JAKARTA, Indonesia (CNN) -- Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate, according to CNN reporting.

Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.

Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and step-father and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa.

Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.

He called the story "an obvious right-wing hit job."

Insight stood by its story in a response posted on its Web site Monday afternoon.

The Insight article was cited several times Friday on Fox News and was also referenced by the New York Post, The Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News and a number of political blogs.

School not a madrassa

But reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.

He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.

"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."

Vause reported he saw boys and girls dressed in neat school uniforms playing outside the school, while teachers were dressed in Western-style clothes.

"I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the "Situation Room" Monday. "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."

Vause also interviewed one of Obama's Basuki classmates, Bandug Winadijanto, who claims that not a lot has changed at the school since the two men were pupils. Insight reported that Obama's political opponents believed the school promoted Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Islam, "and are seeking to prove it."

"It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school."

The Obama aide described Fox News' broadcasting of the Insight story "appallingly irresponsible."

Fox News executive Bill Shine told CNN "Reliable Sources" anchor Howard Kurtz that some of the network's hosts were simply expressing their opinions and repeatedly cited Insight as the source of the allegations.

Obama has noted in his two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10.

-CNN

Well, hah. There goes half the right wing's argument against him.

;)

Well, hah. There goes half the right wing's argument against him.I'm not so sure. If he gets the nomination I guarantee you that his Muslim connection, however small, will constantly be brought up. By the time they're through, a significant portion of the population will think that he actually is Muslim... and it goes without saying what that can do to one's presidential ambitions.

I'm not so sure. If he gets the nomination I guarantee you that his Muslim connection, however small, will constantly be brought up. By the time they're through, a significant portion of the population will think that he actually is Muslim... and it goes without saying what that can do to one's presidential ambitions.

I wouldn't be suprised if the majority of Fox News viewers already do believe he is a Muslim.

actually I heard on Fox news he was a relative of Ossama and was actually on the plane that flew the rest ofhis family out the day after 9-11

actually I heard on Fox news he was a relative of Ossama and was actually on the plane that flew the rest ofhis family out the day after 9-11

I would not be at all suprised if they actually did say that.

Sounds like something O'Reilly would say.

actually I heard on Fox news he was a relative of Ossama and was actually on the plane that flew the rest ofhis family out the day after 9-11

I hope that was a joke.

There goes half the right wing's argument against him.At this point John Edwards and Hillary benefit more from this story than the Republicans.

At this point John Edwards and Hillary benefit more from this story than the Republicans.

Completely true, but that's not to say that the Republicans aren't against him. Since they seem to be saying so many negative things about him, they must think that he is the front runner of the Democrats at this point.

I'm not so sure. If he gets the nomination I guarantee you that his Muslim connection, however small, will constantly be brought up. By the time they're through, a significant portion of the population will think that he actually is Muslim... and it goes without saying what that can do to one's presidential ambitions.

Just like that bullshit Bush used, "he had an illegitimate black child!"

actually I heard on Fox news he was a relative of Ossama and was actually on the plane that flew the rest ofhis family out the day after 9-11

Notice the source.

Just like that bullshit Bush used, "he had an illegitimate black child!"

Actually, Bush never said it. A campaign ad appeared on the eve of the South Carolina primary that stated that "John McCain has a biracial child." The truth is that he does. He adopted a child fathered by an American soldier in Korea, and who would have faced a difficult future there.
The reason that Obama is being targeted is that he has a better chance of defeating any Republican than Clinton does. It is about power, and some people will do or say anything to get and keep it. Those are not the kind of people whom I want running the country.

Unfortunately, they're the only people who want to run the country...

Actually, Bush never said it. A campaign ad appeared on the eve of the South Carolina primary that stated that "John McCain has a biracial child." The truth is that he does. He adopted a child fathered by an American soldier in Korea, and who would have faced a difficult future there.

True, but there is a pretty damn big difference when you say, "John McCain fathered an illegitimate biracial child", and what you just described. One is a noble thing, the other shows bad morals (the illegitimate part, not the biracial bit). I consider it to be on the same level as an outright lie when you twist the story that badly.

