Jump to content
Key Links: Announcements | Support Desk

Barack Obama Elected President!


Max

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Hey Devoted: Your comment of: As for the Iraq vote, I say look at the entire picture and realize she did not start the war-Bush did. Hillary was misled and given the wrong information by the resident moron in The White House....

is kind of off base if you are trying to gather support/sympathy for Hillary. Let's remember it was based on most of the same information that Clinton had when he was sending bombs over to Iraq and lets remember, based on that same information we had several dems, including Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc. saying Saddam had WMD's and needed to be removed. Those are facts.

Just because the war went downhill, in most part at the fault of the Bush Administration, does not mean Hillary was mislead. What the Dems did and did successfuly was to use the miscalculations of the B.A to turn it into a Bush lied situation, which was not the truth at all.

Just look at these comments: "I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," said Clinton in 2003 while delivering commencement remarks at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Miss.

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical, biological weapons, and if events are allowed to run their course, will someday possess nuclear weapons."

Sen. Evan Bayh (D.-Ind.), Intelligence member Statement, Oct. 3, 2002

"I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapon."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.), Intelligence member Floor speech, Oct. 10, 2002

"In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an un-inspected four-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them. . . . The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new."

Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.), Foreign Relations member Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002

"I believe if Saddam Hussein continues to refuse to meet his obligation to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and his prohibited missile delivery systems, that the United Nations should authorize member states to use military force to destroy those weapons and systems."

Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.), then-chairman of Armed Services and member of Intelligence Floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002

Interesting on how all these Dems (especialyl right after 9-11) said the same thing that the intelligence did. Now they are calling the President a liar for using the same information that they based their initial judgements on that he had and Clinton had against him.

Seems to me, they are using the death of our heros as fodder for votes and it is a sad day.

More interesting, why is no one attacking Clinton, BErger, and others for what they said BEFORE Bush even was in the White House?

"One way of the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line"..President Clinton, 2-4-98

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's Weapsons of Mass Destruction program." President Clinton 2-14-98

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he had 10 times since 1983" Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor 2-18-98

I could go on and on, but the point is....Bush, Congress, Clinton (both of them) had the same information that Clinton had when he was making threats and so on.

Information was bad, we know that now. But Saddam had used them before and would have again.

I think it is funny the double standard that is being laid here and Bush is being called a liar for using the information and then some from the Clinton Camp and the CIA, etc. Remember, Clinton appointed the man that Bush got most of the informatio nfrom.

Was this a conspriacy on Clintons part?? Hell no.

This has turned into a bunch of no good people using the death of our soilders to a political advantage, rather sad in the end, rather sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I am a NH voter and I voted today for Hillary. I think she is the most qualified. I met her and Bill in 1992 and was impressed by both. When I went to vote today it was late morning it was PACKED! I live in a relatively small town too, so it made me happy to see a lot of people voting.

I just wanted to share my observations from the last few days from people I know who met candiadates and what I have seen as well. Chelsea Clinton's boyfriend visited with a friend of mother's for a half hour and was very eloquent and impressed my mother's friend. He answered a lot of her questions. A friend of mine works as in the hotel that all the candiates stay at when they visit Concord, the capital. Hillary and Bill were the best tippers apperently, Bill Richardson eats a lot, Obama is every bit as charasmatic in person as he appears on TV. He even hosted a rally last night at 11pm. McCain is a nice guy and no one in NH really likes Romney that much.

There are two towns in NH that vote at midnight. Obama and McCain won those. But as of the sixth, there was a ten point difference between Obama and Hillary while Huckabee had a five point lead over Romney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Just because the war went downhill, in most part at the fault of the Bush Administration, does not mean Hillary was mislead. What the Dems did and did successfuly was to use the miscalculations of the B.A to turn it into a Bush lied situation, which was not the truth at all.

The Bush administration is in the business of telling huge whoppers, one of them being that Hussein was a threat to our democracy. Even if Bush didn't lie, she voted for a war against a country removed from the September 11 tragedy. Most of the hijackers that day were Saudi Arabian. Did we invade their country? NOPE. Iraq was a problem because of WMDs that didn't exist, while North Korea can fire at will and devastate us if Kim Jong Il says to. Doesn't the refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors ring any bells? How about the push for a war with Iran now, when our military is already overextended? It was an excuse for war profiteering and assured corporate support from Halliburtons and Blackwaters all along. The intelligence about Iraq was dead wrong, but Bush was eager to drop bombs somewhere to diminish the 9/11 failure, and the Dems helped him.

