ELECTION DAY 2008:........... Barack Obama, the next President of the United States of America

[lilstarz07]

that was an obvious sarcastic jab at his beliefs ... nothing more nothing less ... i agree with obama on issues ... in fact, i have stated that in fact ourcountry may need Obama to either A) get us out of whatever we need getting out of or B) show us that strictly left wing ideals are not what this country needs... either way, it would be beneficial to us as a whole ... but if somehow it is my proposed B, id like to skip that altogether and just ride with Mccain ...

lesson for everyone, taking things out of context, especialy when you are wrong about th epiece you are taking out, is never a good look ...

 

[peep the kicks]

^^

 

[tony ayooo]

that #@#$ wasn't a mistake

 

[essential1]

you clearly put if you support Obama for whatever reason and put a laughing face.. That was the context you wrote. If you don't want people to "takeit out of context" leave your smileys out of it.


You were saying if you disagree with McCain thats fine, but if you support Obama for whatever reason with an LOL type smiley face.. You question people'smotives on why they are voting...


SIT DOWN JOKE

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by LilStarZ07

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

no matter what you say about Bush we havent been attacked since 9/11

I seem to remember a big attack ON 9/11, nine months into the Bush presidency.

so we've established that you cant comprehend english ...


since



7 dictionary results for: since

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
since

/sɪns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sins] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adverb [table][tr][td]1.[/td] [td]from then till now (often prec. by ever): He was elected in 1978 and has been president ever since.[/td] [/tr][/table][table][tr][td]2.[/td] [td]between a particular past time and the present; subsequently: She at first refused, but has since consented.[/td] [/tr][/table][table][tr][td]3.[/td] [td]ago; before now: long since.[/td] [/tr][/table]-preposition [table][tr][td]4.[/td] [td]continuously from or counting from: It has been warm since noon.[/td] [/tr][/table][table][tr][td]5.[/td] [td]between a past time or event and the present: There have been many changes since the war.[/td] [/tr][/table]-conjunction [table][tr][td]6.[/td] [td]in the period following the time when: He has written once since he left.[/td] [/tr][/table][table][tr][td]7.[/td] [td]continuously from or counting from the time when: He has been busy since he came.[/td] [/tr][/table][table][tr][td]8.[/td] [td]because; inasmuch as: Since you're already here, you might as well stay.[/td] [/tr][/table]



Save the dictionary links for someone who has problems with the English language... like the moron president you're trying to defend.

The 9/11 attack came over 200 days AFTER George W. Bush became the president and had the position to prevent attacks on the U.S.

And maybe the U.S. itself wasn't attacked after 9/11/2001, but that didn't stop the moron president you're trying to defend from eclipsing thedeath total from 9/11 by ending even more American lives than that were lost on 9/11 by starting a completely useless war based on LIES.

Secondly, what exactly makes you think that it was because of George W.'s policies that there weren't any more attacks on U.S. since 01?

 

[lilstarz07]

Originally Posted by Essential1

you clearly put if you support Obama for whatever reason and put a laughing face.. That was the context you wrote. If you don't want people to "take it out of context" leave your smileys out of it.


You were saying if you disagree with McCain thats fine, but if you support Obama for whatever reason with an LOL type smiley face.. You question people's motives on why they are voting...


SIT DOWN JOKE

see man this is what im talking about re-read the rest of my post and determine the "tone" of it ... obvioulsy the person i wasresponding to took it as it was intended, a harmless sarcastic jab that is frequently used between to people who have a clue about life in general, let alonepolitics ...

and since youre so good at determining the intentions of smileys and such ... figure this one out

.........edit....
and a bunch more people co-signing with no substance ... and more ... ande more ... and then some more stonfaces ... lol

Before 9/11, YOU (not me, not "my peoples"...YOU) wouldn't have said you'd be willing to give up your liberties, your rights that you have as an American citizen for "safety"...that suggestion would have sounded stupid.

After 9/11, you're saying you would and there's others who think that way as well.

There's one change right there concerning YOU that has nothing to do with "small taxes". So I'm pointing out how 9/11 has changed you or how you think in regards to something...

As far as all that other nonsense you wrote, there's no point in responding...like I said, I'm not going to try and reason with you. You're notorious for saying absurd $#@# and you've only proved me right...

So type up a response but this is where me replying to you stops.

Finito.
If someone asked me pre 9/11, would you let the government do all it could to investigate terrorists within this country, which would in turnsacrfice many civil liberties you have, but in no way affect your life other than that unless you are a terrorist ... i would have said ok, but if we getattacked again youre gonn ahave to answer some questions ...

as ive stated, we havent been attacked since so the government can track my phone calls and text messages all they want, i dont have anything to hide because iam a law abiding citizen, point blank

and i dont expect you to answer any of my questions or comment on anything else i have to say because you have already displayed your level of intelligence, imean lack their of

 

[illoquent aka dsk]

Before 9/11, YOU (not me, not "my peoples"...YOU) wouldn't have said you'd be willing to give up your liberties, your rights that you have asan American citizen for "safety"...that suggestion would have sounded stupid.

After 9/11, you're saying you would and there's others who think that way as well.

There's one change right there concerning YOU that has nothing to do with "small taxes". So I'm pointing out how 9/11 has changed you or howyou think in regards to something...

As far as all that other nonsense you wrote, there's no point in responding...like I said, I'm not going to try and reason with you. You'renotorious for saying absurd $#@# and you've only proved me right...

So type up a response but this is where me replying to you stops.

Finito.

 

[tkthegirl]

Originally Posted by peep the kicks

^^

No lie that was my exact reaction.

 

[essential1]

Figure this one out

No matter of fact...

Your intentions are clearly backed up by 5 other people who said the same thing.... Again SIT DOWN..


Your argument is ridiculous, you are no safer in 08 then you were in 01. The country is on the brink of being outcasted by every other country besides GreatBritain. Just to let you know U.S.A. is not a self-sufficient country and cannot survive without forign help and you have the nerve to even say McCain isworthy of this office in any respect. Sit down. Matter of fact ****.

 

[lilstarz07]

whata re you even talking about, 5 people? huh? im talking about harlem to the bronx ... he was the one i was speaking to and he understood what i was sayingand took it like should have .........................


say what you will about how "safe" we are but the only fact you and i both know is that there hasnt been another attack since 9/11 ... thats the onlything im sure of ...

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by LilStarZ07

whata re you even talking about, 5 people? huh? im talking about harlem to the bronx ... he was the one i was speaking to and he understood what i was saying and took it like should have .........................


say what you will about how "safe" we are but the only fact you and i both know is that there hasnt been another attack since 9/11 ... thats the only thing im sure of ...

Instability in the Middle East which we have not fixed. Threatens every country in that region which in turn affects us.... Let me remind you thatin 05 Britain had several terror attacks



[h1]Post-9/11, 'we are not safe'[/h1]
By Josh Meyer
September 11, 2007 in print edition A-4

Six years after the deadliest terrorist attacks on American soil, the United States is in many ways unprepared to stop another major strike against the homeland, which Al Qaeda appears intent on carrying out in the near future, four of the nation's top counter- terrorism officials told a Senate panel Monday.

Al Qaeda's intentions have been underscored in recent days by the disruption of suspected terrorist plots in Germany and Denmark, the first propaganda video by Osama bin Laden in three years, and persistent intelligence showing that Al Qaeda has regrouped in a Pakistan haven and is training operatives there for attacks worldwide.

Al Qaeda's media arm said Monday that it was preparing to release a second Bin Laden tape. He is expected to again taunt President Bush and other pursuers, and praise those responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Our counter-terrorism efforts have disrupted some of the enemy's plans and diminished certain capabilities," John Scott Redd, the director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. "But the events of the last days and the last weeks clearly demonstrate the clear and present danger which continues to exist."

