Obama Lies to get Nomination?

Im still here

mattcoz wrote:

The only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised when politicians lie or change their stance in order to win.

it is a surprise when he ran as the CHANGE Candidate

it is a surprise when he ran as the break the mold, no more status quo Candidate

sad thing it was all lies form a Charismatic Man

fuck

_outlaw wrote:

Do you think mercenary armies like Blackwater can be classified as "peace keeping troops?" If so, then you really have a lot of reading to do. And Obama said that he's going to keep hired armies like Blackwater in Iraq... for atleast 2 years... of course, his supporters ignore that...

and it happens yet again!

Abookamongstthemany

_outlaw wrote:

and it happens yet again!

It's all they ever do.

Or maybe some will start posting about how Blackwater isn't so bad afterall.....now that Obama supports them, that is.

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

It's all they ever do.

Or maybe some will start posting about how Blackwater isn't so bad afterall.....now that Obama supports them, that is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/obamas-blackwater-proble_b_89061.html

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/obama_goes_after_blackwater.html

Obama does not support Blackwater. He has sponsored a bill to make private contractors held up to the same standards as our military.

The only reason contractors are necessary is bc of the Bush Administration's poor planning and not having enough allied forces to fight the war. This has caused them to employ the private sector who do not have to abide by US laws currently. Obama wants them to be able to be tried under US law should another incident where 17 civilians are killed again like this past September.

It was also stated in the Huffington Post article that Obama wouldn't rule out the use of private forces, but he would not use private forces if they continue to go unsupervised.

So believe what you want but Obama is clearly not a fan of Blackwater.

fuck

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

Abookamongstthemany

_outlaw wrote:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

As usual...he says one thing to the voters on the campaign trail and another when he is pressed for actual answers.

Its Evolution Baby

_outlaw wrote:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

You literally posted the same article that I posted above. He does not support Blackwater the way you make it seem. Here are some quotes from the article, Italics are my opinions:

"If Barack Obama comes into office next January and our diplomatic security service is in the state it's in and the situation on the ground in Iraq is in the state it's in, I think we will be forced to rely on a host of security measures," said the senior adviser. "I can't rule out, I won't rule out, private security contractors." He added, "I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law." I feel you you stop reading at won't rule out. The key phrase to me is they want to start regulating the forces.

Here's one that argues your point better but still shows that he's no fan: "The irony is that it was Senator Obama who sponsored a bill in February 2007 defining a legal structure to prosecute State Department contractor crimes in US courts. Obama staffers say they will "fight like hell to get it passed." But it may not pass before the next President takes power. Even if it does and Bush signs it, serious questions will remain unresolved about how contractor crimes can be monitored effectively. The senior adviser acknowledged that Obama could find himself in a situation where, as President, he continues using forces he himself has identified as "unaccountable." The Obama campaign, in other words, may have painted itself into a corner."

And why is Blackwater even employed: "Obama campaign and Senate staffers characterize this as an inherited problem with no good alternatives. "We are in a situation where, because of bad planning and a series of disastrous policy choices by the Bush Administration, we're forced to rely on private security contractors," says the senior adviser. "What we're focused on at the moment is getting the legal architecture in place that will hold these guys accountable to the same standard that [applies to] enlisted US military personnel."

He clearly is no fan of private sectors but Bush got us into this mess and its our responsibility to leave Iraq as carefully as we can. Bush made a collosal error in judgment going into Iraq, but it would be even worse if we left and Iraq fell into complete Chaos.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

You literally posted the same article that I posted above. He does not support Blackwater the way you make it seem. Here are some quotes from the article, Italics are my opinions:

"If Barack Obama comes into office next January and our diplomatic security service is in the state it's in and the situation on the ground in Iraq is in the state it's in, I think we will be forced to rely on a host of security measures," said the senior adviser. "I can't rule out, I won't rule out, private security contractors." He added, "I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law." I feel you you stop reading at won't rule out. The key phrase to me is they want to start regulating the forces.

Here's one that argues your point better but still shows that he's no fan: "The irony is that it was Senator Obama who sponsored a bill in February 2007 defining a legal structure to prosecute State Department contractor crimes in US courts. Obama staffers say they will "fight like hell to get it passed." But it may not pass before the next President takes power. Even if it does and Bush signs it, serious questions will remain unresolved about how contractor crimes can be monitored effectively. The senior adviser acknowledged that Obama could find himself in a situation where, as President, he continues using forces he himself has identified as "unaccountable." The Obama campaign, in other words, may have painted itself into a corner."

