The Obama Deception

[pamarella]

i just wanted to bring this up since a new article was just brought to my attention that highlights yet another obama deception: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090501...edit_pickle;_ylt=ap2ow.sngiobfr7igyz761qd5gcf

-_--_--_- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bob George]

About Guantanamo bay, My understanding they have released many of the prisoner and sent them back to there country and obama have orderd guantanamo bay closed that is the reason they are returning the prisoner to there country.

Obama's not going to be releasing gitmo detainees. His defense secretary, Robert Gates, said just yesterday that up to 100 detainees may not be released and that the question is still open as to if Obama will even shut down guantanamo. Full article: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/50_100_Guantanamo_inmates_can_t_be__04302009.html

Obama is still pulling the troops out of iraq, it maybe a different time line. the point is he is still pulling the troops out he has kept is word regardless of the time line.

Well he hasn't kept his word yet. US troops are still in Iraq and their withdrawal has been pushed back 23 months, possibly an additional six months on top of that.

about the wire taping i dont agree with it, but it suppose to be used for tracking terriost,

Well it's not. US officials have admitted to wiretapping beyond the bounds of law and AT&T has been sued for warantless wiretapping.

I am pleased with what obbama has done and so are the majority of american people. many world leaders are pleased with the way president obama is conducting business!

Of course world leaders are pleased with Obama. He supports their agenda. He wants to unify the world under global governence.

so the people that are trying to twist things around need to stop and get over it cause president obama is the president let him do his job.

The only person twisting things around is Obama and the mainstream media. I'm trying to put everything he says and does through a BS filter. I don't like what Obama's doing, I don't like what he plans to do, I'm not going to "let him do his job". And I certainly hope there remains free-minded individuals around the world who wont simply "let him do his job" either.

 

[blueocean]

Obama's not going to be releasing gitmo detainees. His defense secretary, Robert Gates, said just yesterday that up to 100 detainees may not be released and that the question is still open as to if Obama will even shut down guantanamo. Full article: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/50_100_Guantanamo_inmates_can_t_be__04302009.html


Well he hasn't kept his word yet. US troops are still in Iraq and their withdrawal has been pushed back 23 months, possibly an additional six months on top of that.


Well it's not. US officials have admitted to wiretapping beyond the bounds of law and AT&T has been sued for warantless wiretapping.


Of course world leaders are pleased with Obama. He supports their agenda. He wants to unify the world under global governence.


The only person twisting things around is Obama and the mainstream media. I'm trying to put everything he says and does through a BS filter. I don't like what Obama's doing, I don't like what he plans to do, I'm not going to "let him do his job". And I certainly hope there remains free-minded individuals around the world who wont simply "let him do his job" either.

From the article, quote:his comments mad clear that some inmates might have to be detained further even after the controversial prison at "guantanamo bay is closed as ordered by president obama" the us administration is closely reviewing the files of about 240 detainees held at the center to determine who could be transferred to other countries or tried in th civlian court the same court under president bush administration, about 60 detainees have been cleared of wrong doing. What i am saying president obama is against the torture that happen at guantanamo bay under bush administration thats why this is going on. some have been released and returned to there country authorities. the troops in iraq are leaving it has been sign the time line is different but he has kept his word by signing the release date, president bush wanted to keep the troops in iraq and did not sign to release the troops, unlike obama who has sign the release of the troops. about the wiretaping situation it was done under the bush administration not obama administration, obama only agreed to the act not the method that president bush administration did, the bush administration was known for breaking the rules!

 

[Bob George]

president bush wanted to keep the troops in iraq and did not sign to release the troops, unlike obama who has sign the release of the troops.

In his last year in office, Bush was negotiating a withdrawal plan that Obama ended up following through with after he was inaugurated. He's using Bush's withdrawal plan. http://www.talkshowamerica.com/2009/02/obamas-iraq-withdrawal-plan-actually.html

about the wiretaping situation it was done under the bush administration not obama administration, obama only agreed to the act not the method that president bush administration did, the bush administration was known for breaking the rules!

Again, Obama is following Bush's lead on wiretapping. Ever since his inauguration he has continued the warantless wiretapping that was conducted by the Bush administration. http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05

Last month he blocked an investigation into warantless wiretapping saying the information was too sensitive for the public and needed to remain secret. http://www.prisonplanet.com/followi...o-block-challenge-to-wiretapping-program.html

In fact, this clip from the Olbermann report (Obama's biggest support in the mainstream media) says Obama does not only wish to continue Bush's warantless wiretapping, but expand the government's authority to do so:

 

[pamarella]

Bob George, This only proves that Obama is not as Liberal as some would like to suggest. Most people that disagree with this tend to be Liberals... Also there is information that Obama didn't have as a candidate that he now has as President. This may be one thing that he and Bush may agree on. So what, that doesn't mean that Obama is following all of the policies of Bush. Obama, did say that he would govern on behalf of the American people in gerneral and not be dictated to by any particular group. Most Americans feel that if you are following the law as a citizen and you are not doing anything illegal, then you don't have nothing to hide if the government is listening through wiretaps. And a lot of American feel that because of terroist threats, there may be times that wiretaps must be done. I do like Keith Olberman, but like Linda had said, MSNBC is the complete opposite of Fox News. Trust me, keep watching and you will see that they will not continue to bash Obama.

 

[Bob George]

Bob George, This only proves that Obama is not as Liberal as some would like to suggest. Most people that disagree with this tend to be Liberals...

So it's good that he's not a liberal like all his followers are? It's a good thing that people thought they were voting for a liberal but really they were voting for someone with a ruthless foreign policy? But again, there's no deception and he really is different to Bush. Or have you abandoned that theory now?

Also there is information that Obama didn't have as a candidate that he now has as President.

There are also influences that exist in his career now that didn't before. There's also that taste of power that makes him want more. Power corrupts. If he goes into the Presidency wanting a more peaceful approach to national defense, one that doesn't sacrifice the civil liberties of his people, but turns out going against that and changing his position once in office, then how does that make him a good, honest President? How is that not a deception? How is that even excusable? It seems you are really stretching now to deny Obama is just like Bush, a fascist with a fresh face.

This may be one thing that he and Bush may agree on.

Along with Iraq, war on terror, war on drugs, wiretapping, same sex marriage, bank bailouts etc.

So what, that doesn't mean that Obama is following all of the policies of Bush.

I've given you numerous articles now that report on how Obama is specifically following Bush's policies.

Obama, did say that he would govern on behalf of the American people in gerneral and not be dictated to by any particular group.

yeh, he wont be dictated by any particular group... except bankers and wall street.

Most Americans feel that if you are following the law as a citizen and you are not doing anything illegal, then you don't have nothing to hide if the government is listening through wiretaps.

Everyone should have a basic right to privacy. If you're doing nothing wrong, it's not that you shouldn't worry about the government spying on you, the government just shouldn't spy on you! Come on, how can you even make an excuse for that? Oh, because Obama's doing it now?

I can't believe you are still trying to argue with me when I say Obama is the same as Bush and all that happens when the US gets a new President is that the right and left switch and everything Bush did that the left was against is OK now that Obama's doing it. How can you argue with that now, after you just defended wiretapping because Obama's doing yet I would be willing to bet, although I acknowledge that it's unfair to presume because I don't know you, that you were against wiretapping when Bush did it.

Btw, I highly doubt most Americans feel the same way you do that the government spying on them is OK. I'll look around for polls on the issue. I'm sure the majority would support their basic right to privacy.

And a lot of American feel that because of terroist threats, there may be times that wiretaps must be done. I do like Keith Olberman, but like Linda had said, MSNBC is the complete opposite of Fox News. Trust me, keep watching and you will see that they will not continue to bash Obama.

I know MSNBC is totally for Obama. That's why I chose that clip specifically. It's Obama's biggest supporter in the media, Keith Olbermann, criticising him for wanting to expand Bush's unconstitutional warantless wiretapping. I have to give a lot of respect for Olbermann. He's for Obama but he at least puts principles above politicians and will call out Obama when he does something wrong. Obama supporters should take note.

 

[movingcoolcat]

My theory about concpiracy theories:

People are trying to make this complex, messy, unpredictable and beautiful world understandable and predictable.

If one can divide people and actions into two chategories; good versus evil it would all be so mutch easier.

I believe that the truth is that a lot of thing happen that are not planned, and even if its planned it may very well turn out different then anticipated.
There are reasons why so many companies are using so mutch money to try to understand their customers; its because it very, very difficult to understand peoples actions, reactions, emotions, desires etc...
Presidents and people of power are not different from everyone else in this.

My view on the Obama administration ( because even if he is the president, he is not ruling alone):
The positive tendencies are that he knows that the US position as the worlds leading superpower is over, and that the US needs to have allies, needs to negotiate, needs to participate. And this might mean that there is a game of give and take, and that some times the US has to do some "horse- trading" ( give in to something that they dont want to, due to gaining something they need)..

There will never be one "world leader".
It just wont be possible- look at this world with all its differences and conflicts; witch maniac would attempt to create a union of all this mess?

Apart from that; the very fact that he got elected brings me hope for the future, because of its symbolic meaning. The first african american president. No matter what happens, this fact speaks about the US as a nation that are in change.

Conspiracy theories are mostly entertaining, and in my opinion most of them are interpreting the facts to suit the theories.
Its often useful to look at the enterpretor of facts, because even if he or she may have some valid points its still coloured by the motives of creating the theory.
Just look at all the "documentaries" crated about Michael.
One other thing to remember is that the creators of documentaries knows how to manipulate your emotions. They know how to put things together, how to use the tome of voice, music, sounds etc...
Its rarely a balanced presentation of facts. Its made to manipulate.
Even if one agrees to their presentation, this needs to be recogniced for what it is.

 

[Bob George]

In response to the above post...

OK. First of all, I was hoping to steer this thread clear of conspiracy theories and focus on Obama and the deception that he is change, he represents change and he will make the world a better place. I know Alex Jones has many theories about 9/11, JKF etc. Well, it's essentially one theory, that a group of elites run the world, and everything else like 9/11 and JFK he blames on them. But despite that, I wanted to focus on the core of the documentary which was that Obama is just like Bush, he'll continue the policies of Bush, he'll continue to be controlled by special interests and that freedom and liberty are in jeopardy because of the tyrannical trend of the world governments. So I just wanted to focus on that. But now that you bring up conspiracy theories, I'll address them.

I agree in part what you're saying about people creating conspiracy theories so they can make the world they live in more understandable. That's true to a certain extent. But sometimes "conspiracy theories" are what the real conspirators call the truth. If seeking to understand the world leads you to become a conspiracy theorist, then just simply trusting government explanations for unusual events must mean you have no desire to understand it, you don't care, you're completely apathetic and you are willing to just trust that other people will do the understanding for you and then give you the official explanation.

I think it's very important to question everything. The official explanation and the conspiracy theories alike. As you mentioned, people often have motives and hidden agendas. So you can't trust anyone to tell you the truth because you don't know if they have a hidden agenda or not. But it would seem to me that the people asking questions and trying to find the truth, people who you call "conspiracy theorists" don't have an agenda beyond getting the truth out. But the government, on the other hand, always has an agenda. That's the nature of governance.

But do I necessarily believe these "conspiracy theories"? I don't know. That's the most honest answer I can give. As far as 9/11 is concerned, the only thing I do know is that the official explanation leaves me with a lot of questions. Are those questions answered by 9/11 truthers? Not necessarily. But I will say that I do not believe the official government report. Of all the things people like Alex Jones say. The only "conspiracy theory" I can say with some amount of certainty I do believe in, is that the world governments are co-conspiring to reach global governance and to that that they need to deprive free countries of their freedom, they need to tax people into debt to the government, and they need to control the population and reduce it to reach their goal. I think you've got to be ignoring a lot of obvious signs to say that's not happening.

But does that make me a "conspiracy theorist"? Because I'm trying to understand the world? Better than being apathetic about it and just cruising by in life not giving a damn about what goes on the world and if maybe the people running it can't be trusted. I don't know what's wrong with trying to understand the world. To me, it seems like people are trying to undermine "conspiracy theorists" by examining their psychology and saying they are trying to put the world into a simple explanation they can understand. Like there is something psychologically wrong with the quest for information, truth and understanding. There's nothing wrong with it. There may be something wrong with the theories themselves, they may just be flat out wrong. But the intent of those who created those theories based on their research is usually pure and there's nothing wrong with questioning authority and official explanations for unusual events.

Now that I've said my piece on "conspiracy theories", I'd like to address somethings you said specifically.

There will never be one "world leader".
It just wont be possible- look at this world with all its differences and conflicts; witch maniac would attempt to create a union of all this mess?

Well the people who want global governance will argue that this is the reason global government is needed. They will say it will unify countries and they'll stop fighting. I mean, how can you attack another country is there are no countries, just one big world government? What globalists fail to understand is that global government will cause more fighting and more wars and the whole world will be one big riot. It will be a total mess.

Apart from that; the very fact that he got elected brings me hope for the future, because of its symbolic meaning. The first african american president. No matter what happens, this fact speaks about the US as a nation that are in change.

The only change that would bring me hope would be if someone, of any colour, rose to a high position in the world like US President who actually supports freedom and liberty, someone representing the people, someone who will tear down big government from the inside. Until that time comes, when someone is elected to a powerful position in the world who wants real change, then I don't feel any sort of hope for the future because a half-black guy was made President. To me, he just represents the same old. He represents about as much change to me as McCain would have if he won instead.

 

[movingcoolcat]

I have a lot of respect for your search for truth, and for your need to question things. Its a healthy scepticism in this, and its far better then blindly following what is presented as the truth.
I also agree that the belief that a global "union" will be a solution is the wrong way to go. Instead I think that adressing the problems we face globally will need to be solved in union, but as independent nations agreeing to international solutions for various problems.
There are many problems that can not be solved on a national level, but that does not mean that there needs to be a "world government".


But in this I am more pragmatic then anything else. I do think we need to have some level of trust in the government because anarchy is not a real option. But the distribution of power needs to be sutch that the different parts keep eatchother in check.

What I do think is a major problem today is how the media works. I do not trust them, because when the main agenda is to earn money for the owners, the focus will be to put in print what sells. And the owners will often be "in bed with the enemy" ( the politicians, the owners of large companies etc..). Independent and critical journalism has in most cases dies of starvation.
But this is also something people need to take responsebility for. If reality trash, gossip and sensationalism is what sells, then that is what we get.
So people in general is also accountable for what kind of society we get.
If people are blindly accepting whatever they are served, then they get the government they deserve.
In this I totally agree with you that a healthy portion of scepticism towards people in power is needed. Still, I am not to worried about Obama being less about change than what people want him to be.
There needs to be a reality check when it comes to what one person can do. If he had the power to change all; what would that say about the amount of power given to one man? Is that a healthy way to distribute power?
I think that the reality is that he is a positive force for change, but whatever is going to come out of it is a blend of what different interests and powers have managed to reach an agreement on.
Change comes from within, and it takes time. It takes time and a lot of patience and a lot of negotiation to get different people with different agendas to agree on something.
But the biggest force for change comes from the people themself. Because that is where the seed to change always has grown from. When the need for change grows strong enough- there will be change.

Keep the discussions coming- its good to hear what you think about this, and its interesting to hear what others think about this as well.:yes:
Sharing our opinions, ad reading what others think is a great way of leaning something new.

 

[Bob George]

But in this I am more pragmatic then anything else. I do think we need to have some level of trust in the government because anarchy is not a real option. But the distribution of power needs to be sutch that the different parts keep eatchother in check.

I agree that anarchy isn't a real option, but self-governance is an option and small, localised government is an option. I think if your government was run mainly from a local level, then of course you could trust your government. At a local level, your government is probably full of people you see every weekend at the football or church or something. Of course you can trust them. But when your local government is heavily influenced by federal government, and you see military working closely with local police, then I think there's cause for concern. If your government is being influenced by bigger government who in turned are influenced by private bankers, then can you really put that much trust in government?

What I do think is a major problem today is how the media works. I do not trust them, because when the main agenda is to earn money for the owners, the focus will be to put in print what sells. And the owners will often be "in bed with the enemy" ( the politicians, the owners of large companies etc..). Independent and critical journalism has in most cases dies of starvation.
But this is also something people need to take responsebility for. If reality trash, gossip and sensationalism is what sells, then that is what we get.
So people in general is also accountable for what kind of society we get.
If people are blindly accepting whatever they are served, then they get the government they deserve.

Mainstream media is a bit of a farce but I don't worry because information is not something we are deprived of these days. You can go on the Internet and find out anything your want to know. It's great. So I don't worry myself about getting the real news. What worries me is people who watch Fox or MSNBC for their news and only watch Fox or MSNBC. I try to encourage as many people as I can to use the Internet more as a news source than television.

In this I totally agree with you that a healthy portion of scepticism towards people in power is needed. Still, I am not to worried about Obama being less about change than what people want him to be.
There needs to be a reality check when it comes to what one person can do. If he had the power to change all; what would that say about the amount of power given to one man? Is that a healthy way to distribute power?

Well actually I was talking about this maybe a page or two back. The powers granted to the office of President of the United States since 9/11 have become such that at any time Obama could take on the role of dictator if he declares a state of emergency. But you said yourself, Obama doesn't act alone. There's a big group of people (cabinet members, lobbyists, powerful individuals like world bankers etc.) with massive influence over the President and so I don't fear what Obama can do but what his masters will make him do.

I think that the reality is that he is a positive force for change, but whatever is going to come out of it is a blend of what different interests and powers have managed to reach an agreement on.
Change comes from within, and it takes time. It takes time and a lot of patience and a lot of negotiation to get different people with different agendas to agree on something.
But the biggest force for change comes from the people themself. Because that is where the seed to change always has grown from. When the need for change grows strong enough- there will be change.

I agree that change comes from the people. It will be a people movement, not a single politician, that brings change. There is one thing about Obama that does give me hope actually. Because he hyped himself up as an agent of change, and because he will let the people down, I think there will be an uprising from the people maybe in 2012 or later that could possibly bring change. The biggest hope I see in Obama is that he may turn people against him, against government.

Keep the discussions coming- its good to hear what you think about this, and its interesting to hear what others think about this as well.:yes:
Sharing our opinions, ad reading what others think is a great way of leaning something new.

Totally. I love it. I love when people express their opinions and I love expressing mine. It's so healthy. Keep it up everyone.

 

[pamarella]

So it's good that he's not a liberal like all his followers are? It's a good thing that people thought they were voting for a liberal but really they were voting for someone with a ruthless foreign policy? But again, there's no deception and he really is different to Bush. Or have you abandoned that theory now?

There are also influences that exist in his career now that didn't before. There's also that taste of power that makes him want more. Power corrupts. If he goes into the Presidency wanting a more peaceful approach to national defense, one that doesn't sacrifice the civil liberties of his people, but turns out going against that and changing his position once in office, then how does that make him a good, honest President? How is that not a deception? How is that even excusable? It seems you are really stretching now to deny Obama is just like Bush, a fascist with a fresh face.

Along with Iraq, war on terror, war on drugs, wiretapping, same sex marriage, bank bailouts etc.

I've given you numerous articles now that report on how Obama is specifically following Bush's policies.

yeh, he wont be dictated by any particular group... except bankers and wall street.

Everyone should have a basic right to privacy. If you're doing nothing wrong, it's not that you shouldn't worry about the government spying on you, the government just shouldn't spy on you! Come on, how can you even make an excuse for that? Oh, because Obama's doing it now?

I can't believe you are still trying to argue with me when I say Obama is the same as Bush and all that happens when the US gets a new President is that the right and left switch and everything Bush did that the left was against is OK now that Obama's doing it. How can you argue with that now, after you just defended wiretapping because Obama's doing yet I would be willing to bet, although I acknowledge that it's unfair to presume because I don't know you, that you were against wiretapping when Bush did it.

Btw, I highly doubt most Americans feel the same way you do that the government spying on them is OK. I'll look around for polls on the issue. I'm sure the majority would support their basic right to privacy.

I know MSNBC is totally for Obama. That's why I chose that clip specifically. It's Obama's biggest supporter in the media, Keith Olbermann, criticising him for wanting to expand Bush's unconstitutional warantless wiretapping. I have to give a lot of respect for Olbermann. He's for Obama but he at least puts principles above politicians and will call out Obama when he does something wrong. Obama supporters should take note.

So it's good that he's not a liberal like all his followers are? It's a good thing that people thought they were voting for a liberal but really they were voting for someone with a ruthless foreign policy? But again, there's no deception and he really is different to Bush. Or have you abandoned that theory now?

Not everyone who voted for Obama are liberals so that's not true about all of his followers. But everyone that voted for Obama knows that he is not Bush.

If he goes into the Presidency wanting a more peaceful approach to national defense, one that doesn't sacrifice the civil liberties of his people, but turns out going against that and changing his position once in office, then how does that make him a good, honest President? How is that not a deception? How is that even excusable? It seems you are really stretching now to deny Obama is just like Bush, a fascist with a fresh face.

You are really over reacting. FASCIST?:rofl: Yep!! You are a right winger for sure.... And you are NAIVE!!!

How can you argue with that now, after you just defended wiretapping because Obama's doing yet I would be willing to bet, although I acknowledge that it's unfair to presume because I don't know you, that you were against wiretapping when Bush did it.

I never said that I had a problem with wiretapping. I am one of those Americans that believe that it should be done if our security is at risk. I do believe that Obama's approach would trully be for the security of Americans. And MOST Americans will not be wiredtapped. So it depends on how the question of "BASIC RIGHTS is address. Most Americans didn't have a problem with wiretapping when it came to national security. The Bush administration abused a lot of it's power. The Bush administration was on a fishing expedition looking for an excuse to try and link Iraq with Al-Qaeda. They knew that there was no link . What every chatter they could try and get, that can then say that that person was tied to Al-Qaeda.

I've given you numerous articles now that report on how Obama is specifically following Bush's policies.

It still doesn't mean that he will do everything the same as Bush... And the Republicans here in America don't believe he is following Bush..

Give up Bob George, Obama is the President for the next 8 years.. DEAL WITH IT.

 

[Superstition]

I just wanted to bring this up since a new article was just brought to my attention that highlights yet another Obama deception: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090501...edit_pickle;_ylt=Ap2OW.snGIOBFR7iGyz761QD5gcF

That may be an error of sorts, but it's not really a deception. You are still getting the money. All that's happening is that the government is taking out less than they should and you have to give them what's due at the end of the year. You are still receiving the credit.

Inconvenient? Yes. Deception? No, you're still getting the $400-$600, it's just that you may be getting back $800 and then have to pay back $200 - $400 (purely an example on my part).

 

[Bob George]

You are really over reacting. FASCIST?:rofl: Yep!! You are a right winger for sure.... And you are NAIVE!!!

You are naive if you don't think we're all living a fascist society. We're living in a complete control grid, a police state, where we've lost the right to privacy, we're losing the freedom of speech, the freedom to protect ourselves, the freedom of information and it's happening all around the world. Everywhere we go we are checked for ID, randomly searched for no reason. Global organisations are gaining more and more control, the WHO, the UN. There's an elite group of globalists who want complete control and Obama is their puppet in the US executive office. That makes him a fascist. He's perpetrating fascism in the US, he is fascist.

I never said that I had a problem with wiretapping. I am one of those Americans that believe that it should be done if our security is at risk.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

The Bush administration abused a lot of it's power.

And Obama's not? He's continuing warantless wiretapping according to numerous reports and he's seeking to expand his authority to do so. He's Bush on steroids.

It still doesn't mean that he will do everything the same as Bush... And the Republicans here in America don't believe he is following Bush..

Of course the Republicans don't think he's like Bush. It's their job to oppose him. They are just as clueless as the Democrats. As I said before, all that happens when a new President is elected in the left and right switch sides. Everything Bush did that Obama is now doing, the Republicans are against. It's so predictable.

Give up Bob George, Obama is the President for the next 8 years.. DEAL WITH IT.

I will never give up, I will never deal with it. It's not in my nature. I can't let this happen and I will continue to spread information, I will do my part to at least try to prevent this world from going under. When I see things heading in the wrong direction I shout at the top of my lungs, "TURN AROUND! GO BACK!"

 

[sweet princess]

How is 75% of it junk. Just look at the facts:

Obama said he would pull the troops out of Iraq within 6 months before he was inaugurated. Then once he was the Prez, there was a timeline of up to 16 months until the troops would be pulled out. 2 weeks later it went up to 23 months to pull out 'some' of the troops out.

Then he doubles the amount of troops in Afghanistan to 30,000. So he's not bring the troops home at all.

Then he Obama decided he is going to set up missile systems in Pakistan. I think the fact that Obama kept Bush's Defence Of Secretary Robert Gates might have something to do with it!!!

He at first decried Bush's illegal wiretapping but then Obama legalised it??

Obama then reinstated the Patriot act.

When the press had a chance to read the Executive Order to shut Guantanamo Bay, the saw that it only said that Obama was thinking about closing it down. He didnt actually sign anything saying he would close it. In fact under orders from Obama, the CIA still has the authority to torture detainees, carry out renditions and secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the US so that detainees can be tortured in foreign countries. And the prisoners dont even know where they're being taken! None of these prisoners have even been charged with a crime or given legal counsel.

So Obama isnt just endorsing Bush's crimes but he is also continuing them!

All of this within 3 months. Hate to see what will happen by the end of his 1 term!!

Bravo!:clapping:Finally, someone who sees past all the stuff that Obama has been saying. Thank you for not sugar coating it.:yes:

 

[blueocean]

In his last year in office, Bush was negotiating a withdrawal plan that Obama ended up following through with after he was inaugurated. He's using Bush's withdrawal plan. http://www.talkshowamerica.com/2009/02/obamas-iraq-withdrawal-plan-actually.html

Again, Obama is following Bush's lead on wiretapping. Ever since his inauguration he has continued the warantless wiretapping that was conducted by the Bush administration. http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05

Last month he blocked an investigation into warantless wiretapping saying the information was too sensitive for the public and needed to remain secret. http://www.prisonplanet.com/followi...o-block-challenge-to-wiretapping-program.html

In fact, this clip from the Olbermann report (Obama's biggest support in the mainstream media) says Obama does not only wish to continue Bush's warantless wiretapping, but expand the government's authority to do so:

I highly dought president bush would have released the troops, even if he said he would, a year after the war started with iraq the troops were to be released the following year or two that never happened,and bush lied to go to war with iraq so he could get his hands on that oil. unlike obama who did not vote for the war he will release the troops cause he never approved of the war in the first place, opposite personality of bush!
the wire tapping is for tracking the terroist, the method the bush administration used, I dought obama administartion will follow there method, bush broke many rules for his personal agenda. not just for tracking terroist!

 

[Bob George]

I highly dought president bush would have released the troops, even if he said he would, a year after the war started with iraq the troops were to be released the following year or two that never happened,and bush lied to go to war with iraq so he could get his hands on that oil. unlike obama who did not vote for the war he will release the troops cause he never approved of the war in the first place, opposite personality of bush!

Obama didn't vote for the war because he wasn't in the Senate. A lot of people seem to think he voted against it. No, he just didn't vote because he wasn't a Senator at the time. He only became a US Senator in 2005. Since then he has completely supported the Iraq war. His voting record shows that. As much as you doubt Bush would have pulled the troops out, I doubt Obama will. He wants to keep the troops in there as long as possible while pretending to be negotiating their withdrawal. He's quite happy with the US occupation Bush set up in Iraq because once he gets his 20,000 troops into Afghanistan they will be surrounding Iran on both sides. I don't know how you can say someone who wants to send more troops to the area, is delaying the withdrawal from Iraq, who is continuing wiretapping and who is not going to give gitmo detainees basic rights like he promised, is a completely different personality to Bush. If anything he is even more militarily aggressive. For crying out loud, he said he wants to create a million man private army. He's a total police-state-type. I hated Bush but he was really soft compared to Obama.

the wire tapping is for tracking the terroist, the method the bush administration used, I dought obama administartion will follow there method, bush broke many rules for his personal agenda. not just for tracking terroist!

You doubt it but it's been reported by mainstream media and alternative media alike.

 

[blueocean]

Obama didn't vote for the war because he wasn't in the Senate. A lot of people seem to think he voted against it. No, he just didn't vote because he wasn't a Senator at the time. He only became a US Senator in 2005. Since then he has completely supported the Iraq war. His voting record shows that. As much as you doubt Bush would have pulled the troops out, I doubt Obama will. He wants to keep the troops in there as long as possible while pretending to be negotiating their withdrawal. He's quite happy with the US occupation Bush set up in Iraq because once he gets his 20,000 troops into Afghanistan they will be surrounding Iran on both sides. I don't know how you can say someone who wants to send more troops to the area, is delaying the withdrawal from Iraq, who is continuing wiretapping and who is not going to give gitmo detainees basic rights like he promised, is a completely different personality to Bush. If anything he is even more militarily aggressive. For crying out loud, he said he wants to create a million man private army. He's a total police-state-type. I hated Bush but he was really soft compared to Obama.

You doubt it but it's been reported by mainstream media and alternative media alike.

The reason obama is sending more troops to afghanistan is to fight the real war on terror, the taliban! remember osama bin laden ? bush was more interested in the oil in iraq than what was happening in afghanistan, unlike bush obama is more interested in finding bin laden and stopping the taliban ring of terror, different personality from bush. bush wants the oil and obama wants the taliban!

 

[Bob George]

The reason obama is sending more troops to afghanistan is to fight the real war on terror, the taliban! remember osama bin laden ? bush was more interested in the oil in iraq than what was happening in afghanistan, unlike bush obama is more interested in finding bin laden and stopping the taliban ring of terror, different personality from bush. bush wants the oil and obama wants the taliban!

