Obama’s “57 states” remark not a big deal
… but what if it was Bush who said it? Wouldn’t the media and the late night talk shows crucify him for it? What if it was McCain? Wouldn’t the media blame his old age for inaccurate statements? So, tell me why Obama gets a free pass for this? I am not going to fault the guy for misspeaking. He’s been on the campaign trail for over a year; and these candidates work up to 20 hours a day. He’s fatigued, tired and obviously doesn’t get enough sleep! This is a clear example of liberal media bias, period.
The clip is actually pretty funny though. Take a peep.
Subscribe to this blog!
Like this post? Want to call me a jerk, neo-con, fascist or whatever? Please subscribe to this blog and you can receive all future posts delivered right to your inbox!
Tags: barack obama, 57 states
Share this post
What he meant to say was 51 states; his staff advised him against going to Israel.
Really good post.
Every candidate is a human being, to the best of my knowledge, and should be cut some slack for slips like that.
Besides, they're funny.
About Obama and the press, I've wondered if we'll read that he walked on water at some fund-raiser. He does seem to be a bit above reproach.
Ah, well. I've long accepted the fact that the news media, American and otherwise, treats some people more equally than others.
Above reproach? Thats why we never hear about John Mccain doing anything. 3 weeks of coverage was devoted to what? Reverend Wright. But of course, the media gives Obama a free pass. WHAT?? Sorry, but I just cannot accept that. If anyone has gotten a free pass to date, it has been John McCain.
No I think he meant 57!!!
He wants the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to break off to make 51, make Puerto Rico state 52, he is including DC as 53, lop off part of Wyoming to make it a perfect square and give the rest back to the American Indians as 54 (but not make it a Reservation), he wants to invade Cuba and make it 55, Take the panhandle off of Oklahoma and airlift it to the panhandle of Florida and turn that into Obamaland and make it 56, and for the last state he wants to recreate the Roanoke Colony off of North Carolina and call it Candyland!
Because Obama could never get something wrong... could he?
Sorry about all that, just trying to add some more humor to an already amusing story. And I am attempting to brighten someone's day with a horribly stupid story.
My sincere apologies,
HeyZues
§
You don't think the fact that Obama is actually still fighting to become the Democratic nominee has anything to do with the amount of coverage he gets compared to McCain? Liberals have Hillary to blame for this unwanted attention. While McCain quietly campaigns, Hillary and Barry are still throwing mud at each other. The fact remains that if Bush had made a stupid comment like this it would be in every self important, radical leftist YouTube video on the internet trying to prove how dumb Bush is.
I thought basic geography was a requirement for getting into Harvard, silly me, affirmative action.
blacknationalist,
Dude, think about it. McCain never got any coverage. I mean come on yo, he hasn't got any coverage. Show me one incident when John Mccain got more than like 3 days of coverage on an issue in this election cycle.
Next time big guy.
H
Seriously...does this really warrant a post? I know you love to declare some sort of bias, but really?
Bush would be crucified because he has already demonstrated that he's a buffoon when it comes to speaking in front of people. So they are commenting on the pattern that is reinforced by "yet another" mistake.
If Bush all of a sudden learned how to correctly pronounce "newcular" should the media ignore the other 98% of the time? Obama is so well spoken that this comes off as simply a mistake...not a demonstration of ignorance.
Regardless of which candidate or side you prefer, this is pretty cut and dry.
-SubMod
The same reason Bush gets a pass for "Childrens do learn". And anyone with a brain knows that he has been on the road for a year and he may have meant 57 elections or he meant to say 47 states which would be accurate leaving out Hawaii, Alaska.
Or
50 states
1 district
5 terretories: Guam, Perto Rico, US Virgin Islands, US Somoa, Marianna Islands and of course there will be the national election.
Again, not as bad as Childrens do learn, The Internets, I know how hard it is to put food on your family etc.
The well beloved gentleman who refered Hussein Obama attacked himself misspelling 51 states for 57, instead refeer actualy about Israel well, Sr., I don't think so...
They are already hurting Israel by terror, press, diplomacy... globaly, they in fact do the same to any posible potential American friend, even European, that's why Sadam Hussein's UN Systems (global, state terror funding, like Chavez now) ruled the last 30 years even over China, USSR, and the whole cold years beeing pro-US minority of freedom countries, US, UK, etc...
Sorry, but anyone running for president should know there are 50 states in our country even if he/she has not slept in a month! Maybe that's why Obama has suddenly started wearing The American Flag lapel pin. So, he can remember how many states we have next time -even if he has to count them.
This is the scariest candidate the Dems have ever had while I've been alive!
Haha, funny clip. Though now I wonder how many states he's actually been to.
good one!..he was referring to Muslim countries according to the UN and we know it...Keep up the great fight!:) what a tool Nobama is!
