Obama to Raise Terror Threat Before Election - Copy Cat!

Everyone is predicting doom and gloom for the Democrats in the midterms for any number of reasons not the least of which is that the party in power always loses seats in congress during the midterms. I think it has only happened twice in our country’s history that the party in power hasn’t lost seats in congress in the midterms. In addition to that, there are vastly more Democrats than Republicans up for re-election this election. Given that, Democratic losses are almost inevitable.

If I were Obama, I’d take a page from the Bush/Cheney playbook and call the head of Homeland Security and arbitrarily raise the terror threat in order to scare people into voting for the incumbents. Tom Ridge admitted doing exactly that on the eve of the 2004 election after being pressured from above and stated that he had no idea why he was raising the threat level even though he was the head of Homeland Security.

Would any of you have problems with Obama doing the same thing?

 

I think he out to raise the "terror threat" level. That way us old white people will be more inclined to vote Republican. OOPS! You don't count the old white people's vote. do you?

 

Since Obama's public foreign relations strategy is to have open relations with the leaders of states that sponsor terrorism, I don't think a terrorist threat will help either Obama or anyone else in the Democratic Party.

 

Sounds like ol' dr moen is conceding a major defeat come November.

 

I would have to agree that raising the terror threat level would be the last thing the Democrats would want to do before an election. They might lose every seat.

 

Moen was correct....Bush did it........that was the point of this thread.

Only thing is, most voters trust the Republicans in almost every sector of government now more than the Dems......YES, even the economy. I agree with the consensus of the comments above, would be a bad thing for dems.

 

Perhaps this is part or what he'll do.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38933239/ns/politics-white_house/?gt1=43001

....and yes it seems very vague to me.

 

At least we know Obama knows how to get us out of an endless war. Is anybody whispering "cut and run" under their breath? That's all you heard during the election.

 

Yep. After BO voted against the surge and against funding the war in Iraq, he is going to take credit for pulling our troops out of Iraq just as out treaty with Iraq required. Does anyone remember who signed that treaty with Iraq? I will be there are a couple of us old white people know.

 

Yeah, George Bush starts a fire and then calls the fire department to come put it out and you want to give him credit for calling the people trained to respond to just such an incident while never asking why he started the fire in the first place. Do you even remember all the reasons for starting the fire? The list is lengthy but the list ended with what is essentially nation building. But lets not blame Bush for all the lives lost, the money spent, the lies told; lets blame Obama for wanting no part of this insanity from the beginning. Typical Rightie!

 

Just to keep it factual, the fire started because Sadam violated Resolution 660, then Resolution 661, then Resolution 678, then Resolution 686, then Resolution 687, then Resolution 688, then Resolution 707, then Resolution 715, then Resolution 986, then Resolution 1284 and then Resolution 1441.

Curious, again, what happened to the treaty I asked you about? did you forget about it?

 

Wow, are you out of your mind or what?

The war in Iraq was under control during the Bush administration. It was the surge in 2007 that essentially won the war and Obama had nothing to do with that. He is no more of a fire fighter than you are honest. Furthermore, if the liberal media had not opened the nightly news with the death toll for 4 years straight, perhaps it wouldn't have taken as long.

Your agenda on this forum has mirrored that of TomClowns as of late. You are completely preoccupied with blaming the republican party for every problem in this country and equally as preoccupied with giving credit to the democrats for solving those problems. All this has done is prove to every member of this forum how out of touch with reality you really are. No worries though professor, your reality check is coming soon. In two months, the American people are going to give these democrats who you praise as the saviors of our nation their report cards as they vote them right out of office.

To even consider giving Obama any credit for the Iraq war is insane. In fact, his little speech did nothing to help and was a transparent attempt to use the troop reductions for political gain. The result will be increased insurgent violence in Iraq in the upcoming weeks and months. Let's hope that the unstable Iraqi government and military is able to handle the situation, otherwise your boy Obama is going to have to send troops back in. Now that would be a political shame wouldn't it!

 

Facts eh?

