McCain overtakes Obama

[Guest]

So I guess Dayba will be on this Ranch drinking "coldie"

and smiling that he tricked the world in his war campaigns and enriching himself beyond belief. OK.

Those dems are running out of time. GB II has approx less than 5 months left in the W.H. What shame?

 

[Bart]

So I guess Dayba will be on this Ranch drinking "coldie"

and smiling that he tricked the world in his war campaigns and enriching himself beyond belief. OK.

Kukulcan, I don't have a clue as to what GWB will do in the future, but I would suggest you take a little time and watch these brief videos, and read the transcripts. As for as tricking the world? Let's just - mislead -would be an appropriate word.


From our archives:


I would like to post links and statements recently made by Bush, Cheney and the Senate Intelligence Committee. Many good and honest people have been mislead by past statements. These are within the past month.


http://infowars.com/articles/iraq/bush_now_says_iraq_had_not hing_do_with_911.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE>
BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing. Except it's part of â€â€￾ and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a â€â€￾ Iraq â€â€￾ the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq</BLOCKQUOTE>http://www.politicalhotwire.com/1916-bush-said-iraq-had-nothing-do.html


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/09/10/cheney-admits-sadda m-huss_n_29113.html


Cheney: Excerpted from the transcript of today's NBC Meet The Press with host Tim Russert.


...MR. RUSSERT: All right. Now the president has been asked, "What did Iraq have to do with the attack on the World Trade Center?" and he said "nothing." Do you agree with that?


VICE PRES. CHENEY: I do. So it's not...


MR. RUSSERT: So it's case, case closed.


VICE PRES. CHENEY: We've never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.


MR. RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?


VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know. I mean, we've never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm...


Read the entire transcript here.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/


Senate report: No Saddam, al-Qaida link

Updated: 2:31 p.m. CT Sept 8, 2006WASHINGTON
<DIV ="textTimestamp">
There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report issued Friday on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.
Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.http://64.233.167.104/search

 

[Guest]

Bart, with all of this supposed evidence against GB II I would think it should be in the words of former CIA director George Tenant "A slam dunk" in impeaching and imprisoning W. How come its not happeaning?

They better hurry up, they have less than months before he waltzes out of the W.H.

Bart maybe you can answer the reason(s) why W has not been impeached/imprisoned yet, without insulting me. I would like to know your answer.

 

[Don Wassall]

Bart, with all of this supposed evidence against GB II I would think it should be in the words of former CIA director George Tenant "A slam dunk" in impeaching and imprisoning W. How come its not happeaning?

It has a lot to do with the same reasons a lot of us can't in good conscience vote for either monopoly party. They don't provide checks and balances on each other; they merely jockey for position so that their gang can be in control of the loot and the perks of power. The Democrats want to take over the imperial presidency from the Republicans and do the same things, not reform anything.


A more pertinent question is, Kulkulcan do you believe George W. Bush was telling the truth? If so please provide your reasoning and evidence.

 

[Guest]

Don, all I can state is that I believe GB II made a decision on what intelligence was provided to him at the time as well as numerous other countries belief that Iraq had WMD. He made a good faith decision on the intelligence at hand. In hindsight, the intelligence was wrong and thus the decision wrong so far.

GB II made the decision in good faith IMO. So in answering the question he was telling the truth.

Maybe you answer my question as to why GB II is not impeached or imprisoned now?

 

[Bart]

Kukulcan, I think the impeachment talk is just election year posturing. If there were a serious inquiry into the situation, a lot of people wouldn't look good on both sides of the aisle and a passel of NEOCONS would be exposed. The cover will stay shut on that investigation.


Actually, my post was moreof a reponse to the question posed earlier in this thread.


Kukulcan:I hearfrom the left and here that the Iraq War was based on lies. If someone has actual proof that GB II lied, I would help in convicting him. To date no one has. So we can either argue an opinion or state the facts, and let the chips fall where they fall.



Edited by: Bart

 

[Don Wassall]

Maybe you answer my question as to why GB II is not impeached or imprisoned now?