And Afghanistan is the #1 supplier of opium in the world. In fact, that wasn't the case until the US invaded. There's many reasons why Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan. The least of which is al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Look at the geo-political advantage if the US sets itself up in Iraq and Afghanistan, surrounding Iran on both sides. Obama is not one bit interested in finding Osama bin Laden. He is too much of an asset to the US. Whether he did 9/11 or not (which is disputed, even by the FBI), he is a poster-boy for terrorism and as long as people think he's alive they'll think there's a big threat of Islamic terrorism. He's also acted on the CIA's behalf to recruit mujahideen members to fight against the Soviets in the 80s. I don't think they want to lose him as a CIA asset and as an image of terrorism all around the world. That image of OBL gives the US so much leeway to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, launch a global war on terror, repeal civil liberties for the sake of fighting terrorism. It really is perfect for them that he's still alive, at least in the peoples' minds.

 

[blueocean]

And Afghanistan is the #1 supplier of opium in the world. In fact, that wasn't the case until the US invaded. There's many reasons why Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan. The least of which is al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Look at the geo-political advantage if the US sets itself up in Iraq and Afghanistan, surrounding Iran on both sides. Obama is not one bit interested in finding Osama bin Laden. He is too much of an asset to the US. Whether he did 9/11 or not (which is disputed, even by the FBI), he is a poster-boy for terrorism and as long as people think he's alive they'll think there's a big threat of Islamic terrorism. He's also acted on the CIA's behalf to recruit mujahideen members to fight against the Soviets in the 80s. I don't think they want to lose him as a CIA asset and as an image of terrorism all around the world. That image of OBL gives the US so much leeway to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, launch a global war on terror, repeal civil liberties for the sake of fighting terrorism. It really is perfect for them that he's still alive, at least in the peoples' minds.

I believe obama is interested in finding bin laden and stopping the war of terror
I dont believe this president in interested in the opium there, and time will show what president obama is all about, for now i take his word I happen to believe he is a cariing and honest man and trying to be a tough man all at the same time. yes I herd osama bin laden worked for the cia back then, but obama is not bush or bush sir, time will show what president obama is all about.

 

[Bob George]

I believe obama is interested in finding bin laden and stopping the war of terror
I dont believe this president in interested in the opium there, and time will show what president obama is all about, for now i take his word I happen to believe he is a cariing and honest man and trying to be a tough man all at the same time. yes I herd osama bin laden worked for the cia back then, but obama is not bush or bush sir, time will show what president obama is all about.

I believe Obama is a good man too. But I also believe power corrupts and that position of President of the United States is so powerful and held in such high regard by people that no honest man stands a chance if elected President. Look, Obama won't end the war of terror because it's war that was never supposed to end. There's no enemy, no end goal. Think about it. If the end goal is eradicating terrorism in the middle east then you are never going to win. Especially when you set up a US occupation in the area that fuels hatred and creates more and more Islamic extremists who become insurgent. They've set it up so that it can never be winnable.

 

[pamarella]

The reason obama is sending more troops to afghanistan is to fight the real war on terror, the taliban! remember osama bin laden ? bush was more interested in the oil in iraq than what was happening in afghanistan, unlike bush obama is more interested in finding bin laden and stopping the taliban ring of terror, different personality from bush. bush wants the oil and obama wants the taliban!

:yes::yes::yes:

 

[pamarella]

I believe Obama is a good man too. But I also believe power corrupts and that position of President of the United States is so powerful and held in such high regard by people that no honest man stands a chance if elected President. Look, Obama won't end the war of terror because it's war that was never supposed to end. There's no enemy, no end goal. Think about it. If the end goal is eradicating terrorism in the middle east then you are never going to win. Especially when you set up a US occupation in the area that fuels hatred and creates more and more Islamic extremists who become insurgent. They've set it up so that it can never be winnable.

Well Obama met with both leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan and they pledge to help Obama fight the Taliban and Al -Qaeda...... OBL may be dead. American intelligents believe that might be the case. But there are other leaders of Al Qaeda that are plotting to attack the U.S.A.

 

[Bob George]

Well Obama met with both leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan and they pledge to help Obama fight the Taliban and Al -Qaeda...... OBL may be dead. American intelligents believe that might be the case. But there are other leaders of Al Qaeda that are plotting to attack the U.S.A.

And they were just talking the other day about Iran helping in the war on terror. lol

The Eurasian Union is ever closer.

 

[pamarella]

And they were just talking the other day about Iran helping in the war on terror. lol

The Eurasian Union is ever closer.

Well it's possible. It's been said that the Iranian people like Obama and they are not happy with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

[Bob George]

more Obama deception....

White House opposes release of alleged prisoner abuse photos

The Obama administration changed direction today, announcing that it would oppose the release of photographs showing the alleged abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The administration this month had agreed to release dozens of the photographs but reversed course after top military officials said they were concerned that the photos could put U.S. troops in jeopardy, particularly in Afghanistan.


Obama to revive ‘tarnished’ Guantanamo military trials

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama is to announce this week that he is reviving controversial military trials for terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, US officials said.

But Obama, who sharply criticized the use of military commissions to try extremists under his predecessor George W. Bush, may ask lawmakers to expand legal protections for detainees, the officials said Tuesday, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

 

[pamarella]

more Obama deception....

White House opposes release of alleged prisoner abuse photos

The Obama administration changed direction today, announcing that it would oppose the release of photographs showing the alleged abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The administration this month had agreed to release dozens of the photographs but reversed course after top military officials said they were concerned that the photos could put U.S. troops in jeopardy, particularly in Afghanistan.


Obama to revive ‘tarnished’ Guantanamo military trials

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama is to announce this week that he is reviving controversial military trials for terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, US officials said.

But Obama, who sharply criticized the use of military commissions to try extremists under his predecessor George W. Bush, may ask lawmakers to expand legal protections for detainees, the officials said Tuesday, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

It's not a deception. There are going to be times when the president will have to change how he looks at certain issues. Obama has always said that he will listen to everyones opinion and he will make his decision based on the information he receiecves. Like I said before it's one thing when you are a candidate running for president and another thing when you are actually in the office of the president. YOU ARE EXPOSED TO MORE DETAILED INFORMATION.

It is a possible security threats to some of the arm forces if those photos are realeased. He said that it really didn't have anything to add to the argument of what took place. We all know that those prisoners were mistreated and OBAMA HAS CHANGED HOW PRISONERS ARE TREATED OR WILL BE TREATED going forward. And he said that he will release them when the war is over in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Only the LIBERALS are having an issue. He is not a liberal. Most Americans will find that it's not an issue that they are concerned with when it comes to realeasing the photos. Mostly all Americans support the troops and if there's a chance that realeasing the photos would put them in arms way, then you are going to find that the American people with support Obama.

LEADERSHIP IS WHAT OBAMA IS ALL ABOUT. SOMETIME YOU HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT GO AGAINST THE GRAIN...

 

[Bob George]

It's not a deception. There are going to be times when the president will have to change how he looks at certain issues. Obama has always said that he will listen to everyones opinion and he will make his decision based on the information he receiecves. Like I said before it's one thing when you are a candidate running for president and another thing when you are actually in the office of the president. YOU ARE EXPOSED TO MORE DETAILED INFORMATION.

Would Obama have been elected if he said during the campaign that he wont hold anyone accountable for torture, he wont investigate torture, that he will fight the courts on the issue of torture just to protect Cheney's fat ass?

It is a possible security threats to some of the arm forces if those photos are realeased. He said that it really didn't have anything to add to the argument of what took place. We all know that those prisoners were mistreated and OBAMA HAS CHANGED HOW PRISONERS ARE TREATED OR WILL BE TREATED going forward. And he said that he will release them when the war is over in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course the photos would add to the argument. The visual would absolutely devastate the case for torture. No person with a conscience would agree that what Cheney and Bush did was right if they saw pictures. Because everyone who has seen the classified pictures have come out in opposition to torture.

And Obama has gone back on everything he ever said during the campaign, do you really think he'll keep his word about releasing prisoners? Even in light of today's news that he wishes to continue Bush's controversial Guantanamo military trials? Come on.

Only the LIBERALS are having an issue. He is not a liberal.

Obama ran as a liberal, he definitely had 100% support from people in America who call themselves "liberal", they are his base. He has let them down. He deceived them.

Most Americans will find that it's not an issue that they are concerned with when it comes to realeasing the photos. Mostly all Americans support the troops and if there's a chance that realeasing the photos would put them in arms way, then you are going to find that the American people with support Obama.

That's not the reason. Don't you know how politics work? He made a BS reason for not releasing the photos because the truth is he's protecting Bush/Cheney and everyone involved. He spoke to "top military officials" most of whom are left over from the Bush/Cheney years. Do you think they're completely innocent in all this or do you think maybe they were looking out for themselves so they told Obama "oh, it'll harm the troops if we release the photos. Yeh, that's it! The troops. You aren't against the troops are you?"

LEADERSHIP IS WHAT OBAMA IS ALL ABOUT. SOMETIME YOU HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT GO AGAINST THE GRAIN...

Except that he's not going against the grain, he's doing everything the Bush/Cheney people tell him to do, he's totally with the grain. He's so on their side. They are on the same side. If Obama wanted to go against the grain and do what's right for a change (there's that word again) he would investigate the torture tactics used by the last administration and hold everyone accountable who broke the law. If Obama wanted to be a real leader and do the right this even it's against the grain he would put people in prison for this. But he wont because he's (how many times do I have to say it?...) just like Bush.

 

[LindaC781]

Would Obama have been elected if he said during the campaign that he wont hold anyone accountable for torture, he wont investigate torture, that he will fight the courts on the issue of torture just to protect Cheney's fat ass?


Of course the photos would add to the argument. The visual would absolutely devastate the case for torture. No person with a conscience would agree that what Cheney and Bush did was right if they saw pictures. Because everyone who has seen the classified pictures have come out in opposition to torture.

And Obama has gone back on everything he ever said during the campaign, do you really think he'll keep his word about releasing prisoners? Even in light of today's news that he wishes to continue Bush's controversial Guantanamo military trials? Come on.


Obama ran as a liberal, he definitely had 100% support from people in America who call themselves "liberal", they are his base. He has let them down. He deceived them.


That's not the reason. Don't you know how politics work? He made a BS reason for not releasing the photos because the truth is he's protecting Bush/Cheney and everyone involved. He spoke to "top military officials" most of whom are left over from the Bush/Cheney years. Do you think they're completely innocent in all this or do you think maybe they were looking out for themselves so they told Obama "oh, it'll harm the troops if we release the photos. Yeh, that's it! The troops. You aren't against the troops are you?"


Except that he's not going against the grain, he's doing everything the Bush/Cheney people tell him to do, he's totally with the grain. He's so on their side. They are on the same side. If Obama wanted to go against the grain and do what's right for a change (there's that word again) he would investigate the torture tactics used by the last administration and hold everyone accountable who broke the law. If Obama wanted to be a real leader and do the right this even it's against the grain he would put people in prison for this. But he wont because he's (how many times do I have to say it?...) just like Bush.

No he's not on the Bush/Cheney side. He is on the side of common sense. Common sense dictates that he not release those photos for fear it would spurn more violence against American soldiers overseas. I applaud him for that. He is conducting this investigation very very carefully...mark my words. Heads are going to roll on this one.

 

[pamarella]

Would Obama have been elected if he said during the campaign that he wont hold anyone accountable for torture, he wont investigate torture, that he will fight the courts on the issue of torture just to protect Cheney's fat ass?


Of course the photos would add to the argument. The visual would absolutely devastate the case for torture. No person with a conscience would agree that what Cheney and Bush did was right if they saw pictures. Because everyone who has seen the classified pictures have come out in opposition to torture.

And Obama has gone back on everything he ever said during the campaign, do you really think he'll keep his word about releasing prisoners? Even in light of today's news that he wishes to continue Bush's controversial Guantanamo military trials? Come on.


Obama ran as a liberal, he definitely had 100% support from people in America who call themselves "liberal", they are his base. He has let them down. He deceived them.


That's not the reason. Don't you know how politics work? He made a BS reason for not releasing the photos because the truth is he's protecting Bush/Cheney and everyone involved. He spoke to "top military officials" most of whom are left over from the Bush/Cheney years. Do you think they're completely innocent in all this or do you think maybe they were looking out for themselves so they told Obama "oh, it'll harm the troops if we release the photos. Yeh, that's it! The troops. You aren't against the troops are you?"