In more than three hours of prepared testimony and questioning, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and Redd said significant progress had been made in deterring another attack on the scale of Sept. 11, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

McConnell said counter- terrorism intelligence-gathering was much improved, in part due to expanded post-Sept. 11 electronic surveillance powers, including those under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Confirming a Times report, McConnell told the committee that U.S. electronic intercepts helped in last week's thwarting of an alleged terrorist plot in Germany involving militants trained in camps run by Al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic Jihad Union.

The surveillance "allowed us to see and understand all the connections" to Al Qaeda, McConnell said. "Because we could understand it, we could help our partners through a long process of monitoring and observation, realizing that the perpetrators had actually obtained explosive liquids."

After the hearing, Redd confirmed that U.S. intercepts played a central role in disrupting a suspected "major" plot in Denmark. Eight alleged Al Qaeda affiliates were arrested.

McConnell said that at least some of the intercepts in the German plot were made possible by a "temporary fix" to the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, in which Congress tried last month to maintain the surveillance system while addressing some legal issues. After the hearing, McConnell appeared to clarify his remarks in an interview with reporters, saying FISA was used in the German case even before the law was changed.

During the hearing, McConnell said he thought the act itself was in jeopardy due to concerns that intelligence officials were "spying on Americans, doing data-mining and so on," which he said was "simply not true."

"If we lose FISA, we will lose, in my estimate, 50% of our ability to track, understand and know about these terrorists - what they're doing to train, what they're doing to recruit and what they're doing to try to get into this country," he said.

Redd testified of other successes over the last six years, saying authorities had taken thousands of terrorists off streets and battlefields and disrupted dozens of plots.

"All of this means to me that we are safer today than we were on September the 11th, 2001," said Redd, a retired Navy vice admiral, like McConnell. "But we are not safe, and nor are we likely to be for a generation or more. We're in a long war; we face an enemy that is adaptable, dangerous and persistent."

The officials described their fears about how Al Qaeda, its affiliates and terrorists from Europe and perhaps the U.S. were exploiting gaps in the safety net. They cited the recent National Intelligence Estimate, which said Al Qaeda continued to focus on "prominent political, economic and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear in the U.S. population."

All four of the witnesses conceded under questioning that weaknesses remained despite the billions spent on counter-terrorism and domestic security.

McConnell said "significant cultural issues" still hindered the information-sharing necessary to stop an attack. And the various intelligence agencies "still have some distance to go" in hiring and training analysts and case officers who speak key foreign languages such as Arabic and Urdu, he said.

Some senators were far more critical than their witnesses.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said a failure to track individuals who overstayed their visas was "particularly shocking and troubling to me." He also said there were "huge gaps" in the security of the nation's food supply.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) said the nation urgently needed a national ID card program so that potential terrorists would not be able to use forged or fake identification. The counter- terrorism officials agreed.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said: "We are safer, but there are still gaping holes.

"There are still major problems, whether it's communication, whether it's technology, whether it's the struggle for ideas that we seem to be failing at around the world, whether it's our image in the moderate Muslim world and how that is undermining the ultimate struggle we have - which is the radicalism that we find in some parts of the Muslim world."



[h2]Seven years after 9/11, Al-Qaeda leaders plot on in safe havens[/h2] [h5]Thursday, September 11, 2008[/h5]
WASHINGTON - Agence France-Presse


Seven years after the deadliest attack on the United States, al-Qaeda's masterminds remain beyond U.S. reach, stirring violence and plotting new attacks on the West, officials and analysts said.

As the U.S. prepared to mark seventh anniversary of 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, from sanctuaries in nuclear-armed Pakistan, Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri are presiding over an al-Qaeda that has sprung back from serious setbacks with help from its old friends, the Taliban, they added.

They are "not only still at large, but actively communicating with their followers around the world by video messages, and actively engaged in supporting two wars against American forces -- in Afghanistan and Iraq," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer.