Re-read my post, not that I expect any of it to register. Polls show that half of Americans still think Iraq had WMD and that Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning of 9/11. You seem to be among them. How do you try and discuss things with people who still don't understand that this administration came into office with a plan to go after Iraq and to solidify control of Middle East oil? That it's hopelessly entangled with Israel? That the neo-consreleased an ambitious plan for global domination through PNAC, specifically noting that the U.S. needed a "galvanizing event such as another Pearl Harbor" in order to launch their crusade?


What can be done to reason with those whostill think all the war and bloodshed going on is merely an idealistic crusade to bring "freedom and democracy" to the Arabs at the same time our own "freedom and democracy" is being taken away from us? How can you discuss these things with people who live in a media-created dream world?

 

[Guest]

Don what is with the insults. I assure you that I am not in a dream world.

You still have not answered my question. Please answer it, cliftnote style.

 

[Don Wassall]

You still have not answered my question. Please answer it, cliftnote style.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Kukulcan, "clift note style"? What the heck is a clift note?Somewhere above a flat?

http://www.cliffsnotes.com


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CliffsNotes

 

[Solomon Kane]

Kukulcan:

Bart already answered this question in part: if there are impeachment hearings against Bush about "being lied into a war," the Democrats themselves would look bad, since they were very gung ho for the war. they will look like the idiots who were duped by the Administrations cleverness and cherry picking of the evidence.

In short the Democrats believe that there is no political capital to be gained by impeaching Bush.

 

[Solomon Kane]

Anyway all that's required to impeach someone is: "high crimes and misdemeanors"--not "lies"---which are difficult to prove since you must get into a person's head and show that the person knew or believed there was little evidence of WMD, etc.

since war is so awful, the burden of proof is on the person who argues for war.

Invading a nation which did not harm us, did not threaten us, had no connection to 911, no connection to Bin Laden, and having all this result in the deaths of a million Iraqis, 4200 Americans, and God know how many wounded, maimed, scarred for life, etc. massive debt. massive inflation.

On top of this, the world now hates us--with reason.

Yeah that's good enough for me---Bush is guilty of " high crimes and misdemeanors."

The glory of America is her Constitutional power to punish her own. No one is above the constitution and the laws.

Or at least that's what we used to believe.

 

[PhillyBirds]

Powerful statement.

 

[Solomon Kane]

thanks, phillybirds!

 

[Guest]

Soloman Kane, appreciate your response minus the insults and disparging tone unlike others. My simple request was for someone, anyone to prove that GB II lied. I suspected no one could, just like those in our congress.

Regarding the so called lies of this President, it is just conjecture and opinions. Being in law enforcement I require some evidence to place someone in jail. None of you presented it. Some just presented theories, Israeli Puppet masters, money grab and world domination theories.

Interesting, Soloman Kane you state that the world hates us. Why do so many people from around the world want imigrate here. Why do so many look to us when the sh.t hits the fan? I believe the hate you mention is really envy and jeolously. Of course this is just my opinion

 

[Bart]

Powerful statement.

You aint kiddin'

 

[White Shogun]

One thing I'm still puzzled about: if we did not invade Iraq because we thought they had WMD's, why did we invade?

That whole oil thing didn't really work out, I mean not the way people initially proposed anyway, i.e. that we did it to control their oil. Prices have gone up instead, did Cheney and his cronies calculate in advance that invading Iraq would cause an oil shortage on the world market and drive prices up, thereby making themselves rich?

Did we invade Iraq in order to set up permanent bases in the Middle East? Did we invade to set up this permanent base to secure the oil pipeline with Georgia?

Did we invade so Cheney and Haliburton, et al could get rich off the rebuilding contracts?

I know that after no WMD's were found, the Bush regime tried to link Saddam to 9/11, but that tactic failed and they gave up on it. So instead, we have 'Iraqi Freedom,' which is now of course seen as the main reason we invaded Iraq - to free the Iraqi people. How short is our collective memory as a nation anyway?

No one in politics can really afford to push this too much because the lid might come off their lies and secrecy, and there are probably way more of them involved than we might even begin to guess.

