How long will the Dems allow this to drag out?

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's not about me, maybe try sticking to the topic of John McCain making a blunder (again) about a foreign policy area that's supposed to be his strong point?

I'm not running for President, but I do know the differences between Shiites and Sunni's, and I know that they are ideologically opposed, so it makes no sense for Iran (a Shiite majority country) to be training Al Qaeda (a Sunni organization)

and it makes perfect sense for obama to want to call the president of canada.

excellent.

[motivez]

Yeah, I'm sticking up for Obama making a mistake like that where exactly?

Subject change much?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Iran training Al Qaeda? That's like the KKK training black people to infiltrate the Black Panthers.

Why do you Iran wouldn't friendly with al Qaeda? Religion hasn't stopped them in the past.

From the 911 Commission report:

Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put aside their divisions and join against the common enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support-even if only training-for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 US Marines in Lebanon in 1983. The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations. As will be described in Chapter 7, al Qaeda contacts with Iran continued in ensuing years.

....

As we mentioned in Chapter 2, while in Sudan, senior managers in al Qaeda maintained contacts with Iran and the Iranian-supported worldwide terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based mainly in southern Lebanon and Beirut. Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah.
Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin ladin's return to Afghanistan. Khallad has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on USS Cole, but was rebuffed because Bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan. For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda.

...

In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.

I typed these in by hand from the pdf which can be found here:

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, I'm sticking up for Obama making a mistake like that where exactly?

Subject change much?

this isn't a subject change.

mccain misspoke, obama misspoke........they both corrected themselves and they're both non-issues. i understand from your posts in this thread that you want what he said to mean he's lying about the middle east and doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and blah blah blah. want in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first.



:edit: and btw, "want in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first" is an old military saying, not a personal attack.

[Publius]

i would also point out that the subject change came into this thread when someone started talking about McCain misspeaking/lying/being senile/whatever. What exactly does that have to do with the Democrats not having a candidate yet?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

“I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”



He corrected himself. Nope, there's nothing wrong with it.

He didn't correct himself. He was corrected by Lieberman.

And as was already pointed out, he "mis-spoke" 3 times. It's a pattern.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

He didn't correct himself. He was corrected by Lieberman.

And as was already pointed out, he "mis-spoke" 3 times. It's a pattern.

... he's getting old

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

So how and when do you think this madness will end?

The party will have to stand up to the Clinton's and tell her to let it go at some point. How that will happen and how ugly it gets is another question. Now that Obama is not looking as good in the general election her case gets better. But that may also change before the convention. I certainly predict a major shit storm if Obama is pushed aside with the majority electorial and popular vote count. But the Super Delegates have only one real obligation, to vote for who they think is the best candidate and can win the general election. So within party rules they have every right to support either candidate at this point.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

The party will have to stand up to the Clinton's and tell her to let it go at some point. How that will happen and how ugly it gets is another question. Now that Obama is not looking as good in the general election her case gets better. But that may also change before the convention. I certainly predict a major shit storm if Obama is pushed aside with the majority electorial and popular vote count. But the Super Delegates have only one real obligation, to vote for who they think is the best candidate and can win the general election. So within party rules they have every right to support either candidate at this point.

I have heard that it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win on pledged delegate counts, so she should end her campaign.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I have heard that it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win on pledged delegate counts, so she should end her campaign.

It's virtually impossible for either one of them to get the 2025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. It is also virtually impossible for Hillary to beat Obama in delegates even if Michigan and Florida are seated.

She doesn't care, she wants to take it to convention and attempt to strong-arm the nomination through super delegates. This is why she wants to votes in Michigan and Florida to count, not because the delegates will mean anything, but because she thinks if she can close in the gap on the popular vote and win "big states" she'll have more ammunition when she attempts to tear the Democratic party to pieces and steal the nomination from Obama.

A lot of people have been suggesting she should back out of the nomination process, but she's been talking like she still has a chance. Technically she does. Her chances are slim to none, but she has some wild shot in the dark of winning. And the media is all but too comfortable going along with her delusions for the ratings they're receiving from all of this.

In the mean time, McCain is pulling away taking leads into the double digits.

I really think Hillary needs to back out soon. If she takes this to convention and she loses, she'll have done nothing but hurt the party's chances. If she takes it to convention and wins, she'll disenfranchise many liberals and once again throw the election to the GOP. People understand if Hillary loses she lost because she didn't have the delegates and lost the campaign. This is a delegate race, if Obama is leading in delegates and they take that away from the first African American candidate and give it to a Clinton, lord help the Democratic party because they'll be in shambles for quite some time.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's virtually impossible for either one of them to get the 2025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. It is also virtually impossible for Hillary to beat Obama in delegates even if Michigan and Florida are seated.

She doesn't care, she wants to take it to convention and attempt to strong-arm the nomination through super delegates. This is why she wants to votes in Michigan and Florida to count, not because the delegates will mean anything, but because she thinks if she can close in the gap on the popular vote and win "big states" she'll have more ammunition when she attempts to tear the Democratic party to pieces and steal the nomination from Obama.

A lot of people have been suggesting she should back out of the nomination process, but she's been talking like she still has a chance. Technically she does. Her chances are slim to none, but she has some wild shot in the dark of winning. And the media is all but too comfortable going along with her delusions for the ratings they're receiving from all of this.

In the mean time, McCain is pulling away taking leads into the double digits.

I really think Hillary needs to back out soon. If she takes this to convention and she loses, she'll have done nothing but hurt the party's chances. If she takes it to convention and wins, she'll disenfranchise many liberals and once again throw the election to the GOP. People understand if Hillary loses she lost because she didn't have the delegates and lost the campaign. This is a delegate race, if Obama is leading in delegates and they take that away from the first African American candidate and give it to a Clinton, lord help the Democratic party because they'll be in shambles for quite some time.

They only way she wins the nomination to ensure a McCain victory which is why I think we are seeing my popular liberal voices come out against her. Not because they prefer Obama to her, just that the voters have spoken and they have not chosen her.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I have heard that it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win on pledged delegate counts, so she should end her campaign.

That is the reality.

Even if Obama does poorly in Pennsylvania and the remaining States the math will not add up for Clinton. I wonder how much proof will be needed for Democrats to understand that Hillary Clinton is about personal ambition and not her party?


Remember old Dick Nixon had a better case for election fraud in 1960 than Al (dimpled chad) Gore in 2000. And Nixon was not about to tear the country a "new one" over it.







What would history be if I did?