Clinton played the GOP's PR game after 9/11 for fear of not being patriotic, and now she has the nerve to attack Obama for voting to fund the war after not voting to start it! But now that the troops are in this mess, what is he supposed to do? I guess she'd prefer it if he said "no flak jackets or armored humvees for you folks. Hell, you don't even deserve bullets. Just use a slingshot against the insurgents." Hearing about her 35 YEARS of experience doesn't erase her role in giving Bush what he wanted, and Obama will always win that dispute, because to this day she can't admit how ass-backwards her decision was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Let's remember it was based on most of the same information that Clinton had when he was sending bombs over to Iraq and lets remember, based on that same information we had several dems, including Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc. saying Saddam had WMD's and needed to be removed. Those are facts.

Just because the war went downhill, in most part at the fault of the Bush Administration, does not mean Hillary was mislead. What the Dems did and did successfuly was to use the miscalculations of the B.A to turn it into a Bush lied situation, which was not the truth at all.

Interesting on how all these Dems (especialyl right after 9-11) said the same thing that the intelligence did. Now they are calling the President a liar for using the same information that they based their initial judgements on that he had and Clinton had against him.

Information was bad, we know that now. But Saddam had used them before and would have again.

Hey Kwing,

I do not believe that Clinton had the same information regarding Iraq as Bush did...sure he had a conflict in the region but nothing close to a war so I highly doubt the information was similar.

The entire intelligence behind Iraq was wrong and that has been proven so I see it as misleading. If you see it as something else, I can live with it. But it is a difference of opinion.

If the Dems said what they said about Iraq and WMDs, it was based on what was provided to them and that was a bunch of lies...some say the intelligence was politicized. I say not-it was made up to justify an unjust invasion into Iraq.

Saddam was disarmed of using weapons in 1991 and, since that time period, they managed to keep weapons from him as well as any potential of him rebuilding his arsenal. This is documented from what Powell and Rice said in 2001 regarding Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I am a NH voter and I voted today for Hillary. I think she is the most qualified. I met her and Bill in 1992 and was impressed by both. When I went to vote today it was late morning it was PACKED! I live in a relatively small town too, so it made me happy to see a lot of people voting.

That is good that a lot of people voted...what is important is people participate in the process and make their voices loud and clear with their vote.

Even if Hillary loses NH, she is still ahead in many states (like 32 of them) so it still looks good for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exit polls are showing that Obama and McCain are leading in NH.

According to WMUR Channel Nine, some of the smaller towns may run out of ballots. If anyone is interested in finding out any information about the primaries, the news website for NH is wmur.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Tight race for the Democats! With 10% of the precincts counted:

Rep.

John McCain 6,860 38%

Mitt Romney 5,182 29%

Mike Huckabee 2,247 13%

Rudy Giuliani 1,646 9%

Ron Paul 1,542 9%

Fred Thompson 268 2%

Duncan Hunter 118 1%

Democrats:

Hillary Clinton 11,734 39%

Barack Obama 11,097 37%

John Edwards 5,196 17%

Bill Richardson 1,316 4%

Dennis Kucinich 595 2%

Joe Biden 54 0%

Mike Gravel 47 0%

Chris Dodd 22 0%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
How do the primaries work? How many primaries are there? Whoever wins the most primaries gets the nomination? LOL

There are 56 primaries and/or caucuses for the Democats, 1 each for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, most U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands), and one for Democrats Abroad. On the Republican side, there are 51 primaries (one for D.C. as well as each state), with the territories and Republicans Abroad earning at-large delegates.

Which each primary, delegates are pledged to each candidate depending on how they finish in the poles. The first was the Iowa Caucus, and the last being Montana and South Dakota on June 3rd. (South Dakota and New Mexico for the Republicans).

Here is more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Pa...imaries%2C_2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Pa...imaries%2C_2008

A lot of this stuff still befuddles me, but I hope I have helped to clarify it a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 56 primaries and/or caucuses for the Democats, 1 each for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, most U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands), and one for Democrats Abroad. On the Republican side, there are 51 primaries (one for D.C. as well as each state), with the territories and Republicans Abroad earning at-large delegates.

Which each primary, delegates are pledged to each candidate depending on how they finish in the poles. The first was the Iowa Caucus, and the last being Montana and South Dakota on June 3rd. (South Dakota and New Mexico for the Republicans).

Here is more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Pa...imaries%2C_2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Pa...imaries%2C_2008

A lot of this stuff still befuddles me, but I hope I have helped to clarify it a little.

OMG.....that's so much reading, Scotty! I'm not that interested in American politics. LOL ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John McCain is the projected winner for the Republicans. Way too close to call between Hillary and Obama. There is a little over 3000 votes between the the two of them, with Hillary getting 39% and Obama getting 37%. MSNBC and Fox say that it may go into the late hours to declare a winner in the Democrats because it really is so close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy