democrats lied to us as well. Snopes does a good job of showing that some of these quotes are taken completely out of context and do not say what is the intended purpose.  For many other quotes, they offer no such justification.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Both parties are completely out of control.

oldmustang42,

Is "snopes.com" a credible source, because supposedly it isn't.  One of the tabs on this site reads "Submit a rumor" and the subtitle reads, "Rumor has it." So does one submit a rumor and snopes.com verify whether the rumor is valid or not?  I was looking for  the history tab on this site and could not locate it.

Ann,

I am not an expert, but to the best of my knowledge Snopes has no right or left ideological leanings.

While I have never submitted anything myself, I will refer to it often.  I believe that is how it works, you submit something and they track the facts as completely as possible.  In some instances when something is widely reported they take the initiative to investigate on their own.

I believe that they try to be as truthful as possible without showing bias, I do not personally know of an instance where they have been discredited.  If I am wrong on that, I do apologize.

Do you also remember that some of the intelligence presented was known to be discreditable by intelligence agencies (as in the yellow cake rumors), they warned the administration of this fact, but Bush presented it as concrete fact anyway.

I agree with you that members of congress who voted to go to war, should be ridden just as hard for doing so, because they, as seems to be quite the norm these past few years and counting, blindly accepted what was being presented to them.

AnnForTruth-713865

Yes, that's the idea.  I'm pretty impressed that they were even listed, since snopes has always had liberal leanings imo.  Just look at the origins explanation below the quotes.  Snopes is pretty good for checking on forwarded email hoaxes though. 

About Saddam, he's used WMD's before, so we had to call his bluff.  There were suspicions about 9/11 and we didn't act on them and look where that got us.  The problem now is that we're trying to teach democracy to a nation that has been and probably will always be unstable.  It's time for the US to start rebuilding itself.  Operation American Freedom, if you will.

oldmustang42 and highnoon777, thanks for responding.

highnoon, I still don't understand what Saddam Hussein had to with 9/11 and the reason Bush did not go after Bin Laden who is the one supposedly responsible for this unfortunate happening? No one has yet claim Saddam had anything to do with this and furthermore where are Weapons of Mass Destruction?  Wasn't the former (Bin Laden)  more of a threat to this country?

Well, I am just glad to see some more people ready to go after our enemy now.  Who knew, all it took was insulting Obama to make some of you angry?  I know I don't see anybody upset about all the other things he said about our country.......but how dare he insult Obama...let's get him!

Whatever it takes, just glad to see more people now willing to take up the fight!

Well, I am just glad to see some more people ready to go after our enemy now.  Who knew, all it took was insulting Obama to make some of you angry?  I know I don't see anybody upset about all the other things he said about our country.......but how dare he insult Obama...let's get him!

Whatever it takes, just glad to see more people now willing to take up the fight!

Excuse me Common Sense Mike, some of us wanted to go after the enemy way before Al-Qaida insults to Barack Obama. To suggest otherwise means you're suggesting people who lost families members over this was not in anyway enthusiastic about wanting to catch the terrorists who attacked this country until now. Did you think about this when crafting your response or were you too involved in trying to write a sarcastic line or two to attack Obama supporters and forgot? People were been willing with the exception of our current president and his significant others.

It's been difficult to see this desire to go after our enemies that you speak of, in the mists of all the political wrangling that has been going on through out the war so far.  I didn't think I was insulting anybody, just welcoming some aboard.

btw...the British still stand by those, "yellow cake rumors" as fact today.  It's only been the US media that played the whole "outing a CIA agent" thing out of whack that feels it's been discredited. 

And you may have missed the story about the company in Canada that purchased the tons and tons of uranium from Iraq that we uncovered?

Obama didn't have a vote......shezzzzz

He expressed his opinion, actually after much of the hindsight was made evident...but he wasn't even in national politics at the time.

Not correct there Mike. Obama gave a speech in 2002 before the war began, opposing it. An excerpt...

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

That speech was given on Oct. 2nd, 2002. Say what you will about Obama, but he demonstrated extraordinary foresight six months before the war started, not after the fact. And he had the courage of his convictions to proclaim them in the public square, knowing full well that he would seek a higher office one day.

And you may have missed the story about the company in Canada that purchased the tons and tons of uranium from Iraq that we uncovered?

How 'bout a link to the story?

Sure dude, here's a few links to the story.  It sure didn't get any play in the US media, because it didn't fit into the claims they were making that we had no threat in Iraq.  550 tons of yellow cake, which at the time this happened, we were being told the whole yellow cake rumors were a Bush lie.  So you probably are unaware of this:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080706/cda_uranium_080706/20080706?hub=Canada

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?_r=1

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b070977A#adSkip

And allow me to make the point, that if we had listened to Obama concerning the war in Iraq, we would all be hanging our heads in shame in defeat today.  The politics that have been played in this war are a shame, and I believe have resulted in hundreds if not thousands of unnecessary deaths for our troops. 

JIM Dent

VERY informative and well thought out. thank you !

Here's a better link dude. It takes your bogus email and all your links, and wraps it all up neatly. The short and sweet of it all is that this yellowcake you speak of was from before the gulf war of 91, was well documented, was contained, and was not the yellowcake Bush was lying about...

The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been
identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of
U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S,
and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately
preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear
reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at
Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled
during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Moreover, the fact that the yellowcake had
been in Iraq since before the 1991 Gulf War was plainly stated in the Associated Press
article cited in the example above:

That explain why it wasn't a big story? Bogus emails seldom make the evening news...

And allow me to make the point, that if we had listened to Obama concerning the war in Iraq, we would all be hanging our heads in shame in defeat today.

Wrong again. Had we listened to Obama in 02, we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place.

Of course, Snopes has no politicial agenda of their own...lol  Keep putting your faith in Snopes, after all, their entire election coverage claimed everything Obama said was gospel and everything McCain said was a lie.......no political agenda there.....lol

Is snopes really the best you can do?  That's like thinking wikipeadia is a realible source.....lol

We are all entitled to our own opinions, and no matter which side your on, you can find a site some where to back up your beliefs......but at least try finding a realible source...lol

Snopes...rotflmao

If you think Snopes is incorrect, prove it.

How about this from the NY Times link you provided...

The yellowcake removed from Iraq — which was not the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address

Or this one you also provided...

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

Your own links confirm what Snopes says. Credible? Absolutely. 

Double or nothin'?

Dude, your going down a road I never opened.  I never made any claims that this was old or new yellow cake, just stated the fact that there were 550 tons of the stuff there.  You asked for links to the story as if you didn't believe me, I provided them for you, and now all of a sudden you want to start a new discussion about old or new? 

And yes, I am saying snopes is not a realible source and neither is wikipedia......there are many unrealible sources that pose themselves differently on the internet. 

And let me add....I never said I got this information from an email so I don't know how you made that up?....I provided you with AP, NYT's links......(not that either of them are considered reliable news sources anymore, but they are a dam site better than snopes)

Snopes....lol

Dude, your going down a road I never opened.  I never made any claims that this was old or new yellow cake, just stated the fact that there were 550 tons of the stuff there.

Well, here's what you did say... dude

Sure dude, here's a few links to the story. It sure didn't get any play in the US media, because it didn't fit into the claims they were making that we had no threat in Iraq. 550 tons of yellow cake, which at the time this happened, we were being told the whole yellow cake rumors were a Bush lie.

I'm not starting a new discussion, I'm following up on the one you started above.  Is it your opinion that the 550 tons of yellowcake, that was contained in 91 by the UN inspectors,  constituted a credible threat?  Are you using these 550 tons as evidence that Bush didn't lie?  

You're the one that threw this red herring out there. Don't bust my chops 'cause I called you on it, DUDE.

And when you show me some credible proof that Snopes isn't credible, I'll give it some thought. Till then, I'll just figure you don't like them 'cause they don't give the answers you want 'em too. Just because you don't like them, doesn't make them suspect in my mind. Quiet the opposite, actually....

I am going to give you another link, and it's not from snopes or any right wing site.  But you keep implying that there was no threat in Iraq, even though Bush 1 told us there was, and even though Bill Clinton said Iraq was the greatest threat the world faced.....but some how when Bush II said it, it suddenly became a lie?

It's like Clinton debating the meaning of the word "is".....as to if there were WMD's in Iraq.  Here's an ABC story on the subject.  It appears Saddam and other Iraqi leaders spent a great deal of time discussing something the you think never exsisted:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996

Here's another source of information that has gotten little attention, because it just doesn't fit the story the media has been pushing from the start:

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2002/091802.asp

Now you can rely on snopes to form your opinions all you want, but the whole idea that there was no threat in Iraq, and that Bush lied to go to war, flies in the face of all the evidence.  Evidence that our media has ignored.  You may find it perfectly acceptable for a dictator to control 550 tons of weapons grade yellow cake.......but I don't!