@BH Obama (and his terrorist firends localy (US) or globaly (the terrorist countries and political dictatorships), LOGISTICS will take over Israel
What in the hell did you just say, Im still trying to wade through it. I mean, grammar, spelling, punctuation, logical sentences, a real name?? (Not like Frank, or Harry, etc but like something less than a phrase)
@Everyone else
Yes, he made a mistake. So let's hang him now, right? He misspoke so we wont cut him any slack. Everyone should know that there are 50 states. But Im pretty sure that any one of you have misspoken about something personal to you. Like you called your spouse by your children's name. Misspoke about a family member's birthday or your anniversary, etc.
But you say, he isnt allowed to make mistakes because he is running for President, right? Yeah, look at every president, every major candidate for President and it won't be too hard to find a mistake that they have made. I mean human error is unacceptable when someone is running for President especially if they aren't running for your party.
Seriously, bash his policies for what he will do if elected, not the fact that he misspoke.
For heyzeus christ, even UC said he is not going to fault him for misspeaking.
§
Mispelling a fast-writting opinion is what you check first?, are you the spelling-police?
Read the message, and understand the knowledge..., then the time gives you the experience to wisdom...
Hussein Obama has terror to terror, localy and overseas, publicly accpted, well recorded, many times this lasts years, to D E A L with terrorists states, her partners on the party, even traveled TO CUBA, SYRIA, the cnn building on Bagdad was one of the strategic targets against Sadam's terror-TVNews systems...
but even on FOXNEWS there are anti-war on Irak (terror logistics on Media), working along with terror logistics on P O L I T I C S, the "vietnamitaisers" of US Victories, the logistics where the terrorists "walk, safe havens in situ US, Hispanic nations... the terrorist states...
I'm sorry, still no time for checkspell, but lucky me I'm NOT running for president, and English is NOT my native language (+ I studied Swedish more than my EASOL degree months)...
And... it's not about me this blog...
Can you imagen "my" job, voluntary, ad honorem, nonfunding, almost homelless again, pursued by Miamidade coyotes like lulu, ruling your family for 20 years (I survived because "the miracles" like dade police psicologist couldn't sign to "my" paradoctores kiddnapping me for 45 min during an election the M A Noriega"s party (on power again on Panama, lost on 1999) they needed a sign again when PRD won the 2004 elections that "I'm crazy" to release the lot of people jailed for electoral megafelonies (in wich "my case was another grain on the sand, by the way... I still speaking, even by public internet (controled by the system (anti-people like me, war on terror strategist on informal public sources, because he (an Alvarez system member, 80% on miamidade single "power city positions" is part of "the system, inside the "system" nobody answers on single BBBBBILLION$$$$$$$$$ LOST questions, all ANTI-WAR ON IRAK... AND THEIR SUPPORTERS (like me by the way), well, to don't boring you, the police "trainer for 30 years in situ (and ignored by the rest of his "sheerwoodcounties style sub divisions on Media, politics, "no embargo to Castros (I'm a creative for anti-castros, anti-prd presidential elections, Bush informal epropaganda... bla, bla, bla..., and living you "enternainedly INFORMED&oriented, I "survived that time because the "I'm crazy signer on sherwoodade whent arrested (there where "Starbucks" moments, but the Castro agent was arrested accused of being really a Castro agent...
Other authorities still falling...
I'm still being pursued paralegaly even "on my job", a sandinista megamanager cuts 2/3 of "my years gained working hours, but the worst: other castro-local-authorities related managers still competing, a castro-supermarketmanager, and other "friendlies hispanics"..., while the general manager punishes those who don't accept "his way" (same "citypeople" who protected a terrorist FARC stealing my ID even from the labor system, inmigr... on .... (20centuryfox films entrance... tatatrara... tarataaaaa...): 2004.
(pd: on a so fla ("state") supermarket...
Metatron will be back.... I'm bussy dealing with "alfred and his granfamily gang-style dadeland sex no God schools, and their tortured felonic gang-style music noize, a nazi-sovietchavez "dreamed nightmares dark periodes", the coutry that falls allowing anti-war on Irak politititians....
to be continued...
454TEC seems "raul. the one who already threatened my sister to "take his gun out if she don't allowed him to come in the apartament to talk...
acctualy, like carlos, or alexwillis, arrepented for beattings, blade cutts to my sister, could be imposed by miamidade as "new family", the megafelonic dadegangero.
Everyone makes misteaks, but not many like the one the president made in invading Iraq and having no plan as to what to do after "winning" it. Since Senator McCain plans to keep up the Bush tradition in the Middle East we certainly know that is a real mistake.
To the mister owner of a weblog, I'm like the real people, the mayority, almost homeless (again), hardworking, in my case the jobs not even the illegal alliens want to do (pluss the "bosses"'s treatment), worst than an illegal, prision language, paralegalism, provoqing fight, pluss anti-war on Irak authorities, always pursuing the pro-war on Irak, like me.