The UN excuse was Bush’s 3rd reason for attacking Iraq right after his attempt to blame the Iraqis for 9/11 and just before the WMD nonsense. The UN did not sanction the attack on Iraq and called the attack illegal. As a matter of fact, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said:

Iraq War was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annan
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

But now the UN is used as the excuse for attacking a country that did not attack us. Your argument was debunked years ago and you are still making it. What does that say about you?

 

You're not very good at understanding analogies are you? The fire fighters in this analogy would be the US soldiers not Obama. As far as Iraq having an unstable government, well, that is usually the consequence of nation building. We are sticking to the policy of backing anyone willing to take our money to promote our interests (ironically our interests and the large U.S. Multinational Corporation interests seem to be one in the same). As long as we choose to put profit over democracy, we have no reason to expect any less than propped up unstable installed regimes. How'd that last Iraqi democratic election work out for them? Seems the guy that lost is still in power but we might as well stay and back him in the name of democracy right?

 

So in your analogy, the Fire Chief is responsible for arson. That is plain retarted.

The nation building that you are criticizing may well prove to be the act that spares the world from nuclear war. Unfortunately, you have the same short sightedness that most people have when considering foreign relations.

What else does TomC want you to post for him?

 

Maybe you should try and concentrate on my posts and leave Tom's imaginary participation out of this. You aren't doing that well with the added distraction of someone who isn't even in the conversation. Try and focus.

 

I did not realize that thief was qualified as a dictator of the UN. And I guess by your "WMD nonsense", you are accusing President Clinton of lying.

BTW, You are avoiding my question again;

 

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you. The 9/11 link to Saddam was never the primary reason for the war. The prelude to war existed during the entire 8 year Clinton administration and IIRC there were air strikes during the Clinton years as well.

You claim that the UN was reason 3 and that WMD's were reason #2. Guess what circus employee, they are linked. UN resolution 1441 which was unanimously approved btw, was about WMD's in Iraq. UN resolution was also what the US considered the last straw. Hans Blix (UN Chief Weapons Inspector) addressed the UN Security council in January 2003 to report:

Once that happened, the US considered Iraq in breach of the resolution and the UN impotent to effect any type of action from Iraq. The only other option available to the US was military action. We know you understand all this and remember it. You simply don't want to admit it because it does not conform to your theory that the republicans are to blame for everything.

Grow up and stop acting like TomClown.

 

Stop acting like Tomclown and I will stop treating you like him. Iran is the bigger problem and everybody but you knows this. The war in Iraq may just turn out to be the event that helps us avoid a nuclear war with Iran. I hope you are not claiming that the war with Iraq somehow stopped us from being able to stop Iran's nuclear plans. Iran has the largest military force in the world and a war with Iran will not be pretty. It will however necessitate that we have a launching point for our ground forces. For instance, a place like, IRAQ! Even with Iraq at our disposal for supply lines and troop deployment, it is debatable if we could actually defeat Iran in a ground war without using WMD's of our own.

And WMD's were a threat from Iraq. He used them against his own people and against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. Every piece of intelligence we had suggested that Iraq had WMD's. The Clinton administration believed, the Bush administration believed it, and the UN Security Council believed it. Only after obtaining the knowledge that the WMD's were no longer there are you able to state so confidently that they didn't exist. Your little revisionist dream is just that, fantasy. So you keep to your fairy tales and let the adults handle the foreign policy, okay!

 

I think they have you beat on this one Mr Moen.......

I am glad that we are out of combat missions and this wil end hopefully with a Democratic Iraq.....

the failed stimulus cost more than Iraq by the way......

Allow me to digress........

I have a daughter in the NAVY who left last week for 9 months....her ship, The USS Ponce, will be retriving service men and women and bringing them home. She is Chief Supply Officer. She quit a 70K a year job at General Electric to join the NAVY and applied for ( because she has an MBA ) and graduated OCS....Officer Candidate School in Rhode Island ( think Officer and a Gentleman movie ) . That kid left a cushy job to put herself thru hell for us.

I hope that ends the argument that only poor people and minoritys are forced into the military as a last resort. Clembo knows this story well.

Thanks Obama, you kept a campaign promise....kudos