Notice the source.

it was a joke

School not a madrassa



Haha...you guys don't understand how contradictory this sounds. For an ordinary arabic speaking person, madrassa means school. I was laughing so hard when I read this. It's just another example of media changing the meaning of arabic words.

it was a joke

Heh, it's not easy to tell with you :p I would've believed it.

I am sure if Fox News said something like that it would have been big news on all the other news outlets how far right Fox news is

I don't think that would be very shocking headline news, "Fox news actually supports the right!"

It would be shocking if a news agency told a blatent lie, kin d of like making fake documents to try and discredit a presidential candidate right before the election

It would be shocking if a news agency told a blatent lie, kin d of like making fake documents to try and discredit a presidential candidate right before the election

SHHHHH TRAV!!!

you don't want to hint in ANY way, shape, or form that the media has a liberal slant... even with solid evidence... it's a taboo on this board. It's just unacceptable... ask FT all about it.

It would be shocking if a news agency told a blatent lie, kind of like making fake documents to try and discredit a presidential candidate right before the election

You mean like making up a fake story (http://mediamatters.org/items/200410040006), including fake quotes about a Presidential cantidate right before the election and trying to pass it off as news?

For the record, CBS did not "make" the documents. That is a lie.

even with solid evidence...

If only you had any...

A campaign ad appeared on the eve of the South Carolina primary that stated that "John McCain has a biracial child." The truth is that he does..

No.

The truth is that he has an adopted biracial child.

It is --and you know it-- entirely misleading and dishonest for a news agancy to tell the listening audience that - ""John McCain has a biracial child"".

It very clearly sends the (dishonest) message that McCain had fathered a child thru having had sex with a black woman.

But then, it was the mainstream Corporate Media (aka, the Rightwing DisInformation Ministry) spreading that particular lie.................so, no surprise there.

____________________________________

"liberal" Media my ass.

Haha...you guys don't understand how contradictory this sounds. For an ordinary arabic speaking person, madrassa means school. I was laughing so hard when I read this. It's just another example of media changing the meaning of arabic words."Neocon" is a new word that literally means "new conservative". But is that what it really means now?
"Pro-choice" should mean that someone believes that citizens should be able to decide what is best for them (abortion, gun ownership, schools choice, etc...). It doesn't mean that any longer, does it?

"Madrassa" meaning militant-school is just one in a long line of terms taking on simplified specific definitions.

I'm glad it made you laugh "so hard".

You mean like making up a fake story (http://mediamatters.org/items/200410040006), including fake quotes about a Presidential cantidate right before the election and trying to pass it off as news?

For the record, CBS did not "make" the documents. That is a lie.

Well then where did they get them?

Even if they got them from a faulty source, they reported them as if they were true.. didn't even check to see if they were factual... just couldnt WAIT to get that Bush dirt out there.

And the "fake story" you refer to is about John Kerry's cuticles... how important.

:rolleyes:

For the record, CBS did not "make" the documents. That is a lie.

Not to mention the fact that what the documents in question were saying was irrefutably TRUE.

Well then where did they get them?

Thank you for admitting you do not really know and are just talking out of ignorance.

Even if they got them from a faulty source, they reported them as if they were true.. didn't even check to see if they were factual... just couldnt WAIT to get that Bush dirt out there.

*sigh*

They got them from a source who was in the N.G. and who then changed his story and admitted he lied AFTER CBS already ran the story.


And the "fake story" you refer to is about John Kerry's cuticles... how important.


I love how you say Fake Story in quotes as if you don't believe it was fake.

Fox admitted it was fake and pulled it down after being confronted, although they never apologized and the guy who did it was never repremanded in any way.

Not to mention the fact that what the documents in question were saying was irrefutably TRUE.

Yes, all that happened was that the source suddenly got cold feet and decided he wasn't going to back his own story after it ran.

The idea it was "fake" is about as accurate as the idea that Iraq was responsible for 9-11.

Thank you for admitting you do not really know and are just talking out of ignorance.

oh cut the crap... i was being sarcastic



*sigh*

They got them from a source who was in the N.G. and who then changed his story and admitted he lied AFTER CBS already ran the story.

