wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:54:14 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:40:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a
few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to
political reality, turns these people around.
The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the
rules.
It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman,
Dodd and the bankers who own them.


Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He
remains against the Iraqi war.

Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an
agenda.


We are still in the Iraq war, in case you are not watching the news.
In Jan 2009 Obama was also pretty soft on the Afghanistan war, as he
should be. It is another waste of money, lives and political capital.

My agenda is pretty simple, end the crusades, stop the hemorrhage debt
and try to build a viable economy that is based on real jobs, not
selling financial instruments of dubious value.
When I see a candidate who really has a plan to do that I will vote
for him/her. Since the late 80s it has been "meet the new boss, same
as the old boss".


Obama never said he would instantly withdraw us from Iraq.


You tube is a powerful thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYTKj8pU5M

You can see his position evolve if you follow this to the current
policy.
I still think he was completely wrong about Afghanistan, as was Bush.
We have nothing there we can win.


Did you actually listen to it???? Phased, orderly withdrawl, give the
generals a mission to begin an orderly, phased withdrawl... as, quickly as
possible, combat troops out within 16 mos. which is happening.


--
Nom=de=Plume