With political turmoil in Pakistan and a revived Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda is in the thick of things once again despite shattering losses in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

"Today, if violent extremism and terrorism have a center, it is Pakistan and not Iraq," said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

U.S. intelligence worries that al-Qaeda is using its Pakistani safe havens to prepare for attacks on the West.

It now enjoys many of the operational and organizational advantages there that it had in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, said Ted Gistaro, the U.S. government's top intelligence analyst for transnational threats.

"In spite of successful U.S. and allied operations against al-Qaeda, especially the death of important al-Qaeda figures since December, the group has maintained or strengthened key elements of its capability to attack the United States in the past year," he told a Washington think tank last month.

It has replenished its cadre of skilled operatives, and "is identifying, training, and positioning operatives for attacks in the West, likely including the United States," he said.

Intensifying operations:

That may explain, in part, the intensifying U.S. operations in the tribal areas, which have included stepped up missile attacks and a reported cross border raid this week by U.S. commandos in South Waziristan.

Gistaro said he was not aware of any "specific, credible" plot to attack the United States. But, he said, "As the (November) election nears, we expect to see an up tick in such threat reporting -- of varying credibility -- regarding possible attacks."

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, notes that al-Qaeda has made major attention-getting moves before U.S. elections, striking the USS Cole in October 2000 and airing a video tape of Osama bin Laden before the 2004 vote.

Most famously, the Madrid bombings in March 2004 three days before general elections prompted the defeat of the ruling party and Spain's withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

"I'm also hearing from people in the Pentagon that, yes, there is a 'We've only got four more months on Bush's watch, and we're going to find ourselves in a position where the perpetrator of the greatest mass murder in American history has outlived the president on whose watch it happened," said Riedel.

"I'm sure they're getting a lot of pressure to do something about that," he said.

But Riedel, author of the recently published "The Search for Al-Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology and Future," said the threat cannot be eliminated without shutting down the Pakistani safe havens.

"Commando raids, Predator attacks may get you, if you have extraordinarily good intelligence and luck, high value targets like bin Laden," he said.

"But they can't really eliminate the sanctuary itself, which can only be eliminated by Pakistanis doing it in cooperation with us or on their own," he said.

"The trick of this is to get the Pakistanis to do more. And to the extent that we come into a more hostile relationship with Pakistan by violating their sovereignty, chances are that that kind of cooperation will diminish.

"So we are in a very difficult situation here."

How did it get so bad?

Many analysts believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq diverted intelligence assets, resources and high level attention from Afghanistan at a time when al-Qaeda was at its most vulnerable.

"The short answer to that is they took the eye off the ball," Riedel said.

 

[essential1]

true but if we won that front and it was done the right way it woudln't be written like that. but ill go find more

 

[h4ppytime harry]

utterly disgusting. I'm almost ashamed of being an American, almost.

 

[lilstarz07]

rickybadman thank you for putting our disagreements aside and responding to people like essential who believe everything they read ... maybe he will understandsomeone whos on his side lol

true but if we won that front and it was done the right way it woudln't be written like that. but ill go find more
and now i know exactly what im dealing with ... its a shame ... anyone with a keyboard and the ability to type "google" can have theiropinions made up for them by others without really taking into account that another human being may actually be fudging a few facts or speaking with specialinterests in mind ...

and to that Barack Osama typo ... it was obviously intended so lets get that out of the way, but i wonder why theypicked new york? i mean to get it passedthrough all those "edits" there must have been more than enough republicans in those offices ... just dont understand the placement ... degrading inany respect

 

[essential1]

December 11, 2007

Serious Safety and Security Risks Undercut Nuclear Power's Role in Minimizing Global Warming, New Report Finds
Science Group Recommends Stronger Federal Oversight, Safer Designs, U.S. Ban on Reprocessing

WASHINGTON (December 11, 2007) - An expansion of nuclear power capacity in the United States could help reduce global warming pollution, but could alsoincrease threats to public safety and national security, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Those risks include amassive radiation release from a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, and the death of hundreds of thousands from the detonation of a nuclear weapon madewith materials obtained from civilian nuclear facilities. (The report is available at www.ucsusa.org/nuclearandclimate.)