So let me ask you something..

You are saying CBS can pass the buck because they found out about the lie AFTER they ran the story

but yet liberals are saying George Bush is responsible even if he found out intelligence was faulty AFTER they went into Iraq?

That is a contradiction... it's either the person who USES the intelligence assumes responsibility or they don't... i see it depends on what side of the political spectrum it occurs with you.






I love how you say Fake Story in quotes as if you don't believe it was fake.

Fox admitted it was fake and pulled it down after being confronted, although they never apologized and the guy who did it was never repremanded in any way.

If it were a major story i'd say you have something.. but it was about his cuticles.. i could give a shit about a presidential candidate's cuticles...

"Neocon" is a new word that literally means "new conservative". But is that what it really means now?
"Pro-choice" should mean that someone believes that citizens should be able to decide what is best for them (abortion, gun ownership, schools choice, etc...). It doesn't mean that any longer, does it?

"Madrassa" meaning militant-school is just one in a long line of terms taking on simplified specific definitions.

Okay so I guess now there is the original Arabic definition of the word madrassa and the one created by the media. From an Arab's viewpoint, this falls along the lines of the words "jihad" and "Allah." Jihad, in the media, means "holy war." While the correct Arabic meaning is "struggle." In addition, I understand the definition of words have changed since the beginning of time. You don't need to tell me.

I'm glad it made you laugh "so hard".

I was actually laughing at the article recanting the original one. One of it's subtitles were "School Not a madrassa." I guess you have to speak Arabic to actually laugh at this and understand where I'm coming from. But thanks. I'm glad your glad that it made me laugh so hard.

I was actually laughing at .... "School Not a madrassa." I guess you have to speak Arabic
I'm glad your glad that it made me laugh so hard.I get that now.
That is pretty funny, actually.
Now I really am glad you laughed so hard.

CBS and the Documents.
Even CBS said that Rather and Mary Mapes rushed the story without properly vetting the source. They seemed anxious to run a story that would have a negative impact on President Bush.

It was immediately obvious that the document was a fake, but Rather stuck to the story. When he was forced out, he said he was taking it upon himself to prove the story true.

And OJ's still looking for the real killers.

oh cut the crap... i was being sarcastic

No, you were admitting ignorance. I am the sarcastic cynic here.

So let me ask you something..

You are saying CBS can pass the buck because they found out about the lie AFTER they ran the story

What lie? There hasn't been any lie. The source decided he would not back his own story so the documents couldn't be verified. It is a technicality that in no way, shape or form indicates any "lie".


but yet liberals are saying George Bush is responsible even if he found out intelligence was faulty AFTER they went into Iraq?

I find it amazing that you so easily conflate what CBS did by reporting a story into "lies" and conedmn them for it, but you cannot even find the intellectual honesty to do the same to George Bush for going to war and costing thousands of people their lives, or even to condemn Fox for what they admitted were lies.


That is a contradiction... it's either the person who USES the intelligence assumes responsibility or they don't... i see it depends on what side of the political spectrum it occurs with you.

Yes, it is a contradiction... on your part.

Let me ask you something, Have you always been such a partisan?


If it were a major story i'd say you have something.. but it was about his cuticles.. i could give a shit about a presidential candidate's cuticles...

It was a blatent lie about a Presidential cantidate right before an election.

The same thing you were just whining about with CBS, but when it comes to Fox, you suddenly "don't care".

What a suprise... not!

No, you were admitting ignorance. I am the sarcastic cynic here.

Oh so i WASN'T being sarcastic? Well, in that case, since you know me better than I do :rolleyes: .. what did i have for breakfast this morning?


What lie? There hasn't been any lie. The source decided he would not back his own story so the documents couldn't be verified. It is a technicality that in no way, shape or form indicates any "lie".

False information... the word "lie" was probably a misuse of the word on my part...



I find it amazing that you so easily conflate what CBS did by reporting a story into "lies" and conedmn them for it, but you cannot even find the intellectual honesty to do the same to George Bush for going to war and costing thousands of people their lives, or even to condemn Fox for what they admitted were lies.