Their mistake is loin publicly with THE ENEMY, instead Mcain's words: I'll will join with owr allies (I'd like to be on any chatt, have a tea, chatt, let the civilization still rolling, like an anti-terrorist authority.
The mistakes since "made in ted's desk vietnam", worst Carter's authoritation over America of Chavez, Torrijos, Noriega, FMLN, FSNL, Hamas, and many more (all connected to Cuba, Iran, Sadam, Syria... , but not like Sadam's 30 years ruling his OWN SYSTEM ON THE UN, no Mr somebody, these dictatorships are combined, joined with Castros Cuba, PRDs Panama, Anti-war on Irak on Miami authorities protecting coyotes, I denounced one misstreating her illegal kids on her illegal daycare on 2004, and the dade children&family joined labor system protecting a FARC TERRORIST stealing my ID from a supermarket, on American soil.
Actually, that children&family system office is closed, on Dade the whole system have megascandals (dead younglings), like the rest of the "power" possitions on the citie$.
I'm a war on terror media strategist, the battle for the ideas, that my enemy fights killing people like me, this is "how I fight, with my fingers (broken all with a door by an abuser, you can still see my altered shape of bones fractured and broken and inmediately cured, when I was a MAGICALyoungling, by the way) Any anti-war on Iark is suspecious of be part of the terror logistics, their problem is WE, THE PEOPLE ARE AS MUCH AS STARS ON THE SKY, even if they went on satin...
Holy FUCK dude! Guy with the long ass names, here's a tip: you gotta learn English to debate in English. Also, study the points before you try and make one. I can't decipher the majority (dare I say, "mayority") of what you said, but what I did gather is that you claim you're like most "real people," in that you're practically homeless, and you do jobs that illegal immigrants won't even do. I'm not so sure the "mayority" of Americans are doing jobs even illegal immigrants won't do. Oh, unless you're also telling me that the people who don't do those menial jobs are not "real people"?
Seriously, I can't understand anything you're writing. And posting over and over again isn't helping. What I gather--what i believed I gathered--from your most recent name is that you are in favor of invading Iran because of two reasons: 1, simplicity, in that it is adjacent to Iraq and we wouldn't have to change much about our tactics, and 2, that it has "SWEARED" to bomb anyone it wants to, since it has so many bombs.
Hey UC, you were looking for a guy who's just posting to instigate irritation? Here's your guy (or rather, guys! since, you know, he has multiple names. So clearly, here's your multiple personalities.)
(OR MAYBE IT'S ALL JUST ME!! Wouldn't that be funny)
†
It seems like GuyWithLongName got left behind somewhere around grade 3. If I had any idea what you are trying to say I would gladly debate the topic though. IraQ by the way, with a Q.
Obama said 57 instead of 50. Big deal. The man is much too dangerous to focus on something like that. I hope our Republican party has all the ammo they need against this guy. Hopefully he will never get the chance to find out how difficult it is to sit down and "talk" to terrorist nations. He will cripple the military, just like Slick Willy did. And he will "talk" instead of act, just like Willy. (U.S.S. Cole, U.S. Embassies, ect). A potentially dangerous man indeed.
Apparently, Obama lost his bearings! LOL
I made a comic after listening to conservative radio:
boxbrown.com
I am curious to see what conservatives think.
Dude with the really long names...
I'm not suggesting that you are stupid or uneducated, and I am also not faulting you for not having English be your first language; however, I don't have a damned clue as to what you are talking about most of the time, so debating in English with you is like the War in Iraq, pointless... a waste of time, energy, man- power, etc, etc, etc.
§
Whoever you are with all of those names, I must applaud your ability to connect thoughts together and make any sense lol. Really sir, I couldn't understand even one thing that you were talking about.
HeyZues, I don't know if the war in Iraq is a waste of time. I feel that the war on terrorism, (9/11) is justified. If the war has strayed away from that heading, then ok, maybe you have a legitimate gripe. I think most wars are useless, but not all are pointless. There is always a point being made, even if I don't agree with it.
Yeah, the point being made in Iraq is "We are America, and if we think you're gonna threaten us (slash if we don't agree with you somehow) we will invade you." That's one hell of a message. But that's the truth. That's the Bush Doctrine. The United States has authorized something that has never been authorized in the past: preemptive strike. So Bush breaks two milestones in our nation's history: preemptive strike AND fascist state. AWESOME!
Sure there's a point to every war. It's not always a good one, nor a justified one, nor a legal one. HZ was just saying that this war lacks a noble and legal purpose. Calm down on the semantics. Anyone who supports this war is someone who knows about it only through the five minutes of Fox News coverage a day that they watch. You simply cannot know the facts, and simultaneously be a functioning human being, and support this war. (Oh, sorry, HeathenHater, support this occupation) (damn hypocrite haha)
Bobby G,
We went to war against terrorism. We went after Osama bin Laden. We went to Afghanistan to take out Al Qaeda and other terrorist operations. Now in Iraq... how was the nation of Iraq going to attack the United States? With their awesome Air Force, even they did manage to strap some RPGs onto a 747 Im pretty sure our Air Force would have recognized it and taken it down in the Atlantic. I mean who the hell ever thought we would be fighting against the nation of Iraq in the United States? No one, therefore it was not a legitimate preemptive strike.
Bobby, by preemptive I mean exactly what you said: striking someone you think is dangerous before they strike you. We were pulled into World War I indirectly through our allies (yes, if your ally is attacked, you are justified to come to their aid, so that's not preemptive) and directly when the Germans sank the Lusitania. In World War II, our allies were, again, at war, but we also had Pearl Harbor. Both of those facts let us declare war, but neither of those wars were preemptive strikes by the Americans. Our war on terrorism was not preemptive. We attacked in Afghanistan only after Afghanistan, or rather Al Qaeda, attacked us first. But Iraq never attacked us. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Our war in Iraq was absolutely, totally, 100% preemptive, something that Americans have never authorized. It is an admittedly preemptive policy by the Bush administration. Now, maybe the Spaniards never really attacked the Maine, and maybe we just used the Tonkin Resolution as an excuse to fend off those Commie bastards, so maybe, technically, we've been preemptive before. But officially, it is a policy never before openly practiced by any American president. And what better pioneer than GWB.
When we invaded Iraq in the original Gulf War, we wiped out Saddam's army, which was the 3rd largest military in the WORLD, in a matter of days. We completely demolished him. He was scared for his life, and that is a fact. He thought the United States would kill him. Then we signed a ceasefire, pulled out, and left him in power. But his awesome military might would NEVER compare to what he had before we wiped it out. To say that he was a threat to the United States, especially on faulty intelligence (or blatant lying?), is like a slap in the face. And anyone who endorses the Iraq War as legitimate or legal, and anyone who claims our occupation is in any way justified, is slapping America in the face again.
†
OhHolyKnight, If you think that we were pulled into battle by our allies, you should read the complete war address to the congress, by Woodrow Wilson. How after his strong view, that we should remain neutral (declaration in 1914), he changed his mind when he perceived that the German government would in effect, overthrow democracy. His statement in his address to Congress said that we did in fact, not hate the German people and our war was not with them, but with the government that was acting on it's own. We allied ourselves with France and Britain because he believed that the war which was spilling over into the Atlantic and claiming lives of all nations, could possibly even come to our own shores. In that light, he declared war against Germany, because in his words, Germany and the United States could never be friends. So he called for 500,000 of our young men to be pressed into battle against Germany. And so ended our neutrality. When the war was over, even then the Germans were not called on to surrender, because it was thought that they could never be strong enough to do such a thing again. Little did we know, that we would be fighting again in just twenty-some years. Maybe, just maybe Bush saw something we didn't and was trying to correct what he perceived as a future problem. And I'll say again, our war was with terrorism and as Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq were and still are perceived as terrorist training countries, I still do not believe that the strike was strictly preemptive, but a continuation of our fight against terrorism after 9/11. I'm glad that I did not have to make such a decision, and I'm pretty sure you are also. Our president and congress made the decision, and to fly in the face of this decision is not only unconstitutional, but also unAmerican.
So, we the people have to accept YOUR pro-terrorist ideas?, and, write correctly on A F A S T W R I T T I N G blog?, don't you know fast writting WILL HAVE writting failures?, you have mistakes too on your writting and nobody makes a scandal.
by the way, Jag protar mär Swedish om Engleska, Jag har 2 Nordik kulture betiggar (degrees, but even on Spanish I make mistakes, it's normal).
If you are waisting the time of conservatives making us to attend self-declared terrorist helpers on anti-American propaganda (globaly organized, publicly), that's better for my point: you are self-declared helpers of terror.
I remeber when nazis and comunists joined publicly against the creation of the
European Union, same organized terror propaganda logistics, they where linching even Europeans who "wheren't accepting their point of view", and gess what, Europeans declared nazis&helpers as terrorists, political parties, religious groups, intelectuals, etc. where mass arrested (what America needs),
please, free us from your stupidity, go blog on hussein obama's blogs, only there you will read what you need .
and, terror logistic&propaganda are... terrorists too, so get off...grammar police...
you invade everything, even Foxnews have anti-Irak war (again, extremely wisdom to go, to stop Iran, Irak's neighbour, we are already there, and the world is safer), even wiod has mornings Footy: self-declared friend of raulmartinez, a castro political agent (as 80% miamidade government), travels to cuba, violent, also footy is against castro well imposed embargo (means NO US CREDITS TO terrorist castrosystem).