Now you can rely on snopes to form your opinions all you want...

I'll answer the rest later, but let's get this little "gem" out of the way first...

The Snopes article I linked to CONFIRMED what YOUR link said. In fact, it used your friggin links. Are we clear on this? SNOPES said the same friggin thing as your links!!! Hello?! Am I gettin' through here?

When Snopes agrees with the other major outlets and in fact uses them to make their case, and they're all in agreement.... IT"S A CREDIBLE @!$%#ING SOURCE!! Any of this sinking in in??

I form my "opinion" by listening to and reading many different sources... even FOX News. Not sure why you have this hangup on Snopes, but it's only one of many sources, and I've found them to be, for the most part, credible. As I said before, show me some evidence they aren't. If your this big into how "not credible"  they are, surely you must be able to provide some evidence where they were clearly wrong? Right?

Bush destroyed himself..... He needed NO assistance.

http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=1284141

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=51445

http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/thread/2583428.aspx

But when a site supports your own political views, then I suppose the bias is more difficult to see.

Ok, the first link is to some bull@!$%# blog that claims Snopes has a liberal bias. Damn, there's the smoking gun I was looking for ;)

Next link, The Firearms Forum... three guesses as to their bias...

Third link, an article claiming Snopes has a liberal bias (gulp) by Juan1221, a user that's had "their account  deactivated by the site administrator." 

Impressive, ya sold me... Snopes is full of it.

Seriously though, Snopes has a liberal bias?  I never really paid that much attention, but fair enough. Fox has a conservative bias, CNN is liberal, The Wall Street Journal is conservative... ad nausium. Does a bias mean it's not credible? Here's what all this means.... if a news source says stuff you agree with, it's honest, fair reporting. If a news source says stuff you disagree with, the bastards are obviously biased. What does bias have to do with credibility when reporting the facts? 

Snopes reported that the yellowcake was from before 91. So did the NY Times, AP, and MSNBC.

Snopes reported that the yellowcake was not the yellowcake that Bush warned us about.  So did the NY Times, AP, and MSNBC.

Snopes reported that the yellowcake was under UN control. So did the NY Times, AP, and MSNBC.

You starting to see the pattern here? The Snopes article on the yellowcake is just as credible as the NY Times story, the AP story, and the MSNBC story. Why? Because they all say the same friggin thing. How much more credible can you get for petes sake?

So tell me this, every source you cited leans to the left, where is the evidence to support their claims of where this 550 tons of yellow cake came from?  Can you consider that maybe they were covering their azz, since at the time they were all telling us that no yellow cake exsisted?  So they had to cover themselves and claim this was old stuff......but where's the evidence to support this claim?  550 tons is alot of yellow cake, and you really believe that our media and snopes...lol....can account for where every ounce came from? 

I am being very honest with you when I say I am so sick of the politics that have been played with this war.  Our young men and women are over there dying, and I see part of our country doing everything they can to discredit their efforts, for political purposes........it is sic! 

Even reading this story, of all the insults that were thrown at us, at our country......all the media and many in this thread seem to be concerned about was the insult directed at Obama.......but it that's what it takes to gain the support of those on the left to join the efforts and achieve victory...then I am so glad he insulted Obama.  All hail the all merciful lord Obama...and death to anybody that dares to insult him........now lets go get these radicals and wipe them off the face of the earth!

Hysteria doesn't help make your case, Mike.

MIke

It seems as if you are the only one with Common Sense. :-)

Brian, this may be difficult for you to grasp, but keeping the leadership in tact, allows us to monitor their activities and stay a step ahead of our enemy.  Do you really believe that all the terrorist plots that we have foiled in this country the past few years were stopped by accident? 

Trust me when I tell you, we have cameras in space that can take a picture of a dime on the ground, clear enough to read the date.  We've known all along exactly where Bin Laden is, and we are watching his every move. 

Brian, this may be difficult for you to grasp

Thanks, Common Sense Mike. I'm a thirty-four year old man, not a mentally disabled toddler ;)

Ok Brian.....I'll take your word.  There have been many times in the past 8 years where it's been difficult to tell, not with you personally, but with those on the left.

Dennis, just something else for you to chew on.  If we kill Bin Laden, he becomes a martar, a sort of mythical figure that lives on forever.  Keeping him alive and putting him through the disgrace of defeat, can actually bring an end to this radical movement.......where killing him keeps it alive forever.  He must remain alive so his nose can be rubbed in this thing he created.  Sort of like training a puppy so to speak. 

Wrong!

Cut off the serpents head.

If Al Qaeda has no supreme command structure then it is reduced to a grouping of separate gangs with no definite plan of action.

So you really think it would be better to have to watch several hundred different groups, each one with the ability to carry out attacks against innocent civilians in our country, than to be able to monitor our enemies actions from one central command........hmmm

(double checking the mentality challenged toddler remark earlier)

Who the hell knows anymore?  There are a lot of people who believes he's dead already!  Interesting point of view though, Mike.

Bin Ladens greatest fear is being taken alive. That would be the ideal scenario for us. Any way, remember that these people operate out of small cells. There is no central command as in an organized army. This works in their favor by making it much harder to be effective in our attemots to corral them. What we really need is to have more mainstream muslims realize that this is their problem too.

If it is true our leaders know where Bin Laden is and is watching his every move, why won't they snuff him out already. Why must additional people die while leaders sit back and simply watch Bin Laden's every move.  For what purpose does this serve to this country?

Question: Why is Ayman al-Zawahri still alive, and still on my TV?

Ratings? Who knows....

I don't buy this idea of keeping him alive is better.

First, the concept has no basis in fact, or in any strategy that is being supposedly executed. Perhaps it is a secret, but I seriously doubt it.

Secondly, the concept fails to take into account bin Laden's money, and how that resource will be dispersed upon his death, reducing its potency.

Third, the concept buys into the misconception of Islamic terrorism as based in religious zealotry; the idea that it is a 'jihad' or 'holy war.' Simply not true. This idea is based largely in western xenophobia. Muslims go to war for the same reasons everyone else does - "get off our land."

So when Bin Laden and the other leaders proclaim jihad and call it a holy war, as they have been doing for almost two decades now, we should ignore them?  Call the liars?  What? 

Are you saying that their claims of this being a jihad is some how cordinated with Bush to create a "western zenophobia"?  I am trying to understand?  This is not a holy war as they claim?  It's really about land?  Who's land?  What land? 

There is a linear disconnect in the understanding between the west and Islam. What is difficult for many to understand is the concepts do not go in both directions.

Al Qaeda is fighting against the west to be free of western influence in Islamic countries. This is the basis of the conflict. In the Islamic view, such resistance is righteous, and therefore is 'jihad' and holy. 'Jihad' attaches to the actions taken after they are taken. There is no concept in Islam that says fighting the west is holy.

Take, for example, a Christian who encounters a murder about to take place and then prevents it. What are the basis of his actions? Is he acting in pursuit of being 'holy' or Christ-like, or is he simply doing what is correct, and in so doing upholding the word of God?

'Jihad' simply means to struggle in the way of God. To work hard to improve yourself, your society, and to live as God intends.

It's really about land?  Who's land?  What land?

As far as the land, you really have to study the history of the Middle East to understand. Israel, Palestine, Jerusalem, Syria, and Egypt. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Pakistan. Libya, Sudan.

All these conflicts are about power and the control of the land and its natural resources. why do you think we have had two wars with Iraq?

Ok...I think I get what your saying....it's not a holy war, but it is.  And it's not really a jihad, but it is.  And all that has happend and will happen is about Israel.   Right?

And all that has happend and will happen is about Israel.   Right?

No.

Thank you James Andre, for your comment 17.15.....clear and factual.

I just see all the politics that have been played with this war.  I've seen our politicians on one side, pandering to those who have been motivated by hatred, in an attempt to regain political power. 

Now, hopefully, we can all come together with the common goal of destroying our enemy, instead of destroying our President.  Enough of our troops have died already because of the divisions politics have created.  It's time to end the division and come together as one!

Great recovery, seriously. 

coming together is what many of us voted for and soon to be POTUS Obama will deal greatly with our enemies.  He is not a dove.

Well keep in mind we used to support the Taliban (and even bin laden) when the Russkies occupied Afghanistan. We seem to have more luck buying off our enemies as in Iraq than we do killing them off.

It's also cheaper to buy oil than to steal it, apparently.