"Unless the industry, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the federal government adopt the common-sense recommendations in our report, building a newfleet of nuclear power plants will create serious safety and security risks," said Dr. Lisbeth Gronlund, co-director of UCS's Global Security Programand a report co-author.

There are 104 nuclear power reactors operating in the United States, generating approximately 20 percent of U.S. electricity. Most of these reactors have40-year operating licenses, but several recently have received extensions for another 20 years. Even with extensions, the first plants will retire in 2029 andnearly all will retire by 2050. Currently 17 utility companies have plans to build 31 new reactors.

The 74-page report assesses nuclear power's key problems and offers recommendations to strengthen nuclear plant safety, better protect facilities againstsabotage and attack, ensure the safe disposal of nuclear waste, and minimize the risk that nuclear power will help more nations and terrorists acquire nuclearweapons. It also evaluates new reactor designs. The report does not address the economics of nuclear power or the relative benefits of other energy optionsunder consideration to reduce global warming emissions.

According to the report, the United States has strong safety regulations, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) -- the federal agency charged withoverseeing the industry -- does not consistently enforce them.

"Nuclear power is less safe and more costly than it should -- and could -- be," said David Lochbaum, director of UCS's Nuclear Safety Project anda report co-author. "Congress must protect its investment in nuclear power by transforming the NRC into an aggressive safety enforcement agency."

Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer, cited a 2002 incident at the Davis-Besse reactor near Toledo, Ohio, as a prime example of lax NRC enforcement. Plant operatorsdiscovered a football-size hole in the reactor vessel, which, had it gone undetected, could have caused a worse accident than the 1979 core meltdown at ThreeMile Island. Knowing the plant was vulnerable, the NRC drafted an order requiring the plant owner to shut down the reactor for safety inspections in 2001, butthen allowed the plant to continue operating into 2002 so the owner could avoid the high costs of shutting down while it was finalizing a corporate merger.

The report also found that federal security standards are inadequate to defend plants against real-world terrorist threats. For example, plant owners are notrequired to defend against terrorists using readily available shoulder-launched rocket-propelled grenades. The report recommended that the Department ofHomeland Security -- instead of the NRC -- identify threats to nuclear power facilities.

The report identified only one of 10 new reactor designs under consideration in the United States that is potentially safer and more secure than thoseoperating today. The design, which has a double-walled containment structure, was designed to meet European safety criteria that are more stringent than NRCstandards.

"By refusing to require new reactor designs to be safer than current generation reactors, the NRC is squandering an opportunity to greatly reduce thethreat of nuclear accidents or terrorist attacks in the coming decades," said Dr. Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist in the UCS Global Security Programand a report co-author. "Unless the agency raises the safety bar for new reactors across the board, those with costly additional safety features will haveto compete with cheaper ones that are less safe."

The disposal of highly radioactive waste contained in nuclear reactors' used, or spent, fuel rods poses another serious problem. This waste must beisolated for at least tens of thousands of years, if not longer. It ultimately should be stored in a permanent, underground geologic repository, but theproposed site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada may never be licensed. The report recommends that the Department of Energy identify other potential sites. In theinterim, the report concluded that the waste can be stored safely in dry casks for the next 50 years, but only if the casks are hardened against attack bysurrounding them with earthen berms. Currently, casks are sited in the open on concrete slabs.

Finally, the report warned that a global expansion of nuclear power could increase the risk that more nations or terrorists will acquire nuclearweapons. According to the report, a significant risk factor is whether nations reprocess their spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium, which can be used tobuild nuclear weapons. Reprocessing, however, is not necessary to expand nuclear power. The report recommended that the United States reinstate a ban onreprocessing U.S. spent fuel and take the lead in promoting a global moratorium on reprocessing. In addition, all uranium enrichment facilities, the reportsaid, should be placed under international control.

"The risks posed by global warming may turn out to be so grave that the United States and the world cannot afford to rule out a substantialexpansion of nuclear power," said Dr. Gronlund. "However, it also may turn out that nuclear power cannot be deployed worldwide on the scale necessaryto significantly cut emissions without resulting in unacceptably high safety and security risks."



That may not be exactly your point but nuclear energy isn't safe which McCain and Bush wholeheartedly supports... Go ahead say Obama supports it but alsosaid cut down nuclear energy.





[h1]Americans Are Paying at the Pump for the Failed Foreign Policies of the Bush Administration[/h1]
[img]http://www.nsnetwork.org/sites/all/themes/nsnetwork/images/icon_printer.gif[/img]

Report 1 July 2008

Energy al qaeda Bush administration iran iraq oil prices Security Premium
[h4]The War in Iraq and Saber-Rattling toward Iran is Hurting Americans at the Pump[/h4]
As Americans take to the road this Fourth of July they are once again in for sticker shock at the pump. Fuel costs have skyrocketed from $20 per barrel in 2002 to $80 last summer to approximately $140 today.

Respected industry experts have long drawn the connection between global instability, failed Bush Administration foreign policies, and the price of oil - which they call the "security premium." The instability of oil-producing regions around the world and Al Qaeda threats against oil installations across the Middle East already build a significant security premium into oil prices. The invasion of Iraq, with its destruction of petroleum infrastructure, hundreds of uncontained attacks on production and transit facilities, and slowness to return production to pre-war levels has added a significant additional expense. So too has saber-rattling against Iran, which experts say has affected the price of oil dramatically - by as much as $11 in one day.

Some experts estimate this premium to be as much as $30-40 for every barrel of oil sold. And while American consumers and businesses suffer, who benefits? The very countries our foreign policy is supposed to contain in the first place - Iran, Russia and others. In the short term, overheated rhetoric and penny-wise, barrel-foolish policies will make a painful summer even worse for Americans. In the long term, reducing our dependence on oil is the best way to get out from under the burden of the security premium - and increase our security at the same time.

[h2][/h2] [h2]AMERICANS PAY AT THE PUMP FOR GLOBAL INSTABILITY[/h2]
Rising oil prices and the world's insecurity are linked. A majority of the world's oil is produced in parts of the world wracked with instability. John Kilduff, energy analyst at MF Global, outlined: "The unrest in the Niger Delta [is] knocking off millions of barrels of crude oil every day. We see President Putin threatening at times to use oil as a weapon. So we're seeing speculators and hedgers bid up the price because of the uncertainty of future supplies, in particular." According to oil expert and Chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Daniel Yergin, these national security concerns have built "'an almost-permanent security premium' into the price of oil." [NY Times, 5/11/08. NewsHour, 10/26/07]

Rising tensions in the world's oil producing hotspots contribute to an oil "security premium," increasing prices by as much as 30 percent. Senator Joseph Biden defined the security premium in concrete terms, warning that the "more tensions rise, the higher the security premium goes, because people betting on the long term price of oil anticipate supply disruptions." In October 2007, when oil reached $90 a barrel, David Hobbs, vice-president of Cambridge Research Associates (CERA), noted security premium estimates of "$30 or $40" per barrel. [Senator Joseph Biden, 12/06/07. Houston Chronicle, 10/28/07]
[h2]BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOREIGN POLICY HAS RAISED TENSIONS ACROSS THE MIDDLE EAST, IMPERILING THE WORLD'S ENERGY SUPPLY[/h2]
The Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq and its failure to manage the security situation has hurt our energy security. Since the invasion, there have been 469 attacks on Iraqi oil pipelines, facilities, and personnel, and production has stagnated at prewar levels. The invasion of Iraq also increased the threat of terrorism by creating a training, recruiting and fundraising magnet for Islamic terrorists in the heart of the world's most vital energy producing region. A CSIS report suggested that the invasion of Iraq heightened Saudi fears of a terrorist attack, evidenced by the 50 percent increase in security expenditures from 2003 to 2004. In addition, there have been frequent terrorist attacks on oil installations in the Middle East. These often spur mini-spikes in oil prices, increasing fears of vulnerability and driving-up the security premium. [Institute for Global Security, 3/27/08. NY Times, 5/11/08. Senate Joint Economic Committee, 11/11/07. CSIS, 11/30/04. Reuters, 5/31/08. Yemen Observer, 4/05/08. Fox News, 9/15/06. BBC, 2/24/06]

