How does one exaggerate intelligence about WMD's and if there was conflicting reports ,a determination has to be made one way or the other,that doesn't mean the the opposing position was ignored!
Their are always opposing viewpoints to issues!If no action is taken until everyone is in agreement,then no action will be taken at all.
Imagine waiting for a unanimous agreement from the UN!
I wonder if there were any democrats the didn't endorse this report as there were some republicans that did endorse it.In any case ,there were some members of congress that didn't endorse it,so how can you act on it or believe it under the rules of everyone should agree before taking an action!
I take this article for what I think it is,a political based argument in a liberally biased news media!
What it is not ,to me,is proof that its assertions are in fact truth!For if it was truth,impeachment proceeding would be the order of the day!
Obama wins over Hillary
Stan,
stop spinning:
1) this is a senate report , not a liberal biased news media.( see the links above).
2) if you ignore disagreements from spy agencies before you make a decision, the possibility to fail in your decision are greater and you will make the wrong judgments,
which the Bush Administration did.
3) It is clear that you are even not prepared to accept the facts, as presented by the US Senate.
It is clear that whatever proof will presented to you, you will blindly and stubbornly keep on refusing to accept the facts if they are against your believes.
4) be careful what you ask for: impeachment proceedings????
stop spinning:
1) this is a senate report , not a liberal biased news media.( see the links above).
2) if you ignore disagreements from spy agencies before you make a decision, the possibility to fail in your decision are greater and you will make the wrong judgments,
which the Bush Administration did.
3) It is clear that you are even not prepared to accept the facts, as presented by the US Senate.
It is clear that whatever proof will presented to you, you will blindly and stubbornly keep on refusing to accept the facts if they are against your believes.
4) be careful what you ask for: impeachment proceedings????
Cookie are you inferring that you are more open minded than me? And when the Republicans have a majority in the senate and issue a report,you are prepared to accept their findings as fact???Especially with an election 3 months away!
And,are you saying that the NY Times is not the liberally biased media?Did they report any democrats not voting for the finding or how many republicans voted against it?Who is spinning?
And you are prepared to accept the partisan political finding as fact?What about the opposing votes,are you ignoring them while making your judgment?
I am showing the other side of the argument,a different ''spin'',if you will!
The impeachment proceedings was the way to gage whether or not there was real proof of these findings and since there is no action being taken,you should accept the report for what it is,a political document ,not necessarily fact.IT IS NOT PROOF in itself!That is the FACT!
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16900
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
No, but they did report all the Democrats voted for it;BKKSTAN wrote:
And,are you saying that the NY Times is not the liberally biased media?Did they report any democrats not voting for the finding
The 170-page report accuses Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials of repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the emotional aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its findings were endorsed by all eight committee Democrats and two Republicans, Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Yes;or how many republicans voted against it?Who is spinning?
Mr. Bond and four other Republicans on the committee sharply dissented from the report’s findings.
Was the NYT also liberally biased back in late 2002 and early 2003 when it was cheerleading for the invasion?
Yes;jackspratt wrote:No, but they did report all the Democrats voted for it;BKKSTAN wrote:
And,are you saying that the NY Times is not the liberally biased media?Did they report any democrats not voting for the finding
The 170-page report accuses Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials of repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the emotional aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its findings were endorsed by all eight committee Democrats and two Republicans, Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
or how many republicans voted against it?Who is spinning?
Mr. Bond and four other Republicans on the committee sharply dissented from the report
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16900
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
We should airlift and drop arms shipments into Burma and allow the people to defend themselves against the junta!
Very radical thinking,I know,but it is hard to watch a regime practice genocide against its own people just to remain in power!So,I have thoughts that say empower the people ,so they can fight for their freedom!
Very radical thinking,I know,but it is hard to watch a regime practice genocide against its own people just to remain in power!So,I have thoughts that say empower the people ,so they can fight for their freedom!
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16900
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16900
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
OK .......I will type this very slowly.
My post was responding to Stan's question on what the NYT had reported in relation to Dems and Republicans on the Committee.
I also made a further point on the comment by Stan about the "liberally biased media" ie the NYT in this case. By way of example, I asked about it's position prior to the Iraq invasion, and whether that made them still liberally biased.
So to reiterate, my post was not about the Iraq war.
And this debate has run its course. How about that.
My post was responding to Stan's question on what the NYT had reported in relation to Dems and Republicans on the Committee.
I also made a further point on the comment by Stan about the "liberally biased media" ie the NYT in this case. By way of example, I asked about it's position prior to the Iraq invasion, and whether that made them still liberally biased.
So to reiterate, my post was not about the Iraq war.
And this debate has run its course. How about that.
