Barrack H. Obama on the issues.

[WRL]

I've compiled a list on Obama's record so far, and where he stands on the issues, and while it certainly represents 'change' I thought it would be a good chance for the Obama supporters to defend what and why they support him so much. So Obama supporters what about Obama's record do you support so vigorously?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

Here is a video where Obama claims he will cut funding for our missile defense shield, slow the development of future combat systems, and leave the nerve center of American communications, and defense, our satellites, and everything that flows through them, vulnerable. Oh and to the 'I'm the only canidate to have opposed this war from the start' remark.

Here's a quote to chew on of Obama's from 2004 seems

“On Iraq... There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.”

— Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04

Obama also claims he will withdraw from Iraq, but at the same time he say's he'll bomb inside Pakistan without their consent? This can only lead to broader war, or a complete overthrow of a government that has Nuclear weapons. Either way the US loses.



Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801I'll let you decide if reducing America's technological advantage on any battlefield, or withdrawing from one engaged front, to start a war is a good idea or not, I personally can't think of a more disastrous move.

Well what about other issues...




National Journal is out with its ratings of the votes of the members of the Senate, and it has found that the most liberal senator in 2007 was Barack Obama.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/31/politics/horserace/entry3775451.shtml
Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics

Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control

Obama voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive.

Obama argued the legislation threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.

"It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute," Obama said in the Senate's debate in March 2001.

Obama may also find himself fielding questions about his actions outside public office, from his acknowledgment of cocaine use in his youth to a more recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business.

Obama's Connection With an Accused Political Fixer Raises Questions (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4111483)

Obama was known in the Illinois Capitol as a consistently liberal senator. He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood. Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation. Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise more than 300 taxes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml
Wow, there's quite a bit so far, I may not agree with it, but Obama got to a great start as the 'Red State' canidate? How's that coming?



Obama has suggested working class people are 'bitter' about their economic circumstances and "cling to guns and religion" as a result.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D901DHUG0&show_article=1And last but not least, the 2nd Amendment.



Obama voiced support for the DC Gun Ban (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=4464727&page=1) on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month.

“The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn’t born out by our Constitution,” Obama said.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/15/obama-says-us-must-end-gun-violence-after-campus-shooting-in-home-state/comment-page-2/Well there's a short list for you, these positions seem extreme to me, so I'd like to hear how these positions are not extreme, and why people who may think these are extreme positions as well, should vote for Barrack Obama.



-

[theHawk]

Bottom line is Obama is a shitbag liberal. As abysmal as his domestic record is, he'll be even worse for this country as Commander-in-Chief. His liberal foreign policies could very well lead to worse national security disasters than Clinton, Carter, and JFK administrations.

[WRL]

Well I must say, advocating retreat from one front, to start a war on another front is not only dangerous, but extremely naive.

[retiredman]

Well I must say, advocating retreat from one front, to start a war on another front is not only dangerous, but extremely naive.


except Iraq had zero to do with our real enemies and the AQ franchise operation there which sprung up after our arrival has been all but crushed by the sunni minority. AQ is hardly a threat to prevail in Iraq after our departure.

Our REAL enemies are right where they were when Bush had his ADD moment and forgot about them six years ago. Obama would engage them.

[Trigg]

except Iraq had zero to do with our real enemies and the AQ franchise operation there which sprung up after our arrival has been all but crushed by the sunni minority. AQ is hardly a threat to prevail in Iraq after our departure.

Our REAL enemies are right where they were when Bush had his ADD moment and forgot about them six years ago. Obama would engage them.


So Obama supporters what about Obama's record do you support so vigorously?

Instead of taking, yet another, shot at Bush. Why not try to answer the question.

[Trigg]

Obama voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive.
Obama argued the legislation threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.

"It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute," Obama said in the Senate's debate in March 2001.


Damn, what a nice guy.

[WRL]

Damn, what a nice guy.

barbaric isn't it

[retiredman]

Instead of taking, yet another, shot at Bush. Why not try to answer the question.

