I heard that B.O. is just another black bastard. Is this true?Help me out here. It would be interesting to know what the college educated supporters majors were. Say no to B.O.

Two questions

1-Who are the other black bastards I can compare the subject to?

2-And what is a supporters majors?

BRB-My Freak alarm is going off again.

He said he was raised by his white grandmother, I was just wondering...

I thought when you went to college that you majored in a particular field of study. What did his supporters major in...?

Um, are you asking if he was born out of wedlock? The answer is no.

I wish someone would attack him on things that actually matter, like his intelligence or the fact that his foot constantly in his mouth...ooops, I didnt mean to offend any Bush supporters out there...

<link>

Ignore "little red clueless girl" Dix; she is probably just another awe-struck youngster swept-up in obama worship.

I majored in physics.

Your turn.

As you say not that it matters but... I have a Master's In Education and I see a number of things in this line of BS that I feel need addressing. Item number one; This man's lineage is of no import, period. Number two; the education level of his supporters, of course, will be varied and of course will include some very educated people who do an awful lot of issue contemplation. The same can, and should, be said of all Americans. Number three; from what I can see there are four issues he supports that concern me deeply and should actually be foremost in these discussions even though the gist of the article was meant to be humorous, it does so in such a flippant / sarcastic fashion that the author is bordering on destroying his own attempt at humor by insulting the intelligence of the reader, i.e. most Jerry Lewis material. (Great guy though.) Back to those issues;

1 - A complete and immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

2 - Universal (Socialized Medicine) Healthcare.

3 - The right's of the unborn child.

4 - Same gender sex, it's affect on society and the message sent to children when we ratify this behavior by allowing it to be formalized by a long standing tradition intended to support monogamy for the purpose of having offspring and raising them in a balanced (somewhat) home.

The only two I intend to address thoroughly right now are the first ones listed. They are the easiest to point out simple facts that are not arguable even if their consequences are.

1 - A complete and immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Fact we are there, regardless of why it is a fact. The majority of their people want to form a democracy. This fact is evidenced by a higher voter turnout, in the face of death and dismemberment, than most US elections since the 1800’s. The security / police / law enforcement forces, what e’er you wish to call them, are inadequately trained and provisioned to protect the majority of the citizenry from a return of the Taliban and their oppression of freedom, women and thought in general, this too is a fact. If we add these facts and then retract our troops cold turkey or even with and ASAP tag to it then we have committed an immoral act as a people. There will be genocide there will be mass graves etc. believe it or not these are facts. I say this is an immoral act as a people and some would say it is Bush’s fault because he got us into this. I am not going to debate that at this time because what I am trying to point out is that if we force our leadership to withdraw troops we are knowingly and willingly condemning the Iraq’s to this fate. We cannot blame Bush for actions we as a nation take when he is not in office. Obama in his inexperience does not see this greater reality that will come about if he truly does what he is proclaiming he will do. As humans who care for others we should see this too and as American’s we should be proud to fight side by side with the Iraqi people in achieving their goal of freedom. The time for blame is over. It doesn’t matter why we got there we are there now and what we decide now is not dependant on what a politician decided five years ago.

2 - Universal (Socialized Medicine) Healthcare. Just two items, one refers to a fact and the other information is fact. HMO’s stink and are too bureaucratic, so what do you think a healthcare system run and / or heavily influenced by a bureaucratic government will be like? The other item is an example of universal healthcare as seen in British ruled sovereignties such as Canada. When ill you have to wait up to 6 weeks, by which time you are well or hospitalized, to see a doctor, probably not the same one you saw last time or even ever. (No choice of doctor in socialized medicine.) Also, if you are over 65 and are admitted to the hospital with a heart condition that is repairable through an expensive surgery you will be sent home to await your next heart attack or two and eventual death. Such procedures are too costly. Their tax rate, in order to pay for this, is in the neighborhood of 55% - 65% of their income. They have to give incentives for people to study to be doctors because it is a government job and you wind up overworked and underpaid. As a result you have what could be the most altruistic doctors but not the smartest since they will want to find something more profitable. It is rare that a new drug comes from other countries as the price of drugs is regulated and their drug companies have few profits to return to the consumer. Drugs are cheaper there and at Wal-mart and now Walgreen’s and Fred Meyer’s because of buying in bulk not because of any great companies outside the U.S. making drugs for less. It is our drug companies that sell their government the drugs. Face the fact that capitalism is a great motivator. Now do we really want all of this?

