Obama: Not Black?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
:yikes:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/11/obama-slavery/

Yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) announced his candidacy for president in Springfield, IL, where Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous “House Divided” address. In his speech, Obama reiterated his call to redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq by March 2008.

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol attacked Obama’s Iraq policy, saying he wants to appease terrorists like pro-slavery politician Stephen Douglas tried to appease slave-owners. Kristol said, “Obama’s speech is a ‘can’t we get along’ speech — sort of the opposite of Lincoln. He would have been with Stephen Douglas in 1858.”
 
And a response it got (for some reason :S )
SYDNEY, Australia - Australia’s conservative prime minister slammed Barack Obama on Sunday over his opposition to the Iraq war, a day after the first-term U.S. senator announced his intention to run for the White House in 2008.

Obama said Saturday at his campaign kickoff in Springfield, Ill., that one of the country’s first priorities should be ending the war in Iraq. He has also introduced a bill in the Senate to prevent President Bush from increasing American troop levels in Iraq and to remove U.S. combat forces from the country by March 31, 2008.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch Bush ally who has sent troops to Iraq and faces his own re-election bid later this year, said Obama’s proposals would spell disaster for the Middle East. “I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory,” Howard said on Nine Network television.

“If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.”

Howard has defied widespread domestic opposition to the war, keeping about 1,400 Australian troops in and around Iraq, mostly in non-combat roles. He is seeking a fifth term later this year, and recent polls suggest voters are increasingly unhappy about his refusal to set a deadline for withdrawing Australian troops from the Middle East.

“You either rat on the ally or you stay with the ally,” he said. “If it’s all right for us to go, it’s all right for the Americans and the British to go, and if everybody goes, Iraq will descend into total civil war and there’ll be a lot of bloodshed.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070211/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_obama_iraq
 
anitram said:
Wow, you Aussies have a complete moron for a PM.

Yes, we do. Actually, he's not a moron, he's very very smart, in an evil genius way. It's all a bit of a game for him, the reward is power. It's the only thing he really gives a fuck about.
 
deep said:


Obama is baca.

“Black As Circumstances Allow” = BACA

But as t8thgr8's comments in EYKIW demonstrate, he is beyond "MACA".

MACA = “Muslim As Circumstances Allow”
 
I had a friend who's parents were from South Africa, and he was born in the United States. He is White, and I remember when I first met him and he told me, my initial response was "so...you're African-American?"
 
Did anyone watch 60 Minutes? What Senator Obama said about the fact that he's always black when he's hailing a cab. Isn't that the irony? :| I really like his wife too, what I have seen of her.

Washington Post

SYDNEY, Australia -- Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Monday denied having a political motive when he said terrorists in Iraq would be praying for Democratic hopeful Barack Obama to become U.S. president. Howard, a steadfast supporter of President Bush in the Iraq war, insisted his criticism of Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in Iraq by March 31 next year was in Australia's national interest because Obama's plan would represent a defeat for Australia's most important military ally.

Howard's foray into U.S. politics dominated Monday's session of Parliament and news bulletins in Australia, and triggered a sharp response from Obama and senators on both sides of U.S. politics, including one who called the comments "bizarre."

The issue overshadowed the results of a new opinion poll published Monday showing Howard, who will attempt to lead his conservative coalition to a fifth term at elections expected later this year, is lagging badly behind Labor opposition leader Kevin Rudd.

In a nationally televised interview on Sunday, Howard said Obama's plan meant al-Qaida leaders in Iraq should "be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats" at presidential elections in November 2008.

Rudd said Howard's comments amounted to calling the Democrats "the terrorists' party of choice" and could harm Australia's future with a possible Democratic U.S. administration.

"I'm doing nothing of the kind. I don't retract anything I said," Howard told Parliament in Canberra.

He said the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq early next year would be seen as a U.S. defeat that would "encourage and give succor" to terrorists in the Middle East and Asia and be "catastrophic for the West."

"I hold the strongest possible view that it is contrary to the security interests of this country for America to be defeated in Iraq," Howard said.

"Let me make it perfectly clear, if I hear a policy being advocated that is contrary to Australia's security interests, I will criticize it."

Obama, in Iowa a day after formally announcing his candidacy, responded to Howard's initial comments by saying he was flattered that one of Bush's close allies had chosen to single him out for attack.

He then challenged Howard on his commitment to the Iraq conflict, noting the United States has nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq compared with Australia's about 1,400 forces in the region.

"So if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq," Obama said. "Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

In the latest ACNielsen poll published Monday in Fairfax newspapers, 48 percent of respondents named Rudd as their preferred prime minister, compared with 43 percent for Howard. Five percent were undecided. The national telephone survey of 1,412 voters was conducted Feb. 8-10 _ before Howard's comments on Obama _ and had a margin of error of 2.6 percentage points.

Howard said in a radio interview that Australia's troop commitment "very significant and appropriate" given the country's relatively small population of about 20 million.
 
Earnie Shavers said:


Yes, we do. Actually, he's not a moron, he's very very smart, in an evil genius way. It's all a bit of a game for him, the reward is power. It's the only thing he really gives a fuck about.

"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," [Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs] said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
 
So does this mean that anyone who is pro-war is stupid? Aren't they entitled to there opinion. Do any of you anti-war people in here find any war justifiable?
 
yolland said:
IMHO, it's a little silly to treat an online forum as some foolproof barometer of what people "really" stand for, for good or for bad.

:up:

I'm one of those fools who think that colour and gender shouldn't matter, but it's so intriguing that these elements are now being discussed openly and debated. Interesting, as well, how both are still seen as threatening to the establishment.

In the midst of all the personal attacks, there is some sort of progress happening that's pretty refreshing.
 
angelordevil said:
I'm one of those fools who think that colour and gender shouldn't matter, but it's so intriguing that these elements are now being discussed openly and debated. Interesting, as well, how both are still seen as threatening to the establishment.

They do still matter, though, and maybe more progress will be made with the discussions taking place about the coming election.
 
martha said:


They do still matter, though, and maybe more progress will be made with the discussions taking place about the coming election.

Totally. When I said they shouldn't matter, I meant in the ultimate sense of 'we're all equal,' but it's obviously going to be a monumental journey to get to that point.
 
What strikes me most about the comments is that Howard has put his relationship with GWB ahead of Australia's national interest in the alliance with the USA; perhaps it does tip that he isn't expecting to be PM by the time that there is a Democrat in the White House.
 
Back
Top Bottom