Ceaseless confrontation with Iran has raised costly speculation about a future oil shock. John Kilduff observed: "Well, I think at this point, the problem we have… is statements from the President and the Vice President, almost on a daily basis lately, really raising the rhetoric, raising the temperature on the situation. And, of course, President Ahmadinejad in Iran does not shrink from these verbal battles anyway. And this is the mother of all supply fears, the mother of all supply threats. Not only the Iranian oil, but the Strait of Hormuz, where 25 percent of the world's oil flows, that's 100 percent Western-friendly, could easily be blocked by the Iranians. So, I mean, yes, there could be an overreaction right now, but we in the oil markets have to call them as we see them and take what we get in terms of rhetoric and worry." [NewsHour, 10/26/07]

Recent rumors of confrontation with Iran caused an $11 spike in oil prices in one day. Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz recently asserted that an Israeli strike on Iran was unavoidable causing an $11 spike in oil prices. "'It's one word that did this,' said Guy Gleichmann, president of United Strategic Investors Group…'rumors of war with Iran,' Mr. Gleichmann said, have often led to a spike of several dollars in the price of oil. The issue had died down for a while, he said, but 'this is like Jason coming back from the dead.'" The security premium is funneled into Ahmadinejad's coffers, allowing him to address some of his country's economic problems and build up his political power. [Jerusalem Post, 6/10/08]

As U.S. forces were diverted to Iraq, Al Qaeda was able to reconstitute in Pakistan and is calling for Islamic terrorist movements to wreak havoc against oil installations. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda had reconstituted along the Afghan-Pakistan border, and the GAO recently found that the United States lacked a coherent policy to address this threat. Operating with impunity, senior Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri has publicly declared that oil revenues went to the "enemies of Islam," and Osama Bin Laden has approved of attacks on what he called, "the provision line and the feeding to the artery of the life of the crusader's nation." [The Guardian, 9/09/07. NIE, 07/07. GAO, 4/17/08. Washington Post, 9/27/04]
[h2]REMOVING THE STRANGLEHOLD OF RISING OIL PRICES REQUIRES BETTER ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES[/h2]
In the short-term we must stop the reckless saber rattling towards Iran, reduce our short-sighted focus on Iraq, and implement an effective counterterrorism strategy. The current policy only undermines our diplomatic and security position, while directly benefiting - through increasing oil prices - the very countries our foreign policy is supposed to contain. As John Kilduff explained, "the problem we have…is statements from the president and the vice president, almost on a daily basis lately, really raising the rhetoric, raising the temperature on the situation." [NewsHour, 10/26/07]

In the long run we must reduce dependence on foreign oil and natural gas in the world's most volatile regions. A diverse energy policy is a smart national security policy: Oil-rich countries, particularly those ruled by unstable and corrupt regimes, should have less influence over us. A better energy policy starts at home, with a goal of producing at least 25 percent of our nation's transportation fuels from low-carbon alternative fuels, including electricity, by 2025, and investing in new technology to make this happen. The U.S. must also work with its friends and allies to strengthen and diversify the networks of pipelines, transmission lines, and terminals that transport oil and gas, as well as develop a strong international emergency response system to limit price spikes caused by violence or other disruptions. [Report of the National Security Task Force on Energy, 7/06]

Home » Issues » Energy » Americans Are Paying at the Pump for the Failed Foreign Policies of the Bush Administration

 

[lilstarz07]

uh oh he "found some" jesus h christ ... i am exiting thread stage left ... proceed i guess

 

[essential1]

He wants to challenge me and everyone else with his "conclusion" so I will have to challenge him back and end all that.