These are only two of the real issues and groups of facts that we should confront. Let’s get off of the unimportant issues like who begat who and so on.

Be well my fellow humans.

To address the two points that you made:

1. I agree that a complete and immediate withdrawal of our forces is not realistic thanks to several years of indept management of the occupation by the Bush administration. But, despite what many people say, Obama also agrees with that because he's not advocating a "complete and immediate withdrawal".

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

<link>

What he's describing is not a "complete and immediate withdrawal", but a phased withdrawal. It is well passed time we begin to put more Iraqis in charge of their own security. Does Obama want our troops out faster than McCain does? Certainly and so do I. What I don't support is continuing to throw away American lives incompetently the way that Bush has and the way that McCain will.

2. Healthcare. Whether the GOP wants to admit it or not, our healthcare delivery system is broken. People raise the spectre of delays, waiting lists, and inflexible bureacracy if we try any kind of reform. Well gee, we have all of that now, plus the joy of having to fight with our insurance companies to pay for procedures that are supposed to part of our normal coverage.

What we have in this country is a system that is designed for and by the insurance companies to enrich themselves. We need a system puts the patients first and returns medical decisions back to the doctor and the patients.

Thank you for your references of Obama's stated objectives. That is why I included the term ASAP tags. We say to insurgents hey guys, thanks for the party, you win, we’re outta here, just let us pick up our things and we’ll go home. If we announce a policy of withdrawal the insurgents will just bide their time stockpile their resources, since they got what they wanted and wait until we are gone. Then we will sit around and complain to whomever is leading our government about the human rights atrocities in Iraq. The Iraqi government, or in other words, the women and children and minorities in Iraq who vote, should be the ones to ask us to leave when they think they are ready. No, I am not saying we have our troops stay there enmasse forever, we should make sure they are making progress to self sufficiency, but regardless of why we are there we can’t just shed the responsibility of what has been done that easily.

As to your second comment it appears we mostly agree. I didn’t say all was well let’s not mess with it at all, but Universal Healthcare certainly isn’t the answer.

P.S. I believe Obama shows his inexperience once again with the fact that he addresses specifically the issue of Al Qaeda making a move. Firstly, once we announce we are going they will wait till we are gone and secondly, they are not the only terrorist faction salivating at a chance to control the infant democracy of Iraq.

I really don't think we're ever going to motivate the Iraqi government to get its act together unless we tell them, "On X date, you're responsible for your own security". Yes, that means they're going to stumble and struggle, but we can't continue to have an open-ended commitment. Maliki's government knows that they can shield themselves from any responsibility so long as they can hide behind us.

The only question for me is, how much American blood and treasure is worth trying to fulfill the neocon fantasy that you can reshape a volatile region like the ME by military force? We passed my limit years ago.

Turning Iraq's internal security over them is not "surrendering", it's acknowledging that we've trained them and provided them with resources, but ultimately, Iraq's internal problems will have to be solved by Iraqis.

As for Obama's inexperience, I realize that's an easy target, even though he has slightly more experience in foreign policy today than Bush had in 2000. I find it funny that the same people who are criticizing Obama today, defended Bush in 2000 by saying he'd surround himself with a foreign policy "dream team". We've now seen what a disaster Bush's "dream team" has been.

The difference between the two, though, is that I believe that Obama has the capacity to learn from advisers who are foreign policy experts, while Bush has zero capacity for learning from anyone who doesn't already agree with him. Since McCain represents a continuation of Bush's failed policies, the answer for me is obvious.