And why is Blackwater even employed: "Obama campaign and Senate staffers characterize this as an inherited problem with no good alternatives. "We are in a situation where, because of bad planning and a series of disastrous policy choices by the Bush Administration, we're forced to rely on private security contractors," says the senior adviser. "What we're focused on at the moment is getting the legal architecture in place that will hold these guys accountable to the same standard that [applies to] enlisted US military personnel."

He clearly is no fan of private sectors but Bush got us into this mess and its our responsibility to leave Iraq as carefully as we can. Bush made a collosal error in judgment going into Iraq, but it would be even worse if we left and Iraq fell into complete Chaos.

I couldn't care less what he is a fan of. The point is he is willing to use Blackwater.

fuck

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

You literally posted the same article that I posted above. He does not support Blackwater the way you make it seem. Here are some quotes from the article, Italics are my opinions:

"If Barack Obama comes into office next January and our diplomatic security service is in the state it's in and the situation on the ground in Iraq is in the state it's in, I think we will be forced to rely on a host of security measures," said the senior adviser. "I can't rule out, I won't rule out, private security contractors." He added, "I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law." I feel you you stop reading at won't rule out. The key phrase to me is they want to start regulating the forces.

Here's one that argues your point better but still shows that he's no fan: "The irony is that it was Senator Obama who sponsored a bill in February 2007 defining a legal structure to prosecute State Department contractor crimes in US courts. Obama staffers say they will "fight like hell to get it passed." But it may not pass before the next President takes power. Even if it does and Bush signs it, serious questions will remain unresolved about how contractor crimes can be monitored effectively. The senior adviser acknowledged that Obama could find himself in a situation where, as President, he continues using forces he himself has identified as "unaccountable." The Obama campaign, in other words, may have painted itself into a corner."

And why is Blackwater even employed: "Obama campaign and Senate staffers characterize this as an inherited problem with no good alternatives. "We are in a situation where, because of bad planning and a series of disastrous policy choices by the Bush Administration, we're forced to rely on private security contractors," says the senior adviser. "What we're focused on at the moment is getting the legal architecture in place that will hold these guys accountable to the same standard that [applies to] enlisted US military personnel."

He clearly is no fan of private sectors but Bush got us into this mess and its our responsibility to leave Iraq as carefully as we can. Bush made a collosal error in judgment going into Iraq, but it would be even worse if we left and Iraq fell into complete Chaos.

That's just complete bullshit though.

Obama said he'll make sure they start following US law, but he won't hold them accountable on their previous actions??

And why is he increasing their funding, which you so conveniently decided not to copy from the articles?

He's 'no fan' but he is forced to use it? you know that's complete bullshit. Of course, you have to use them for a while once you get into office, you can't pull them out in January, but Obama is determined to keep Blackwater in Iraq for atleast 2-3 more years... also, the second paragraph you copied completely supports my point. It doesn't matter if "he's no fan", the point is that HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

Abookamongstthemany

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ipZ8Hch_FhY&feature=related

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

fuck

Jeremy Scahill:

"In February 2007, Obama introduced contractor reform and oversight legislation that has become the Democrats' major plan in the Congress. Obama's bill seeks to make all contractors subject to prosecution in US civilian courts for crimes committed on a foreign battlefield. The bill is not without its problems. In theory, FBI investigators would deploy to the crime scene, gather evidence and interview witnesses, leading to indictments and prosecutions.

Apart from the fact that it would be impossible to effectively police such an enormous deployment of private contractors (at present basically equal to the number of active duty US troops in Iraq), the legislation would give the private military industry a tremendous PR victory. The companies could finally claim that a legally accountable structure governed their operations, yet they would be well aware that such legislation would be nearly impossible to enforce. Perhaps that is why the industry has passionately backed this approach. "

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I couldn't care less what he is a fan of. The point is he is willing to use Blackwater.

To help keep the troops safe. There are not enough allied forces to keep the peace in Iraq without the private sector.

What realistic option do you propose? Keep in mind a complete withdrawl of troops and private sectors would be most ideal but I don't think Iraq is stable enough to handle security once we leave.