 

[Guest]

I also wonder how someone that seems to be pro-war and says "news flash, in foreign policy strength works" could be a Ron Paul supporter. I don't buy it. I think you're trying to convince the many true Ron Paul supporters on this site to vote for your beloved McCain.

K.P. for your information, I actually contributed money to Dr. Paul's campaign, did you? If you don't call someone who gives their own money a real supporter, what do you call it?

Also for your info, he is not "my beloved McCain". I live in Arizona, he is my Senator, and let me tell you, I have never voted for him, never, not once, not for Senator and not for President either now or in 2000.

His middle of the road views do not represent me as a paleo-conservative, but the fact is, his middle of the road views will probably make for a good Presidency.

On the most important and long-ranging issue for a President, he has vowed to appoint Constitutionalist judges, which is a huge plus. We couldn't ask for more.

As for amnesty, he says he learned his lesson. Obviously most don't believe him, but his party should keep him in check there.

He wants to cut the deficit and eliminate pork barrell spending. Ok, check, and check, what is wrong with that?

On health care, he wants to give us more deductions and portable insurance. How could a libertarian realistically ask for more?

What will McCain do on foreign policy? It is hard to say, beyond the fact that he stands for a strong America. How can that be bad? Russia is doing joint naval exercises with Venezuela, and Iran is working on nuclear missles. Are you saying you don't want a strong President in the next four years? The days of fortress America are over, my friend. Less wars are better, of course, but being seen as weak is probably the worst possible thing in today's international environment.

Overall, I think his policies have great potential, and are certainly light years better than B.O. and his anti-white Marxist agenda.There are only two choices, the primaries are over, now it is time to decide.The "lesser of two evils" is better than the "worse" that is for sure.

I am sorry for all you guys who are so alienated that you are just sitting out the election. But if you really can't see the difference between the policies of McCain vs B.O., you aren't looking.

Frankly, I think you might be the victim of a Zionist plot to get white people to feel so defeated and alienated that they stop voting.

 

[Kaptain]

Frankly, I think you might be the victim of a Zionist plot to get white people to feel so defeated and alienated that they stop voting.

Frankly, I think you're a bit naive or completely insincere. Nearly all your posts since you have joined have been in support of some neocon policy. Your "Zionist plot" comment is clearly sarcasm meant to ridicule those who people on this board who are in the know. I thought since you were sharing what you thought, I'd share what I thought. No offense.

So how do you give money to guy who ran 90% of his campaign on anti-war? Again I don't buy it. And yes, I did give RP some money and I've given Caste Football some money. Have you?

You seem to like most of what RP has done and stood for yet you can't bring yourself to supporting him while at the same time you seem to have a dislike for McCain's past policies yet support him in the misguided hope that he will magically change. Hmmmmmm. Something just doesn't add up. Good talk. Edited by: Kaptain Poop

 

[bigunreal]

I'm truly astonished that any regular poster at Caste Football would be a fan of President Bush.

For those of you who support Bush; give me a few examples of some things he's done as president that cause you to feel this way. Solomon Kane eloquently explained how the disastrous intervention in Iraq has done nothing other than cause a whole lot of unnecessary deaths and create new enemies for us around the world.

Since you say you are "conservative," what has Bush done at home to keep your support? The creation of the Homeland Security monstrosity ought to outrage all true opponents of big government. Has he cut the size of government in any way, shape or form? Like the sainted hero of neoconservatism, Ronald Reagan, Bush's record is not conservative in the least. Unlike Reagan, Bush isn't even capable of producing insincere rhetoric.

Leaving aside the Republicrat nonsense, Bush has presided over the worst eight years, in almost every sense, in American history. The economy is in a free fall from which it may never recover; the real estate market is in even worse shape than it was under Jimmy Carter. Health care and Social Security are time bombs waiting to explode. Talking about "big gubmint" isn't going to solve those problems. The simple fact is, the vast majority of people in America are not making enough income to meet the ever increasing costs of living. That is why "conservatives" can only sell their tired message to the minority of well-off citizens who aren't affected by the awesome problems that afflict the common riff raff.