Understand this: A C T I V E anti-castro congresmen and politicians is what real exiled Cubans whant!!!!!, why you invest against that?, is America's security, take a little respect for the victims of terror states, globaly organized, spreading terror logistic locals...
remeber, go to hussein obama's blogs, listen to footy, msnbc... keep mentaly sicken your brain, may be you end like the biggest terror logistic builders: Manuel A Noriega (magicly jailed), al-zarkawi, sadam, taliban, dan rather, or castro himself...
remember, you are fighting the U S A, the people... and their allies on this world of God.
many people still sufer terror, no logistics, means NO TERROR...
did you understand?
surely not, because terror affects human brain, there is no money or power that can stop God's will, but you know, mostly of the time, it takes a while... unless you go make their war on their soil, that's better than wait for them as cattle on
the meat factory...
If you need for your brain, play rush, sean, levin, gleenbeck, the lauras, normal foxnews, garret, schnitt, there is no excuse to sick your brain, and try to sick other's...
Bobby G,
"Our president and congress made the decision, and to fly in the face of this decision is not only unconstitutional, but also unAmerican."
I dont know how to say this nicely... so.... HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FUCKING MIND!??! The ability to disagree with the President, Congress, and the entire government is what our Constitution was founded upon. The Constitutional Republic was set up so that we could speak our minds and disagree with the government especially when they have made a mistake and they are not apologizing or working to fix it. I fail to see where in the constitution it says that we can disagree with our government.
Now unless, you are referring to the fact that the United States is becoming fascist and we are slowly losing our rights then i completely agree with you on that, but i dont think you are saying that. "to fly in the face of this decision is not only unconstitutional, but also unAmerican. " Where the hell have you been all your life? You honestly believe that you have to agree with a governmental decision?
Thomas Jefferson even said himself (he was a President fyi) that the people need to revolt every 20 or 30 years to keep the government active, fair, and to remind the government who's country this is. He said that himself.
"to fly in the face of this decision is not only unconstitutional, but also unAmerican." You are so far off the mark it is ridiculous. You have been brainwashed by all this jingoism going on now that you cannot even comprehend what you are saying. You have surrendered your right to free will and freedom. This extreme zeal and patriotism that you have in which you cannot defy the President, Congress, or the government is your basis of political beliefs which means you are inherently wrong and narrow minded.
I would not call you stupid if you thought that Barack was a bad choice or you though Hillary or McCain were good choices or the rest of your argument about the War on Terror but this single statement leads me to say that you indeed are stupid and need to figure out what the hell is going on. You have been brainwashed and controlled by the government.
And GUY WITH THE REALLY LONG NAMES....
for the last fucking time, i could care less about spelling, grammar, and simple typing errors, but no one has any fucking clue what you are saying. I will spell every word in the next sentence incorrectly but anyone who reads it can understand: Librals aer egual too conservitives. (Just an example) Notice, everyone can figure out what I mean, but when you speak, no one has a damn clue what you are talking about, not because of spelling errors, grammar, etc but because you it doesnt make any sense.
§
Bobby G,
Since HZ already attacked that ridiculously fascist statement you made, I won't dive too far into that one. But there are things about diplomacy you need to understand. There are things about propaganda that you need to understand. First of all, what Woody said to Congress is ONLY what goes down in the official presidential books. It doesn't make it fact. Bush pitched that Saddam had nuclear weapons, but that turned out to be wrong. Whether it was a lie or not, Bush did not present FACT, so you cannot tell me that something in a presidential speech to CONGRESS was absolute fact. That's the game, Bobby. They push and pull in trying to get their way. Woody would've said anything to go to war. He had been helping the allies long before we officially joined them, just like FDR during WWII. We were allied with Britain and France. Our interests, our trading partners and options, they were all at risk if Germany would win either one of those world wars. We HAD to join the wars to protect our interests! And we needed excuses. Enter the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor.
The other thing you need to understand is it was not until after both the Lusitania incident and the Zimmerman letters (which were secret telegrams sent, from Germany, to Mexico telling them to wage war on the United States before we entered the war). Both of those incidents are German hostilities against us. So when we went to war with Germany, it was NOT PREEMPTIVE. We lost 131 Americans in the Lusitania, and we intercepted plans to invade American soil. So the fact that our allies, our interests, and our economy were all at terrible risk if we didn't do anything isn't even that important. But again, in turbulent times, if your allies are attacked, and you and your allies have written documents pledging to guard each other, then when your ally is attacked and you come to their aid, that is not preemptive. It's defensive.