I say Dan Rather and CBS ran the story because they wanted negative pub on Bush..

As for Iraq.. i have said this many times earlier.. you and I CANNOT PROVE that Bush "lied" us into Iraq. We can only theorize..

Its either Bush got false information, like Dan Rather, and should be given a free pass by your standards. OR Saddam had half a brain and got rid of any scent of WMD's based on the 17+ visits from U.N. weapons inspectors which he turned right back around or all of the press leading up to us invading.

The only way we will FACTUALLY know if Bush "lied" us into Iraq will be with a confession.. kind of like when Bill came on TV and told us about Monica.



Yes, it is a contradiction... on your part.

Let me ask you something, Have you always been such a partisan?

I think if you are looking for partisan you should look in the mirror... Instead of attacking me why don't you answer the question.



It was a blatent lie about a Presidential cantidate right before an election.

The same thing you were just whining about with CBS, but when it comes to Fox, you suddenly "don't care".

What a suprise... not!

Why do i have to re-answer questions? I said if it were a MAJOR lie, maybe about how he "beats his wife" or "smokes crack" on the side.. i'd say "hey, that is not right"..

but.. it's about his cuticles.. so i'll pass on caring.

False information... the word "lie" was probably a misuse of the word on my part...

Yeah, probably. :rolleyes:



I say Dan Rather and CBS ran the story because they wanted negative pub on Bush..

And Fox didn't with their fake story?


As for Iraq.. i have said this many times earlier.. you and I CANNOT PROVE that Bush "lied" us into Iraq. We can only theorize..

I disagree. I think there is more then enough evidence to prosecute Bush for Fraud. You should check out the book, U.S. v George W. Bush, et all. written by a federal prosecutor with over 20 years experience.


Its either Bush got false information, like Dan Rather, and should be given a free pass by your standards.

Dan rather was not given a free pass.


OR Saddam had half a brain and got rid of any scent of WMD's based on the 17+ visits from U.N. weapons inspectors which he turned right back around or all of the press leading up to us invading.

now THAT is an unprovable conspiracy theory.


The only way we will FACTUALLY know if Bush "lied" us into Iraq will be with a confession.. kind of like when Bill came on TV and told us about Monica.

Not true at all.
We can use his own words against him in his many statements during the runup to the war.

Cut the crap Decka. The reason you "don't care" about Fox's fake story is that you are a partisan. Period. I call them like I see them.

And Fox didn't with their fake story?

They did.. I won't deny that at all.. Fox definitely leans right




I disagree. I think there is more then enough evidence to prosecute Bush for Fraud. You should check out the book, U.S. v George W. Bush, et all. written by a federal prosecutor with over 20 years experience.

I've read about multiple "experts" with all the evidence in the world who disagree on this subject, and after seeing both sides say that THEIR side is 100% without a doubt correct, I'll pass on reading another "expert" with an agenda.. maybe i'll read a review on it and see if it's an improvement at all.



Dan rather was not given a free pass.

By you he was. Don't change the subject.


now THAT is an unprovable conspiracy theory.

Agreed, i can't prove it. But at least i can admit that, and i don't try to pass it off as fact.

Not true at all.
We can use his own words against him in his many statements during the runup to the war.

But in that you'd have to prove what he knew and what he didn't know, which you can't prove.

Cut the crap Decka. The reason you "don't care" about Fox's fake story is that you are a partisan. Period. I call them like I see them.

It is a lie by Fox, i just don't care because it was about his fingernails.. i can re-answer the question AGAIN if you'd like.

I call them like i see em too... and if you are clinging to a story about Kerry's fingernails to prove that there is some rightwing media bias, i'd say you have pretty weak argument.

They did.. I won't deny that at all.. Fox definitely leans right

Wow, we agree on something.

I predict you will flip flop on that before the end of your post.



I've read about multiple "experts" with all the evidence in the world who disagree on this subject, and after seeing both sides say that THEIR side is 100% without a doubt correct, I'll pass on reading another "expert" with an agenda.. maybe i'll read a review on it and see if it's an improvement at all.

Suuuuuuuuuuuure you have.



By you he was.