I was directly addressing post #3.

[Trigg]

I was directly addressing post #3.

How about directly addressing post #1

[WRL]

except Iraq had zero to do with our real enemies and the AQ franchise operation there which sprung up after our arrival has been all but crushed by the sunni minority. AQ is hardly a threat to prevail in Iraq after our departure.

Our REAL enemies are right where they were when Bush had his ADD moment and forgot about them six years ago. Obama would engage them.

hello Main, I see we still see things a bit different.

So now you admit the 'surge' has and is succeeding, however the success just wasn't the result of American efforts, but the just the Sunni's?

:lame2:

That's just wrong, Gen. Patreaus literally wrote the Army's counter insurgency manual, and with his new tactics, more troops, and the Sunni awakening, the 'surge' is succeeding.

And I'd love to hear your justification for invading Pakistan, because the fleeing Taliban is in hiding in the most remote parts? And when we start a third war and run them out of Pakistan, do we follow them into India?

Or do we at some point try and work with Government in the region willing to work with us, like Pakistan has.

[retiredman]

hello Main, I see we still see things a bit different.

So now you admit the 'surge' has and is succeeding, however the success just wasn't the result of American efforts, but the just the Sunni's?

:lame2:

That's just wrong, Gen. Patreaus literally wrote the Army's counter insurgency manual, and with his new tactics, more troops, and the Sunni awakening, the 'surge' is succeeding.

And I'd love to hear your justification for invading Pakistan, because the fleeing Taliban is in hiding in the most remote parts? And when we start a third war and run them out of Pakistan, do we follow them into India?

Or do we at some point try and work with Government in the region willing to work with us, like Pakistan has.

Petraeus appeased our enemies...he gave weapons and money to the very terrorists who had been killing OUR troops on their promise that they would go after AQI instead.

The surge has certainly succeeded, but a large measure of the credit for its success has to go to Sadr and his ceasefire...we have seen an uptick in violence whenever he decides to stir the pot.

I think we sould continue to work with the pakistani government, but if we have actionable intelligence as to the whereabouts of high value taliban or al qaeda targets in Pakistan, I agree with Obama that we should inform Pakistan we are taking action, but not allow them a veto....much the same as Bush himself has done recently.

[WRL]

Wow, you've gotten pretty extreme there buddy. And Sadr just got ran off the streets of Basra, in a big victory for the Iraqi government.

[retiredman]

Wow, you've gotten pretty extreme there buddy. And Sadr just got ran off the streets of Basra, in a big victory for the Iraqi government.

the Iraqi government demanded that Sadr disarm. He laughed at them and just melted back into the crowd.... and he can ramp up the violence any time he wants....

how is that extreme? I merely point out that the Bush administration routinely appeases sunni warlords, and that the same Bush administration has bombed pakistan without prior permission from the pakistani government...just like Obama said he would do.

[WRL]

laughed, I remember a gun fight, and him begging for peace, that's some insight you have.

Bringing the Sunni's into the government isn't appeasement, it's facing reality given the situation. And we don't act inside Pakistan without their consent, don't let geo-politics distort your view.

[retiredman]

laughed, I remember a gun fight, and him begging for peace, that's some insight you have.

Bringing the Sunni's into the government isn't appeasement, it's facing reality given the situation. And we don't act inside Pakistan without their consent, don't let geo-politics distort your view.

so when republicans give guns and money to our murderers on the promise that they'll stop, that is "facing the reality given the situation".

When as democrat suggests he'd TALK to leader of nations hostile to us, that is "appeasement"?

what a fucking joke!

And Bush certainly DID inform Pakistan he was attacking an AQ site...he did not ask for permission... no "consent" was given or requested.

[WRL]

what are you kidding me, have you gotten so bad, that's how you view the successful surge. I don't get it, you whine and moan about our troops coming home, then mock the strategy that is putting Iraqi soldiers where American ones where, which will soon free up more soldiers to come home. What do you want, whatever is the biggest political gain for the democrats?