Except that he's not going against the grain, he's doing everything the Bush/Cheney people tell him to do, he's totally with the grain. He's so on their side. They are on the same side. If Obama wanted to go against the grain and do what's right for a change (there's that word again) he would investigate the torture tactics used by the last administration and hold everyone accountable who broke the law. If Obama wanted to be a real leader and do the right this even it's against the grain he would put people in prison for this. But he wont because he's (how many times do I have to say it?...) just like Bush.

Would Obama have been elected if he said during the campaign that he wont hold anyone accountable for torture, he wont investigate torture, that he will fight the courts on the issue of torture just to protect Cheney's

Have you seen Cheney blasting Obama at every chance he gets? The man has been everywhere talking about how harmful the Obama policies will be to America. Obama is hardly protecting Bush/Cheney.

Of course the photos would add to the argument. The visual would absolutely devastate the case for torture. No person with a conscience would agree that what Cheney and Bush did was right if they saw pictures. Because everyone who has seen the classified pictures have come out in opposition to torture.

That's just it. Military official believe that those photos being release will inflame out rage among the people who support the anti-America rhetoric like the supporters of AL-qaeda and put the troops in arms way because of it. OBAMA IS AGAINST TORTURE and you know it.

And Obama has gone back on everything he ever said during the campaign, do you really think he'll keep his word about releasing prisoners? Even in light of today's news that he wishes to continue Bush's controversial Guantanamo military trials? Come on.

No he hasn't on EVERYTHING. And on some of the flip flopping even the critics have conceeded that the decision were the correct decisions. And if there is anyone who can make their case on why they have come to a decisions it's Barack Obama.

Obama ran as a liberal, he definitely had 100% support from people in America who call themselves "liberal", they are his base. He has let them down. He deceived them.

Well of course he had 100% of the liberals support, for the Primaries he ran against Hillary Clinton and she is not a Liberal she is a Moderate. And do you think the liberals were going to vote for McCain????? But Obama knows that if you are going to govern by idealogy, then you are not going to win or stay in office. That is what the Democrats had to learn from the past and that is what the Republicans are now finding out.

That's not the reason. Don't you know how politics work? He made a BS reason for not releasing the photos because the truth is he's protecting Bush/Cheney and everyone involved. He spoke to "top military officials" most of whom are left over from the Bush/Cheney years. Do you think they're completely innocent in all this or do you think maybe they were looking out for themselves so they told Obama "oh, it'll harm the troops if we release the photos. Yeh, that's it! The troops. You aren't against the troops are you?"

Do you know how politics work? Most Americans are against torture, but if the Democrats/Obama try to politicize the torture issue, it could backfire against them. The possibility is that Americans will see it as a PARTISAN attack on the Bush administration. Most Americans felt after 911, that it was the governments responsibility to keep Americans safe. To what extent the Bush administration kept America safe is now the issue. Obama wants to investigate and he wants to investigate in a fair and lawful way. NOT IN A PARTISAN WAY. Obama believes that Bush/Cheney used illegal tatics, and he wants to prove it in a court of law that they did so.
I support the troops 10000000000000% But if those photos being release will give rise to attacks on the troops from extremist who want a reason on why they feel justified in doing so, then I support Obama's decision for not releasing them.

Bob George stop looking for reasons to tie Obama with Bush.:cheeky:

 

[Bob George]

Have you seen Cheney blasting Obama at every chance he gets? The man has been everywhere talking about how harmful the Obama policies will be to America. Obama is hardly protecting Bush/Cheney.

Cheney was all over the news criticising Obama's national defence policy and defending torture because he knew Obama was deliberating on the torture photos and further investigation into the Bush administration's use of torture and he wanted to influence Obama's decision. And guess what, it worked. Obama came around to Cheney's side.

No he hasn't on EVERYTHING. And on some of the flip flopping even the critics have conceeded that the decision were the correct decisions. And if there is anyone who can make their case on why they have come to a decisions it's Barack Obama.

His critics in the media are the neocons and theocons who supported Bush's use of torture. So of course they'd concede that he made the right decision on this issue. Too bad the people who supported Obama all along were left in the dark.

Well of course he had 100% of the liberals support, for the Primaries he ran against Hillary Clinton and she is not a Liberal she is a Moderate. And do you think the liberals were going to vote for McCain????? But Obama knows that if you are going to govern by idealogy, then you are not going to win or stay in office. That is what the Democrats had to learn from the past and that is what the Republicans are now finding out.

Exactly, Obama is not about principle. He's about politics. That's exactly what I've been telling you all along.

Do you know how politics work? Most Americans are against torture, but if the Democrats/Obama try to politicize the torture issue, it could backfire against them. The possibility is that Americans will see it as a PARTISAN attack on the Bush administration.

Who cares is people see it as a partisan attack and turn against Obama? Go against the grain. Isn't that what good leaders do according to you? If he would investigate torture and hold those responsible accountable it would send a clear message to the Middle East and other countries that the USA does not condone torture and it's no longer the official policy of the US to use torture in interrogation procedures. That would be a very positive thing and would not harm the troops but in fact do the opposite because foreigners wouldn't be so hostile towards the troops anymore. Don't you see you are angering your enemies and churning out more terrorists and insurgents with America's current foreign policy?

Obama wants to investigate and he wants to investigate in a fair and lawful way. NOT IN A PARTISAN WAY.

Let me tell you what that means in political talk. That means he will seek the advice of people involved with the Bush administration (as he did with these torture photos), people who were probably involved in the torture procedures to some extent, people who will save their ass and prevent Obama from investigating any further. It's just a distraction to add to the illusion that Democrats and Republicans are different, that Obama and Bush are different.

Bob George stop looking for reasons to tie Obama with Bush.:cheeky:

You don't have to look very hard. Even people who supported him 100% through the campaign last year are now admitting their disappointment that he's turned out to be more of the same. I've spoken to a lot of people who use to be Obama supporters and are no longer because they foolishly thought that when he said "change" he meant it.