I ike a comment made by a coloured lady, in a Tv documentary i recently watched on truevision. Quote, well we must all vote to get our broother into the white house .unquote, nothing about his policies nor what sort of person, just he is a brother and needs the vote. That says it all, If the US of A is going to be ostensibly governed by a coloured person, then let him win on credentilas and policies NOT because he is a brother and black to boot.
Guns
That's what the election has become about for blacks in the US. However, they only make up roughly 12% of the total US population.Guns482 wrote:I ike a comment made by a coloured lady, in a Tv documentary i recently watched on truevision. Quote, well we must all vote to get our broother into the white house .unquote, nothing about his policies nor what sort of person, just he is a brother and needs the vote. That says it all, If the US of A is going to be ostensibly governed by a coloured person, then let him win on credentilas and policies NOT because he is a brother and black to boot.
I'm wondering why all those other folks are claiming to want to vote for BHO because his credentials are nill.
BHO has not authored any legislation, has voted "present" on most major issues rather than taking any side at all, has spend more time campaigning for president than he has served in his only term of the Senate, and he has never been a unifying force -- always choosing to vote on the extreme left and socialist agenda when he does vote up or down.
The "magic negro" phenomenon may indeed have some credence here.
The question isn't whether or not America is ready for a black president. The question is whether or not BHO can be that president.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Obama's Candidacy is a Test
By Michael Barone
"They're going to try to make you afraid of me," Barack Obama told the audience at a Jacksonville fundraiser last month. "He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?" Obama was doing here by inference what many of his supporters do more explicitly. Obama's candidacy, in their view, puts American voters to the test: Are they open-minded enough to vote for a black candidate? Or are they still so overcome by racial prejudice as to reject the first black candidate with a serious chance to win?
There are obviously problems with this. In a nation of 303 million, there are surely some people who won't vote for Obama because he's black. But there are a lot more Americans who aren't willing to vote for him for other reasons that have nothing to do with race -- because he's a Democrat, because he's taken liberal positions on many issues, because (to quote his own words) he's young and inexperienced.
In any case, Obama's candidacy by itself is not a test of whether Americans are unwilling to vote for a black candidate; to determine that, you would have to take into account whether those unwilling to vote for him would be willing to vote for a different kind of black candidate. And as it happens, there is such a test case. In the fall of 1995, Colin Powell, fresh from a boffo book tour, was (or was widely thought to be) contemplating running for president. There were plenty of polls matching him as the Republican nominee against incumbent Democrat Bill Clinton. And running well: A typical Gallup poll had him leading Clinton 54 to 39 percent.
That 's bigger than any lead Obama has had over John McCain this year. And an analysis of 1995 and 2008 polls show that these two black candidates (putative candidate in the case of Powell, if you like) shows that they were attracting many different voters. In 1995, Powell was winning virtually all Republicans, a majority of Independents and a small number of Democrats. In recent polls this year, Obama has been winning virtually all Democrats, about half the Independents and a small number of Republicans. In other words, they have largely non-overlapping constituencies.
That seems to leave considerably less than 10 percent of American voters either (a) unwilling to vote for Powell in 1995 and (b) unwilling to vote for Obama in 2008. And some of that small number are surely motivated by factors other than race. So I would submit that the vast majority of American voters have already passed the test. They've shown they're willing to vote for a black candidate, provided he has acceptable views on issues and appropriate experience for the job.
The objection may be made that I am basing my conclusions on polls rather than actual election results. In the races for governor in California in 1982 and Virginia in 1989, preelection polls seem to have understated the percentages ready to vote against black candidates Tom Bradley and Douglas Wilder. But those elections were held 26 and 19 years ago. And we did not see a similar effect in most Democratic primaries this year: It was Obama's vote that was understated in pre-primary polls in New Hampshire.
Exit polls taken on Election Day did tend to overstate Obama's percentage in many states. But that could result from respondent self-selection. Only about half of those approached to take the exit poll do so. Obama voters, with higher levels of enthusiasm for their candidate, may have been more likely than Hillary Clinton voters to go to the trouble of filling out the exit poll. That's consistent with the greater propensity of Obama supporters to participate in caucuses in the four states that held both caucuses and primaries.
On balance I think Obama's race has been a political asset. I believe that most Americans think it would be a good thing, all other things being reasonably equal, for our country to elect a black president. I know I feel that way myself. I think that impulse has inspired many voters, ever since his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, to give Obama a sympathetic look-over, to be readier perhaps to appreciate his strengths and to overlook his weaknesses than they might be with an otherwise similar non-black candidate. The refusal of a very small number of voters to support a black candidate does not, I think, offset this significant advantage. The Obama candidacy is indeed a test -- a test not of American voters, but of Barack Obama.