[Kathianne]

the Iraqi government demanded that Sadr disarm. He laughed at them and just melted back into the crowd.... and he can ramp up the violence any time he wants....

how is that extreme? I merely point out that the Bush administration routinely appeases sunni warlords, and that the same Bush administration has bombed pakistan without prior permission from the pakistani government...just like Obama said he would do.

Last I heard, Sadr was trying to give orders to his 'army' from Iran. Meanwhile things have been changing with some speed:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1809378,00.html


Sunday, May. 25, 2008
The Return of Iraq's Ayatollah
By Mark Kukis/Baghdad

High-profile visits by political figures are relatively rare in Najaf, the quiet holy city in southern Iraq where Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani lives. Sistani, the most venerated Shi'ite religious leader in the country, shuns the limelight. But it fell his way last week nonetheless when Iraqi Prime Ministry Nouri al-Maliki and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared in Najaf separately within days of each other. It raised questions whether Sistani is making a comeback as a voice in political decision-making in Iraq.

For years Sistani and Muqtada al-Sadr have seesawed with each other as Iraq's two main Shi'ite power players. In the early days of the occupation, Sistani's call for calm undoubtedly allowed American troops to avoid fierce resistance to their presence in southern Iraq. But Sistani's repeated appeals for peace lost their weight as sectarian violence rose in Iraq, with Sadr leading the Mahdi Army militia in an inexorable year-long quest for Shi'ite revenge following the bombing of a revered shrine in Samarra in early 2006. As a result, Sadr, a mere cleric, towered as the most powerful Shi'ite figure in Iraq, eclipsing the more senior Sistani's prestigious status as ayatollah. Sistani became a voice in the wings on Iraq's political stage as the country's armed factions, including the U.S. military, warred through 2006 and 2007. Now with the situation quieter, and Sadr politically weakened following his military clash with Maliki, Sistani seems poised to renew a larger political role for himself.

Maliki's visit Thursday to Najaf, where he met with Sistani, seemed to be acknowledgment of just that change in status, one that the Ayatollah did not appear to shrink from. "Sistani emphasized that everything should be done to get back total sovereignty on all levels," said Sheik Abdul Mehdi al-Karbala'e, who summed up Sistani's meeting with Maliki in a speech to Shi'ite follower attending Friday prayers in Karbala.

The comment was a not-so-subtle warning by Sistani to Maliki and American leaders as they negotiate a long-term bilateral agreement that will spell out conditions for a U.S. presence in Iraq beyond next year, when the current U.N. mandate ends. A number of contentious issues, such as the presence of permanent U.S. military bases and the ability of U.S. forces to arrest and detain Iraqis, remain unresolved. Crocker, who did not meet with Sistani, was in Najaf to meet with local leaders but he addressed how the talks over the bilateral security agreement were shaping up. "We are in negotiations, and when that negotiation ends there will be an agreement," said Crocker, who spoke in Arabic addressing the local press corps. "That came as a wish of the Iraqi government."

... Petraeus understands that there is a religious component to Iraq, without which 'negotiations' will go nowhere. Yes, all these things should have been done earlier, but explain to me why that means they should not be done now?

[retiredman]

Last I heard, Sadr was trying to give orders to his 'army' from Iran. Meanwhile things have been changing with some speed:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1809378,00.html

Petraeus understands that there is a religious component to Iraq, without which 'negotiations' will go nowhere. Yes, all these things should have been done earlier, but explain to me why that means they should not be done now?

I have never suggested that we should not acknowledge the religious component in Iraq, nor have I suggested that we should not spend a lot more time negotiating with the religious leaders in Iraq and getting them to step up to the plate and solve their own problems. I merely point out the hypocrisy of republicans who lambaste Obama for suggesting we talk to our enemies while simultaneously deifying Petraeus for his success achieved talking to our enemies.