Obama '08?

... Who is Obama?

okie wrote:

... Who is Obama?

I haven't asked this before, but the possibility exists, does he know? He has been a contradiction, in fact when I remember reading his book, it was full of contradictions or explanations of opposing views without much explanation of his views, at least that is my recollection. Perhaps I need to read it again.

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Are you "that" ignorant? No president goes into the white house fully prepared for all the responsibilities inherent in the job. Nobody.

What Obama brings to the presidency is intelligence; something you lack.

But most of them have at least some experience. This one has little to none.

It has occurred to me this morning what may be behind the Obama administration picks. He wants as many people from all corners, especially his former foes, even somebody like Gates, so that he is not placed into the spotlight for making decisions. For a guy that trumpeted change, we may have a guy that is deathly afraid of making any decision, or perhaps for any decision made perhaps he wants somebody else to take the fall for it. Face it, he has little or no experience on which to make decisions as president. If his former foes are embedded as part of his administration, then any failures also become their failures, thus any future opposition from those people will be blunted by the fact that they are part of the same administration. It becomes difficult for them to oppose the administration that they also are a part of. Same theory with Gates, any Iraq failure of his can also be blunted by the fact that it was administered by a Bush appointee.

Obama wants credit for anything good, but for anything wrong, he will not desire to take any responsibility, and he doesn't want future opposition, so he is now neutralizing any future opposition with his appointees. This possibility at least deserves some consideration in the mix of ideas attempting to figure the guy out. Who is Obama?

You can't figure him out? It looks like you've spent some time thinking about it. What is it you're confused about?

I read the above, and think 'he's a smart politician.' He's harnessing the power of those who might oppose him, to instead support him.

I don't think you have any proof that Obama is seeking to duck the responsibility for anything that goes wrong. The other day at a press conference, he even reminded people that 'the buck stops with me, every time.' Bush never said that once and he never took responsibility for his failures once. Yet you continually refer to him as a 'good man.' Your standards seem more based on ideology than actions.

Cycloptichorn

Who is okie? I bet the majority on a2k know okie as the dumbass that he is; his posts show how ignorant he is about the intelligence and selection president elect Obama has made for his cabinet. As you have subsequently pointed out, Obama also said "the buck stops with me." okie's brain has been in reverse too long; he's not capable of seeing ahead with the Obama presidency - compared to dunce Bush who has destroyed our economy and good name around the world.

The biggee, Iraq, the jury is still out. WMD, blame the CIA for a sorry job of intelligence, thanks to dumbing down of the agency by previous administrations, and we still do not know the full story, do we?

My thought on Obama's picks is a theory, cyclops. Many people have theories about Obama, and they cover a very wide range. It is all part of the problem thrust up0n us in terms of uncertainties in regard to him as a person and as a president.

(CNN) -- A retired CIA official has accused the Bush administration of ignoring intelligence indicating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no active nuclear program before the United States-led coalition invaded it, CBS News said Sunday.

Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, told "60 Minutes" that the administration "chose to ignore" good intelligence, the network said in a posting on its Web site.

Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

ci and cyclops, this subject has been dissected many times over, but to repeat the obvious for the thousandth time, there was conflicting information, but speaking of the buck stops somewhere, the CIA buck stopped at George Tenet, who told Bush that WMD was a slam dunk shortly before the war started.

SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003



Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC

Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix









Mr. President,





For nearly three years, I have been coming to the Security Council presenting the quarterly reports of UNMOVIC. They have described our many preparations for the resumption of inspections in Iraq. The 12th quarterly report is the first that describes three months of inspections. They come after four years without inspections. The report was finalized ten days ago and a number of relevant events have taken place since then. Today’s statement will supplement the circulated report on these points to bring the Council up-to-date.



Inspection process


Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.



Some practical matters, which were not settled by the talks, Dr. ElBaradei and I had with the Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in resolution 1441 (2002), have been resolved at meetings, which we have had in Baghdad. Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were overcome. This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

Okay, try to do some logical thinking, cyclops. A man takes his car to the mechanics shop, where a group of mechanics voice different ideas about what is wrong with the vehicle, among themselves, and they may even write reports. After all of this process, the group of mechanics give all of their information to the manager of the shop, who then reports to the owner of the car, and says it is the fuel pump that is definitely going out. I have some conflicting opinions, but this is the conclusion of all of my mechanics opinions, the preponderence of evidence says the fuel pump is going out. So the man tells the shop to replace the fuel pump. If it is found that the advice was wrong, and if it is found that a particular mechanic happened to be right rather than the conclusion by the manager, is it the manager's fault, or is it the owner of the car's fault.

Tenet and Iraq WMD controversy

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq.[20] At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence against Saddam Hussein amounted to a "slam dunk case." After several months of refusing to confirm this statement, Tenet later stated that this remark was taken out of context. (Tenet indicated that the comment was made pursuant to a discussion about how to convince the American people to support invading Iraq, and that, in his opinion, the best way to convince the people would be by explaining the dangers posed by Iraq's WMD i.e., the public relations sale of the war via the WMD, according to Tenet, would be a "slam dunk").[21] The search following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by U.S., British and international forces yielded no stockpiles of WMDs, however.

Do you just ignore facts and keep trotting out the party line or what Okie?