I don't have any authority to do anything to Dan Rather.

Grow up.


Agreed, i can't prove it. But at least i can admit that, and i don't try to pass it off as fact.

Bull. That is exactly what you are trying to do now.


But in that you'd have to prove what he knew and what he didn't know, which you can't prove.

Wrong.

All I would have to prove is what he said. What Bush believed is irrelivent.


It is a lie by Fox, i just don't care because it was about his fingernails.. i can re-answer the question AGAIN if you'd like.

A lie is a lie. They tried to pass a lie off as news. Period. It also played right into the GOP talking points about Kerry being "weak, waffling and weird", so it was obviously intended to influence the election.


I call them like i see em too... and if you are clinging to a story about Kerry's fingernails to prove that there is some rightwing media bias, i'd say you have pretty weak argument.

So you admit it is bias but you don't admit it is bias.

Look, I was right. There is your flip flop.

You are a very confused partisan.

what did i have for breakfast this morning?
.

Pussy? Oh wait, that's the only thing you didn't have!

:lolhit: Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one.

Pussy? Oh wait, that's the only thing you didn't have!

:lolhit: Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one.

And you criticize ME for being rude!

And you criticize ME for being rude!

There's a difference between genuinely insulting someone to hurt their feelings and making a joke. I'm sure Decka will understand...

There's a difference between genuinely insulting someone to hurt their feelings and making a joke. I'm sure Decka will understand...

Yeah, I am sure. :rolleyes:

You're no fun dharma.

You're no fun dharma.

I can't even try to be or you will jump all over me for being "mean".

Yo mama sure is fun though. ;)

Yo mama sure is fun though. ;)

Uh-oh, dharma's not gonna like that. No jokes on his watch!

Uh-oh, dharma's not gonna like that. No jokes on his watch!

huh?

You are the one who calls me "mean" when I make one.

Yo mama's a joke!



(Please hit me)

Yo mama's so fat...

Back to the thread:

The editor of Insight Magazine was on the radio today. He made the point that the idea of the article wasn't to make any claims about Obama, but rather to report that Hillary's opposition research people had uncovered this story.
Hillary's people have denied it.

My prediction: Hillary and her handlers will eventually say it was true, they didn't know about it and the person/persons responsible have been fired.

My prediction: Hillary and her handlers will eventually say it was true, they didn't know about it and the person/persons responsible have been fired.

Probably true.

My prediction: Hillary and her handlers will eventually say it was true, they didn't know about it and the person/persons responsible have been fired.

I doubt it.

Regardless of this story, I don't think Obama is ready to run. In another 4-8 years, then he'll have a fighting chance, and this thing will be forgotten anyway. If the reps were out to do a hitjob on anyone, it would be Hillary. Obama just doesn't have the record to do this, and I've hardly heard anything on his stance on...anything.

Regardless of this story, I don't think Obama is ready to run. In another 4-8 years, then he'll have a fighting chance, It's tough to say in this case. Right now one of his big advantages is that he has no voting record. If you look at the other dems (and some republicans) right now, they are tweaking, denying, revamping and otherwise running from their original views on the war.
They even had that phony "non-binding resolution". Cowards.

He can say whatever he wants and not look like he's playing politics.

It's tough to say in this case. Right now one of his big advantages is that he has no voting record. If you look at the other dems (and some republicans) right now, they are tweaking, denying, revamping and otherwise running from their original views on the war.
They even had that phony "non-binding resolution". Cowards.

He can say whatever he wants and not look like he's playing politics.

Of course they have changed their views since before the invasion. The reasoning for the invasion, WMDs, turned out to be nonexistent.

I would worry far more about someone who does not change their views after the situation has changed so drasticly.

I agree the nonbinding resolution seems to be a waste of time, but what do you suggest they do instead?

Of course they have changed their views since before the invasion. The reasoning for the invasion, WMDs, turned out to be nonexistent. With the exception of President Bush, can you think of any Republican or Democrat who you think is giving an honest answer on how they feel about the conflict?

All they are doing is polling and trying to stake out a safe position that won't make them look against or in favor of the war. Just listen to their safe non-answers to any question about Iraq.

The non-binding resolution is a perfect example. They can be against the surge (which used to be called reinforcements) without actually committing themselves to anything.

With the exception of President Bush, can you think of any Republican or Democrat who you think is giving an honest answer on how they feel about the conflict?

Sure, John Edwards, Barak Obama, Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden.


All they are doing is polling and trying to stake out a safe position that won't make them look against or in favor of the war. Just listen to their safe non-answers to any question about Iraq.

It is a tough situation. It was a mistake but now that we have broken Iraq we have some responsibility to try and fix it or at least minimize the damage.
Unfortunately the American people lack the will to do what needs to be done. Just look at the reaction whenever the subject of a draft is mentioned.

By the way, Do you have ANY proof that they are being dishonest in their opinions? Is that just your opinion?


The non-binding resolution is a perfect example. They can be against the surge (which used to be called reinforcements) without actually committing themselves to anything.

I ask again, what would YOU do differently?

Anyone involved in the non-binding resolution is being disingenuous.
I think they approve funding for this war. It's not an all or nothing, is it?

Couldn't they limit the funding so as to make the surge unfeasible. I could be wrong on this.

Biden claims it's "constitutionally questionable" for congress to pass a bill to put a cap on troops. That's good language to show you're against it without having to actually commit yourself to being against it.
Do you really think he doesn't know whether the congress can do this or not?
He's just avoiding commiting himself.

Here's a great quote from The New Republic (That's right, The New Republic):
"Feingold "continues to courageously take on the Washington, D.C. Democratic Establishment and its weak-kneed fear of taking any sort of serious stand on Iraq. Be sure not to miss that profile in courage, Sen. Joe Biden, as he provides a perfect example of why the public believes Democrats stand for nothing.

Wow, we agree on something.

I predict you will flip flop on that before the end of your post.

go for it, i never said Fox wasn't wrong, i said the story they posted was irrelevant.. big difference, but i don't expect YOU to catch on to that.





Suuuuuuuuuuuure you have.

Hey, i can not believe anything YOU say too if you'd like..


I don't have any authority to do anything to Dan Rather.

Grow up.

Nice reply, that is laughable. You definitely are trying to let CBS and Dan Rather off the hook, that is the center of your whole "right wing media bias" debate. Telling me to "grow up" is a cheap way to try to get out, and I will call you out on that 6 days a week and twice on sunday... Why don't you stick on subject? We aren't talking about what "authority" you have to "do anything" to Dan Rather.. we are talking about how you don't hold Dan Rather to any consequences of his actions in running a story prematurely when it turned out to be false.. Why don't you talk about the subject, and not change it, which is what you do best, because you can't answer any direct question if your life depended on it.




Wrong.

All I would have to prove is what he said. What Bush believed is irrelivent.

We aren't talking about what he "believed", we are talking about what he knew and when he knew it. That matters when Dan Rather is in question, but for some reason it doesn't matter when George Bush is in question.. and you try to ridicule other people for being partisan? It seems that YOU are the partisan hack in this discussion..



A lie is a lie. They tried to pass a lie off as news. Period. It also played right into the GOP talking points about Kerry being "weak, waffling and weird", so it was obviously intended to influence the election.

You can make a story about a president's fingernails into a whopper if you so choose... i honestly wouldn't care if CBS ran a story about Bush's eyebrows... because i would expect the common american to not give two shits.



So you admit it is bias but you don't admit it is bias.

Look, I was right. There is your flip flop.

You are a very confused partisan.

LMAO.. you are a typical liberal.. all bark, all attack, but no substance. I flip-flopped? Go back to grade school, and meanwhile, say hi to John Kerry for me:smile2:

Couldn't they limit the funding so as to make the surge unfeasible. I could be wrong on this.

No, they could not. The escalation is being carried out with funds already approved. All Congress could do is cut funding once the troops are already there, which they don't want to do because they don't want to endanger the troops any more than they already are.


Biden claims it's "constitutionally questionable" for congress to pass a bill to put a cap on troops. That's good language to show you're against it without having to actually commit yourself to being against it.
Do you really think he doesn't know whether the congress can do this or not?
He's just avoiding commiting himself.