I know you want the war to end right away, most of us do. But it has to be done safely and responsibly. Basically the exact opposite of how Bush entered Iraq.

fuck

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

To help keep the troops safe. There are not enough allied forces to keep the peace in Iraq without the private sector.

Did you just refer to Blackwater as "keep[ing] the peace"?

Its Evolution Baby

_outlaw wrote:

Did you just refer to Blackwater as "keep[ing] the peace"?

Way to focus on one aspect of what I said. They help fight in Iraq. Is that better?

I have a huge problem with military mercenaries as no one should profit from War, BUT I am also a realist. We are currently in war. We currently do not have enough troops to fight the war.

Do you want a Draft instead? This is Bush's mess and Obama is responsible enough to make sure we are careful getting out. He is clearly not seeking out the use of Blackwater but will not "rule it out" if our troops need the additional security.

Its Evolution Baby

_outlaw wrote:

Jeremy Scahill:

"In February 2007, Obama introduced contractor reform and oversight legislation that has become the Democrats' major plan in the Congress. Obama's bill seeks to make all contractors subject to prosecution in US civilian courts for crimes committed on a foreign battlefield. The bill is not without its problems. In theory, FBI investigators would deploy to the crime scene, gather evidence and interview witnesses, leading to indictments and prosecutions.

Apart from the fact that it would be impossible to effectively police such an enormous deployment of private contractors (at present basically equal to the number of active duty US troops in Iraq), the legislation would give the private military industry a tremendous PR victory. The companies could finally claim that a legally accountable structure governed their operations, yet they would be well aware that such legislation would be nearly impossible to enforce. Perhaps that is why the industry has passionately backed this approach. "

You also forget the part where these contractors have "contracts" that we would have to keep paying them even if we don't like the job they are doing. Now if regulations are put in place we can write in the contract the conduct that could lead to the immediate termination of the contract.

If they are not regulated there is no way to write the necessary language into the contract that could terminate there services if they act out of line. So its not quite the worthless bill you make it seem.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

To help keep the troops safe. There are not enough allied forces to keep the peace in Iraq without the private sector.

What realistic option do you propose? Keep in mind a complete withdrawl of troops and private sectors would be most ideal but I don't think Iraq is stable enough to handle security once we leave.

I know you want the war to end right away, most of us do. But it has to be done safely and responsibly. Basically the exact opposite of how Bush entered Iraq.

Iraq will probably never be stable enough for us to leave....we've made sure of that. So how long do we stay? The Iraqis want their country back and they want the right to decide how it is ran without interference from an occupying force. So let's quit playing nanny to a country that has had enough of it already. They don't like how we are supposedly 'fixing' things for them. That's just the line the media and politicians feed you in order to keep support going for our continued occupation and control of their resources and entire country, actually. I know it's a bullshit line because our country continues to support and fund other governments who oppress their people and make them live in terror...as long as said government keeps letting us have our way, our government doesn't give a shit. So to act like we are suddenly so concerned with the welfare of the Iraqis is illogical and ridiculous. We weren't too concerned when we were dropping DU on them and blowing their country to bits.

Blackwater does nothing but maintain our control over the region. They don't care about anyone's well being or peace. It is not the safe and responsible solution....everything they have done points to that being a crock of shit.

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Iraq will probably never be stable enough for us to leave....we've made sure of that. So how long do we stay? The Iraqis want their country back and they want the right to decide how it is ran without interference from an occupying force. So let's quit playing nanny to a country that has had enough of it already. They don't like how we are supposedly 'fixing' things for them. That's just the line the media and politicians feed you in order to keep support going for our continued occupation and control of their resources and entire country, actually. I know it's a bullshit line because our country continues to support and fund other governments who oppress their people and make them live in terror...as long as said government keeps letting us have our way, our government doesn't give a shit. So to act like we are suddenly so concerned with the welfare of the Iraqis is illogical and ridiculous. We weren't too concerned when we were dropping DU on them and blowing their country to bits.

Blackwater does nothing but maintain our control over the region. They don't care about anyone's well being or peace. It is not the safe and responsible solution....everything they have done points to that being a crock of shit.

Well your post is completely accurate as to why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Other countries have dictators so the removal of Sadam was not a good enough reason.