Okay, rant off. Obviously, I'm not a fan of Bush.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

as i posted in another thread... here is a link to Ron Paul's speech yesterday about voting for the lesser of two evils.

perhaps it will explain things a bit better for those of you who don't understand where many of us CFers are coming from with regard to the McAmnesty-Nobama non-choice for Prez.

 

[Guest]

We at CF admire the white athlete who fights on against the odds. Ok, but why aren't we living that out in our own politics? The national GOP has gone globalist and neo-con, yes, check, agreed. But the state and local parties are far more conservative, and working to bring the national party back in line. Why quit the fight?

No one can deny that the GOP is perceived as the party of white people. No one can deny that B.O. is perceived as the candidate of blacks, and the Dems as the party of minorities. As racialists, the CF people should be aware of the symbolic and real power of racial victory and defeat.

Taking yourself out of the game is a formula for losing, not winning. I was a Paul supporter, but McCain is the only horse left in the race. This is just reality. His policies across the board are better than B.O.s across the board, especially on race issues.

Those who say there is no difference between McCain and B.O. on the policy level, are not looking very carefully. Even if you don't like McCain's foreign policy or amnesty stance, surely you will admit vast differences otherwise.

In military terms, there is something called an orderly retreat, which makes a vast difference from a total rout. Even when losing, it is important to lose well. From a racialist paleo-con perspective, McCain is losing well. B.O. would be an unmitigated annihilation.

Edited by: 89Glory

 

[White Shogun]

I just wonder where everybody gets there stats on Iraqi dead. I've seen everything from 200,000 to 2,000,000.

And how many of those have been literally killed by American soldiers, as opposed to other Iraqis? Are Americans morally liable for the deaths of Iraqis slain by other Iraqis, since we invaded their country?

 

[johnnyboy]

You "McCain is nuts" guys remind me of the leftists back in 1980, saying Reagan was too aggressive and going to start WW3 with Russia. Newsflash for you guys: in foreign affairs, Strength Works. In inter-racial conflicts (like conflicts between nations), the worst thing you can be, is WEAK.

johnyboy, did you see that Oberman and Matthews have been "demoted" this morning? Looks like the Palin choice has really changed the game. The pro-left media suddenly realized that going negative is counter-productive, so they are trying to revise their strategy.

Shogun: I think BOs "Muslim admission" is more evidence of his native stupidity, like that "57 state" comment. Because of his grandiose negro speechifyin', he's got everyone fooled how smart he is, but he is actually kinda dumb. In my line of work, I have met many minority academics just like him: they bloviate to cover their lack of insight.Just average intellects (at best) who have been over-educated. They are deathly afraid of being exposed as frauds.

hey glory,

yeah i saw that Olberman and Matthews got demoted. i actually read it on an article in the huffington post (i go there to remind myself what democrats are really all about). man all i can say is its about time. i actually liked Keith when he first started bc i thought he was funny and he did a good job of pointing out some of the bs spewing from the bush administration. but after awhile i came to realize that he's a self loathing white. he just hates supporting whites on anything if there is an option of supporting a non white. IMO the Clinton administration was the freaking epitome/poster child of what a successful democratic administration would be. but, bc he hates himself Olbermann decided to tee off on all things clinton, namely Hillary. i'm not a fan of the Clintons but the way Keith went after her you'd think she was a nazi war criminal. now he just cant even cloak his true intentions. he loves calling out every bad about conservatives or any mistakes they make, but in his cult devotion he cant ever say anything bad about his own party. f**k him.

anyways, thanks for the info glory.

finally, i think the brass at msnbc is starting to see that viewers don't like to hear propaganda under the guise of fair news reporting.

 

[johnnyboy]

I would rather have Obama win than Mccain. McCain is f**king nuts, and he will cause a lot of major distruptions in the world if he becomes president. Please consider this before you vote.

I would rather have McCain win than Obama. Obama is f**king black, and he will cause a lot of major distruptions in the world if he becomes president. Please consider this before you vote.