Yes, I believe Biden. This is an unusual situation. You seem to think you have all the answers though.

Why don't you answer my question and tell me what you would do instead? You seem to be full of complaints but decidedly lacking in answers.

1. No, they could not. The escalation is being carried out with funds already approved.
2. Why don't you answer my question and tell me what you would do instead? You seem to be full of complaints but decidedly lacking in answers.1. I think the president went to congress with a request for more funding last week. The "surge" (which used to be called reinforcements) is barely a trickle now. They could say "NO" at which time he would realize he can't afford the real surge.

2. If I were against this as the congress claims to be, I would do the above and then publicly state my commitment to ending the war. The Democrats now are playing both sides.

Though you don't say Biden et al. are doing that, the New Republic and many other Democrats disagree strongly with you.

1. I think the president went to congress with a request for more funding last week.

Yeah, he has to do that every year. It is part of the budget process.

But the "surge" has already begun and with funds already appropriated.


The "surge" (which used to be called reinforcements) is barely a trickle now. They could say "NO" at which time he would realize he can't afford the real surge.

They could eh? Just say "no"? Ok, Nancy Reagan, well why don't you go down to D.C. and inform all those congressman who apparently don't know as much as you do? Go educate our Congress, O Enlightened one, since you seem to know so much more than they do.
Why are you wasting your time on a yahoo message board? If you are right that would make you an even greater genius then Karl Rove.



2. If I were against this as the congress claims to be, I would do the above and then publicly state my commitment to ending the war.

Many Democrats and some Republicans have already publicly stated their commitment to ending the war. However apparently they don't know as much about the Congress' wartime authority as you do. Apparently the President doesn't know he has to stop just because Congress "said no".

You need to get your all-knowing butt down to Washington so you can "inform" our leaders how to do their jobs. They apparently need you desperately.

Who knew that all this time all Congress had to do was "Say No" and that would end everything?

*sigh*

1. But the "surge" has already begun and with funds already appropriated.
2. They could eh? Just say "no"? Ok, Nancy Reagan,....
3. ...well why don't you go down to D.C. and inform all those congressman who apparently don't know as much as you do.... Go educate our Congress, O Enlightened one, since you seem to know so much more than they do.....get your all-knowing butt down to Washington.....They apparently need you desperately.
1. "Already begun" is hardly unstoppable. If the Congress had the balls to take a stand, the president would know that the next budget request will not support this many extra troops. He would have no choice.

2. Of course they could. But they are playing both sides so they are covered no matter what happens in Iraq. They will not take a firm stand either way.

3. I'm not your senator. I don't know what they should do. I don't ask people what they would do if they were in congress because it's just plain dumb.
You pressed me twice to engage in that riduculous exercise, I finally do, and then you call me a know-it-all.
Grow up.

Brooks, what is truly "dumb" is claiming that all Congress has to do is "say no".
It is just a stupid thing to say. (as you would tell me if I had said it)

If you want to talk to adults, you should try to act like one.

Brooks, what is truly "dumb" is claiming that all Congress has to do is "say no". To the contrary, of course they can.
I think we just live in the era of lowered expectations when it comes to our leaders. It has become acceptable that the members of congress (particularly those with presidential aspirations) don't give an answer that will hurt them politically.

To expect them to say "no" isn't dumb.
it's just sad that we don't expect it.

Obviously we also live in an era of oversimplification, partisan hackery and unequal expectations.

And that is just sad.

Are you saying they can't say no, or they won't?

I am saying that merely "saying no" is not binding and won't stop anything.

Many of them have already "said no" and it hasn't stopped anything.

It is an oversimplified fantasy on your part to think that it would.

1. I am saying that merely "saying no" is not binding and won't stop anything.
2. Many of them have already "said no" and it hasn't stopped anything.
3. It is an oversimplified fantasy on your part to think that it would.
1. Saying no during a vote on funding the war would be binding and could stop the surge.

2. Yeah, during the "non-binding resolution".

3. No. They hold the purse strings. They just don't have the courage to commit themselves to taking any stand.