World War II was the exact same way. Our allies were in trouble, we traded with them and helped them, but we still stayed away, and then Pearl Harbor gave us the excuse we needed to officially enter the war. Neither of those instance is preemptive at all. Iraq was totally and absolutely preemptive. Bush admitted it! His administration admitted it! Look up something called the Bush Doctrine! That's it! That's the document that justifies preemptive assault. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11, or Osama, or the Taliban. When we waged war on "terrorism," it was just Bush's way of extracting as much power as he possibly could from the American people through "legal" means. Basically, it let's him do anything he wants. The fact remains that he attacked a country that was not a threat to us, nor did it plan to attack us. If he wants to fight terrorism, then he should start fighting terrorists. Not people and governments that have nothing to do with that. Why do you think people refer to the War in Iraq AND the War on Terrorism? Because they are distinct.
Guy with the long names, HeyZeus might not be bashing you for your spelling, but I am. You're dumb, and everything you're saying is incoherent. Now I don't know what country you're claiming to be from, and I'm not calling you dumb for not knowing our language perfectly, but when you attack US for apparently not knowing the facts and just string together a couple of slurs about how ignorant liberals are, then yes, I call you dumb. The majority of what you type is indistinguishable, and for the last time, you need to know English to DEBATE IN ENGLISH. That said, I'm done addressing whatever inane comments you're trying to make.
Bobby G, since you seem to know the language, I will keep attacking every fascist and incorrect statement you are trying to make.
†
Well, OHK, I am not now nor have I ever been a fascist. I am neither far-right, nor far-left. I do not, nor have I ever believed in brute force for the sake of using brute force to obtain absolute power. Neither do I use pseudo religious means to promote such power.
It is my opinion that you should read the report on The Bush National Security Strategy, by Keir A. Lieber, and Robert J. Lieber, unless you consider these two professors to be "fascists" as well. In this report they discuss, preemption, military primacy, multilateralism, and the spread of democracy. They give both pros, and cons, in their report and the uses of all in the U.S. history. I will not say anything more, but please read the report. Also you will notice that in the report, all eight points of the NSS are laid out.
Bobby, good to know, You're not a fascist. Unfortunately, what you said was the definition of fascism. To disagree with the government, you are unAmerican and that is unconstitutional? To DISAGREE is unconstitutional? Allow me to quote Edward R. Murrow:
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.”
Basically, what you're telling me is that you're not reading my arguments, you are ignoring my arguments, and that you won't keep debating this topic, simply because.... what? Two professors say there's some good things about America's imperialism? Are you really going to simply disregard the facts I presented there, and keep telling me that we waged preemptive war on Germany twice before waging it on Iraq? Let me tell you about someone. His name is George W. Bush--the current president of the United States. Maybe you've heard of him. He's got this crazy little thing called the 'Bush Doctrine.' I urge you to look it up. It might put all of this in perspective. In fact, Bush admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So, if we weren't attacked by iraq, but we went in there anyway, then that is preemptive.
Now I'm not saying that we were completely innocent in Pearl Harbor, of the Gulf of Tonkin. We knew about the attacks beforehand, I am aware. That doesn't change the fact that we were attacked. That gave us the excuse needed to go to war. We were attacked--NOT preemptive. There's a very obvious difference between both of the World Wars and the War in Iraq. You can't just redirect me in some other direction because you choose to remain ignorant of what I'm telling you is fact.
†
OHK, I am staying within the boundaries of your argument. Also if you read what I had written, you would know that at this point I am not disagreeing about the the fact that the Bush doctrine included preemption as part of it's policy. I read the article, and what it talked about was the National Security Strategy for the nation. Ok, now to talk about "fascism". Fascism by definition, is use of pseudo-religious attitude, and the brutal use of force for getting and keeping power. Now the fact that I said that you were unAmerican for, "flying in the face of the decision that the President and Congress made, and unconstitutional, got the reaction that I hoped it would. Absolute Outrage.
I gave that statement in response to your ridiculous statement, and I quote," You cannot know the facts, and simultaneously be a functioning human being, and support this war". You also said that, and I quote, " Anyone that endorses the Iraq war as legitimate, or legal, or anyone who claims our occupation is in anyway justified, is slapping America in the face again". That sounds to me like you are calling anyone who disagrees with you and your beliefs, unAmerican, and sounds like you're calling the president and congress, unAmerican. That my friend in your way of stating things, is fascism, tho I don't believe it is, for one minute.
You, sir, are stating the views of the left-wing media, and Bush haters, and I am just giving you the views of some of the, "more right-wing" media, and supporters of the Bush administration. You say it's a slap in the face of America to support the war, I say it's wrong to slap America in the face by not supporting the decision to go to war, when you don't know all of the reasons for doing so.
Maybe, just maybe, Bush was learning from the past. When in Germany, in WWI, at the end of the war, we thought that the German government would never be able to rise to power again, so we did not call for their surrender and did not dispossess their government. Twenty-some years later, Germany rose again to power and Hitler thought to conquer the world, and we had to beat the Germans down again.
You're right. We did put the fear of America into Sadaam, and we pulled our troops out of the gulf war leaving their government in place. Who's to say that Sadaam in the future wouldn't have tried again through alliances with the terrorist countries of Iran and Afghanistan to attack America. To say that he could never rise to power again, is not to understand history. So, when the scare of "weapons of mass destruction", came to the forefront, faulty intelligence or not, and the terrorist regime of Osama , had attacked us on our own soil, maybe Bush in his outrage against terrorism decided with the military and with Congress to try to put an end to what could be another uprising, and to try to establish a democratic form of government, instead of a tyrannical one, in Iraq. Since Sadaam was so anti-America, I feel it was a very real possibility that he was supporting the terrorist movement, and possibly supplying weapons as well as people to the terrorist movement. In that way, this war would not be preemptive, but preventative.
You believe what you want, you have that right. So do I. We are both Americans, and tho we may disagree, we still have the right to support America in the way that we think best.
Elections are coming. Get out there and vote. And whoever gets into office, I will support to the best of my ability, even if I disagree with their policies. I will petition to change what I can, what I can't, I will petition and leave in the hands of God, upon whom the standards of this nation, were, and should continue to be based.
Oh please, don't try and pass it off as if yo only said that statement to see what our reaction would be. This isn't some complex social experiment; blogs are for reacting on the immediate, and saying what you think. Especially a political bog like this one. I don't believe for one second you were just conducting a social commentary.
Yeah, I was outraged. It was a totalitarian thing to say, and while I concede to the fact that, yes, fascism does have a strong correlation with violence, so by that definition what you said wasn't technically fascism, you still said a horribly undemocratic thing.
When I said those things about the Iraq War, it was true. Looks at the facts, man! The hypocrisy, the lying, the corruption. Anything "good" spun about the war or the occupation are direct products of the current administration and its propaganda campaign. I am not looking at the far-flung liberal media biases. I am looking at the facts, and that includes international reports, and documentaries, and independent journalists. I am looking at the facts. So when I said you cannot know the facts and simultaneously support this war, what I meant was you cannot know the facts, support this war and not be a warmonger all at the same time. The facts are as plain as day, for anyone who wants them. The problem is that so many people were duped, both by the idea that Iraq was bad and by the Republican party, that they don't want to admit they are wrong. The people that were duped--roughly the entire nation--is such a vast number that clinging to the group and finding strength in numbers is much easier than admitting we were wrong about this war and this president and moving on. I was included in that group myself. I didn't want to admit I was wrong, I didn't want to admit that Bush was bad, so I just looked the other way every time a fact or proof was coming along. That's how many people feel right now.
The facts, however, remain unchanged. I am not saying you don't have a right to believe in what you want. I am not saying that anyone who disagrees with me about anything is "unAmerican." All I am saying is that, looking at the hard, actual facts of this war and this administration, you cannot support this war and be a decent human being (if you are racist, if you love going to war, if you have a prejudice against Muslims, then you would support this war, most likely; but just as likely is the fact that you don't know the facts). That is my point. You can argue all you want the merits of oil, the economy, of terrorism or dictatorships or "national security," but we've gone to war for those reasons before, and NEVER before has it gone so awry and been so corrupt. Not the American forces, anyway.
†
Since "ohholyknight" and heyzues shoot again another Noha's (Media) flood (saturate, overstock/cover on marketing dictionary) on voters's minds at the west side of NATO territory (section USA), overstocking the "momentum focus attention", against the voter's memory, or voting intentions...; then I'm forced to help with info-medicine (from Rush&manyother's EIBnetworks celestial-type sources): Bush re-elected and elected on massive votings, when the voter have not "enough" "motivation" (low/hidden/unchalenged/unchecked/even invisible) or saturated, terror on Media, low voting elections 'elect' 90's or 70's anti-war on Irak today terror helper governments...
Anti-terror propaganda evolves because terror propaganda&local logistics on cities change every time a tyrant related to terror states global local political-authority-ordinarycrime-gangs-schools-judges-children&family-cities, 's bu$$ine$$ "desapeared"-kind orgs (the name of the chrge is terror logistics), "we entertain our mines with mithology, history, or even there are some who practice our own mind-defense celestial genes potential scenario imagination ability and skills for potential USA/allies in situ social terror logistics scenarios at battlestar galactica (till next starwars or lordoftherings..., etc...)", things that differe from anti-war on Irak agents or helpers , they love the coyoteland, their social institutions, their authorities, their gangs, their judiciary, thir prisions&education, their schools...
No name, just message form very truthfull souces. You see, my well beloved readers (and "my" reyected "invisible" enemies: terror/helpers); anybody can just write down anything and even sign "my name" on a free e portal.
name-change:
But how free do you think the portal is? We already know that the retroactively immune telecoms report to BU$HCO, so don't be surprised if a Blackwater goon shows up to escort you to a Halliburton-built detention center outside of Houston.
Actually one could make a case that he the 57 Muslim Nations on his mind, which in itself would not mean anything. Maybe he was refreshing his mind on some Middle East discussion. Although, it is food for thought. I think today, Hillary pretty much tanked with the RFK remark.
Ok, OHK. I have an open mind, really I do. So you show me the proof of the facts, based on 1st hand information, and not from heresay, and I will read them with an open mind. I have no bias about left or right wing politics, and as I said before, I try to support the office if not the man in the office. I try to base my beliefs and support on what I believe are the facts, after looking at both sides. I am not quick to jump to confusions, nor am I quick to judge. So far, I have read books, articles, and listened to media from both sides of the Bush administration, and have no doubts as to the sincerity of what he believed and believes needed to be done. Please enlighten me as to why you think that he is so corrupt, and why you think that he has corrupted America.
Oh by the way, did you read the report from Kier Lieber, and Robert Lieber, concerning the NSS report. I'm not asking you to agree or disagree, I'm just wordering if you read it? Feel free to comment.
And by the way, what I said was no more undemocratic than the statement you said about being a slap in the face America if I supported what I believed to be the justification of the war.
Legalities (now liberalbloggergrammarpolice on a conservative site) against conservative Bush's?, legalities against Bush's supporters (specialy on war on terror)?, did conservative Reagan's had some (UNNECESARY& DEMOCRATIC UNHEALHTY FOR THE USA and what it represents for civilization today, IN TIMES OF WAR) "legalities battle too"?, against who?, who put those obstacules?, sicne when these obstacules appear?, who where helped?, the SouthVietnam people?, the America's security?, her allies? or, instead... the guys at the hanoi hilton? Jorge Biset?, Ingrid Bethancourt?, no, "they" (they call this "imagination's people" "on my mind only", now they say "I invent not only castrorelated coyoteparafamily protected by local-logistic authorities, "now they are at the jobs) they, the boss, the one "with the local power", the refferer, the instigator, legaly pre"mastered", by "surprise" mostly, long time waitif necesary, the one who help terror logistics (anybody related Castro-Cuba, Manuel Noriega's Party PRD, Chavez' orgs... (politics, lawpeople, Media, local authority... the USSR was broken because the expensive to mantain local terror logistics (the 1 million Fidel always put any city on the Earth, anti-glogalizators first, globalwarming or local (different re-use) demostrations at countries now, "modern" gerrilla, + paralegal, parauthority, judges, attornies, gangs, coyotesects, coyoteparafamily,
((((((((their schools))))))))), at the end, they would sit with (now at 3rd level, "informal" DEALS) FARCs, Chavez, Castro, Manuel Noriega, Syria...
These things looks to me like another History War scennario and they want us to ignore, while the enemy have their own logistic insitu, ruling even, plannin, excecuting... on cities, unchalenged, unchecked, sanctuaryly invisible... (like a "battlestargalactica-kind" of problems), already happening, specialy (thanks God there is a war on terror) after 911.
A "stratego" 360 degrees battle fields scennarios, (air:rush,sean..., land:American people represented by the president, and sea: the 360 degress (with memory air dogfights), the battle for the ideas (this date in time), a fight other war on terror supporters understood, against local terror organizations (or an et war independence day-kind, (sorry rush, gleen/production)... ohh!!! yeaaaaaah!!:
from that coldwar another Media insitu attack mist, at down... a dromer... a flautekid... we, the people, another hero... North, yes, Oliver North...
Bobby,
I did read the NSS. I found it typical. It's just more of the same. Using history inaccurately to try and justify something we're doing now.
Listen, regardless of whether or not we've preemptively gone to war--which is still a topic I'd be willing to debate--Bush does it OPENLY. This is a huge step in American politics, government, policy, and history. And not a step forward. Have you heard of something called the "Roman empire"? Remember how it fell? Watch it happen again. As soon as a republic and democracy justifies preemptive war, then that democracy begins to break like throwing a rock at a window. The point I'm trying to make is that this is official policy! We can attack anyone we fucking want and come up with any crackpot reason to do it! That is wrong, and that could very well be the downfall of America.
There's no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush believes in what he is doing. He legitimately believes that Muslims are terrorists, in much the same way that corrupt politicians don't think twice about accepting bribes. Just because you believe in something doesn't make it right, justified, or legal.
Do you know the facts about the war? What we're actually fighting for, what we're actually accomplishing, what the actual stories and reasons are? If you know more than what the biased (conservative and liberal) media likes to tell you about (which, unfortunately, isn't much anymore), then you would agree that supporting this occupation is undemocratic in itself. That's why I said it.
Go ahead and check this site out:
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
That oughta give you some hard facts.
†