 

[misterp0315]

Originally Posted by H4ppyTime Harry

utterly disgusting. I'm almost ashamed of being an American, almost.

Typo? The b and the s aren't even relatively close to each other...on any keyboard.

 

[tkthegirl]

http://www.news-leader.co...010/NEWS06/810100354/1015

Highway billboard attacking Obama inspires heated newspaper letters: a billboard in West Plains showing a caricature of Democratic presidential candidateBarack Obama wearing a turban and using his middle name - Hussein - in quotes has sparked outrage and accusations of racism.


A Lot of stuff popping up

 

[cincoseisdos]

My goodness, this $!+# truly IS disgusting.

I'm ashamed for this WHOLE country...

 

[lilstarz07]

not saying its tasteful ... but arent there pictures of barack with a turban on? and his middle name is hussein ... and those are his policy stances ... so imean what can you really say?

 

[tkthegirl]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14444.html

Hispanics turn cold shoulder to McCain

Despite championing immigration reform in 2007, John McCain is poised to lose the Hispanic vote by a landslide margin that is well below President George W.Bush's 2004 performance.

Polls show Obama winning the broadest support from Latino voters of any Democrat in a decade, while McCain is struggling to reach 30 percent, closer to SenatorBob Dole's dismal 1996 result than to Bush's historic 40% four years ago.

McCain seems to have wound up with the worst of both worlds: He appears to be getting no credit from Latino voters for his past support for immigration reform,while carrying the baggage of other Republicans' hostility to illegal immigration.




I'm just a news junkie today.

 

[tbone95860]

Saturday, October 11[table][tr][th=""]Race (Click to Sort)[/th] [th=""]Poll[/th] [th=""]Results[/th] [th=""]Spread[/th] [/tr][tr][td]Oregon[/td] [td] Rasmussen[/td] [td]Obama 54, McCain 43[/td] [td]Obama +11[/td] [/tr][tr][td]National[/td] [td]Gallup Tracking[/td] [td]Obama 51, McCain 42[/td] [td]Obama +9[/td] [/tr][tr][td]National[/td] [td]Rasmussen Tracking[/td] [td]Obama 52, McCain 45[/td] [td]Obama +7[/td] [/tr][tr][td]National[/td] [td]Reuters/CSpan/Zogby Tracking[/td] [td]Obama 48, McCain 44[/td] [td]Obama +4[/td] [/tr][tr][td]National[/td] [td]Hotline/FD Tracking[/td] [td]Obama 50, McCain 40[/td] [td]Obama +10[/td] [/tr][tr][td]National[/td] [td]Newsweek[/td] [td]Obama 52, McCain 41[/td] [td]Obama +11[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Iowa[/td] [td]SurveyUSA[/td] [td]Obama 54, McCain 41[/td] [td]Obama +13[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Alabama[/td] [td]SurveyUSA[/td] [td]McCain 62, Obama 35[/td] [td]McCain +27[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Florida[/td] [td]Research 2000[/td] [td]Obama 49, McCain 44[/td] [td]Obama +5[/td] [/tr][tr][td]North Carolina[/td] [td]WSOC-TV[/td] [td]Obama 46, McCain 48[/td] [td]McCain +2[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Ohio[/td] [td]Ohio Newspaper Poll[/td] [td]Obama 46, McCain 48[/td] [td]McCain +2[/td] [/tr][/table]

 

[lilstarz07]

Originally Posted by TkTheGirl


Jesus was Black.
Ronald Reagan was the devil.
And the government was lying about 9/11. Thank you, for ya time, and good night!

 

[tkthegirl]

Originally Posted by LilStarZ07

Originally Posted by TkTheGirl


Jesus was Black.
Ronald Reagan was the devil.
And the government was lying about 9/11. Thank you, for ya time, and good night!

Boondocks FTW.