Greatbear452

Excellent post!!!! I’ve read your various posts wherein you methodically, factually, and respectfully explicated your views on Iraq. I’ve also read the dissenting responses. You have the patience of a saint.

Your opponent/dissenting poster may be right that some are waiting for their opportunities once we leave Iraq. I happen to agree with you in that the Iraqis will miraculously improve their training and all of the sudden will be self-sufficient when they know that their American body guards are leaving. But we’ll only know that for sure when we’re gone. What we do know is that Americans are being killed and will continue to be killed every day we’re in Iraq. To those who believe the Iraqi civil war is worth fighting; I say grab your weapon and head there.

On that note, I would add one more point concerning the future of our volunteer military and the security of the United States. After hoodwinking our military by not allowing them to come home after completing their tours; how many people would knowingly volunteer for military service in the future? Some will, but will they be in sufficient numbers?

Once again, excellent post Greatbear452

Greatbear452:

The only question for me is, how much American blood and treasure is worth trying to fulfill the neocon fantasy that you can reshape a volatile region like the ME by military force? We passed my limit years ago.

Turning Iraq's internal security over them is not "surrendering", it's acknowledging that we've trained them and provided them with resources, but ultimately, Iraq's internal problems will have to be solved by Iraqis.

I find it funny that the same people who are criticizing Obama today, defended Bush in 2000 by saying he'd surround himself with a foreign policy "dream team". We've now seen what a disaster Bush's "dream team" has been.

Since McCain represents a continuation of Bush's failed policies, the answer for me is obvious.

Firstly, reshaping the region is not the responsibility I am concerned about it is however the safety of the people we now owe since we have changed things so drastically by given them the shot at freedom they were begging for.

I agree that when they are properly trained we should begin the withdrawal processes but we learn from our Generals in the area that they are not ready yet. A timeline only allows the enemy the chance to say hey we are winning and to recruit more and stockpile while they await the moment we are gone. Plus, it keeps their attention over there on our troops and doesn't allow them a lot of idle time to develop plans to kill our citizens here. That is the next logical step they will take.

You said, “I find it funny that the same people who are criticizing Obama today, defended Bush in 2000 by saying he'd surround himself with a foreign policy "dream team". We've now seen what a disaster Bush's "dream team" has been.” Please be careful before jumping to conclusions about who defended whom etc. Bush was grossly inexperienced as well but look what trusting him did for us. You also said, “Since McCain represents a continuation of Bush's failed policies.” Which of Bush’s policies do you see McCain representing other than a commitment to be thoughtful in the Iraq issue rather than make a knee-jerk response and decision that could spell even more disaster.

quedog - "To those who believe the Iraqi civil war is worth fighting; I say grab your weapon and head there."

I would gladly do just that to defend the freedom of one human being who asks for my help! Are you saying that just because they aren't American they don't deserve our help? Are you saying we should adopt a policy of isolation again? I am however somewhat handicapped or I would gladly put my money where my mouth is.

Also, you should learn more about how our real soldiers think not the whiners goto some of the military websites and get in touch with some of the people who have had a chance to meet the Iraq people. They deserve our love and help as much as anyone in the world, maybe more so since we created the world in which they are currently living.

quedog - "To those who believe the Iraqi civil war is worth fighting; I say grab your weapon and head there."

I would gladly do just that to defend the freedom of one human being who asks for my help! Are you saying that just because they aren't American they don't deserve our help? Are you saying we should adopt a policy of isolation again? I am however somewhat handicapped or I would gladly put my money where my mouth is.

Also, you should learn more about how our real soldiers think not just the outspoken whiners. Go to some of the military websites and get in touch with some of the American's who have had a chance to meet the Iraqi people. They deserve our love and help as much as anyone in the world, maybe more so since we created the world in which they are currently living.

P.S. Hey Greatbear,

What if we do withdraw because we think this magical change will occur in Iraqi security forces and we are wrong? That is where the complaints will come in about what're we doing about the atrocities in Iraq by the Taliban, or the Sunni's, or the Turkish, etc.