So I can't really argue with anything in your post but I can remind you that Obama like Nader was against Iraq from the outset. He just understands that we have to do everything to protect our troops while they are there which is why he still votes for funding. He has never said I support the Iraq war and will stay there as long as possible to achieve victory. I have searched and searched for a quote from Obama like that and it doesn't exist.

And as much as I feel for the Iraqi civilians they would not know if there country is ready to handle security if the US completely left the country. I feel like Iraq will erupt into a civil war for control of the country if we left at this moment. You can as Joe the Street Vendor in Baghdad if the US should leave and he'll probably say, "yes get us out we are ruining Iraq."

But he's not in a position to know if the new Iraqi government is ready to deal with security or not. Once the Iraqi government tells us to leave we will leave. If not then Obama and Hillary are both liars as they both said they would leave Iraq in that scenario from the video you provided above.

angelica

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Well your post is completely accurate as to why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Other countries have dictators so the removal of Sadam was not a good enough reason.

So I can't really argue with anything in your post but I can remind you that Obama like Nader was against Iraq from the outset. He just understands that we have to do everything to protect our troops while they are there which is why he still votes for funding. He has never said I support the Iraq war and will stay there as long as possible to achieve victory. I have searched and searched for a quote from Obama like that and it doesn't exist.

And as much as I feel for the Iraqi civilians they would not know if there country is ready to handle security if the US completely left the country. I feel like Iraq will erupt into a civil war for control of the country if we left at this moment. You can as Joe the Street Vendor in Baghdad if the US should leave and he'll probably say, "yes get us out we are ruining Iraq."

But he's not in a position to know if the new Iraqi government is ready to deal with security or not. Once the Iraqi government tells us to leave we will leave. If not then Obama and Hillary are both liars as they both said they would leave Iraq in that scenario from the video you provided above.

I want to say to you that I respect your position. You seem to discern details and less blindly follow along than many. I enjoy your posts.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Well your post is completely accurate as to why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Other countries have dictators so the removal of Sadam was not a good enough reason.

So I can't really argue with anything in your post but I can remind you that Obama like Nader was against Iraq from the outset. He just understands that we have to do everything to protect our troops while they are there which is why he still votes for funding. He has never said I support the Iraq war and will stay there as long as possible to achieve victory. I have searched and searched for a quote from Obama like that and it doesn't exist.

And as much as I feel for the Iraqi civilians they would not know if there country is ready to handle security if the US completely left the country. I feel like Iraq will erupt into a civil war for control of the country if we left at this moment. You can as Joe the Street Vendor in Baghdad if the US should leave and he'll probably say, "yes get us out we are ruining Iraq."

But he's not in a position to know if the new Iraqi government is ready to deal with security or not. Once the Iraqi government tells us to leave we will leave. If not then Obama and Hillary are both liars as they both said they would leave Iraq in that scenario from the video you provided above.

Shouldn't the people of Iraq get to choose how to run their country....seeing as how it's theirs and not ours? Aren't they supposed to get to decide what's best for them? How would you feel if another country came in and occupied us and even though we didn't want them there, they said they knew what was best for us and stayed indefinitely?? They aren't stupid or children...they are capable of making decisions based on what they think is best. They know their country a little bit better than we do...and also they might think it is worth the risk just to get us out because we have been nothing but bad news for them since we came. Is it okay to not respect their wishes and continue to control them anyway like we are the final say in what happens with a place we have no right to have the say over in the first place?


And I'm curious as to why when Bush and Co. were the ones pushing for us to stay in Iraq to keep the Iraqi people safe ever since 04....most all the lefties on this board were calling him out on it and saying it was purely a ploy to maintain control over the region but now that it's Obama saying the EXACT same thing.....suddenly you agree and view this as the 'responsible' way to go about it??

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Shouldn't the people of Iraq get to choose how to run their country....seeing as how it's theirs and not ours? Aren't they supposed to get to decide what's best for them? How would you feel if another country came in and occupied us and even though we didn't want them there, they said they knew what was best for us and stayed indefinitely?? They aren't stupid or children...they are capable of making decisions based on what they think is best. They know their country a little bit better than we do...and also they might think it is worth the risk just to get us out because we have been nothing but bad news for them since we came. Is it okay to not respect their wishes and continue to control them anyway like we are the final say in what happens with a place we have no right to have the say over in the first place?

Very nice!