END TIME
PROPHECY REPORTBible Prophecy in Today's News Headlines!
Covering “End Times Bible Prophecy and News, End Times Deception, Societal Collapse, Apostasy, False Teachers, Mass Hysteria, Demonic Attacks, War, Rumors of War, Famine, Pestilence, Salvation through Jesus Christ, Earthquakes, UFOs, Earth Changes, False Christs, All Roads Lead to Rome, New World Order, Conspiracies, and GMO Frankenfood.”
END TIME
PROPHECY REPORT
BRITTANY MURPHY POISONED: Why? The Conspiracy behind Brittany Murphy's DeathLAST DAYS: What does the Bible Say? Click to find out!
UFOs, DECEPTION and DISCLOSURE: When it comes to UFOs, the government is all about deception--just not the way you've been led to believe.
Barack Obama: 44th President of the United States New President Will Find Responsibilities Replace Rhetoric
Electoral Win Solid, if Not Spectacular
Barack Obama was elected in Election 2008 as the USA's 44th president and almost immediately will face hard choices in governing, both on the domestic and foreign fronts.
The media has called Obama's election "historic", and on that--unlike most other matters of fact--they are correct.
Obama becomes the country's first bi-racial candidate, and even those that opposed Obama on policy issues can find much good in the hope that his election will put issues of race into their proper perspective.
The raw statistics surrounding the election of Barack Hussein Obama as the nation's 44th president indicate that the country gave a Democrat presidential candidate a majority of the popular vote for the first time in 32 years.
Obama's 52.4% of the popular vote surpasses Jimmy Carter's 50.1% total in 1976 election. That total could finish up or down, but not by much. Obama's total was far short of predictions that he would approach Lyndon Johnson's 1964 total of 61.1%.
The electoral college total had Obama winning 364-174 over challenger John McCain.
Bill Clinton exceeded both totals in the electoral college--in spite of never winning a majority of the popular vote--in both 1992(370) and 1996 (379). Obama did surpass Carter's 297.
Obama will be tested immediately, it seems on foreign policy.
Russia will deploy short-range missiles in the Baltic Sea region near the border with Poland in response to plans by the United States to build an anti-missile system in Europe, President Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday.
The proposed U.S. anti-missile system, which would include 10 missile silos in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic to help detect and shoot down any ballistic missiles, threatens Russia's national security, Medvedev said in his state-of-the-nation address on Wednesday.
"To neutralize — if necessary — the [U.S.] anti-missile system, an Iskander missile system will be deployed in the Kaliningrad region," Medvedev said. "Naturally, we are also considering using for the same purpose the resources of Russia's navy."
There will be the traditional 'honeymoon' between the new Obama administration and the press. DBKP is no different: we wish the new president well for the sake of the United States.
We'll reserve comment on the press' relationship with the Obama campaign before the election for another post.
Obama's campaign mantra of "hope" affects even us: we hope that what we don't know about the Senator from Illinois won't affect his good judgment for the good of the country. We also hope that the Obama we see in White House really the go-slow, tax-cutting Obama we saw in the last weeks of the campaign.
Obama's campaign mantra of "hope" affects even us: we hope that what we don't know about the Senator from Illinois won't affect his good judgment for the good of the country.
Republicans in Congress continued to pay a price for their free-spending, pork-barreling ways when they had control. We hope they learned a lesson, though we are a bit skeptical.
Barack Obama is a smart man. We hope he uses his intelligence to study the effects of what happens--to Democrats and Republicans alike--when they try to buy votes using the hard-earned money of their fellow citizens.
We Barack Obama a hearty "Good luck". by Mondo Frazier
PUMA Power: One-Fourth of Democrat Party Used to Being Ignored by Maintream Media PUMAs are the One Group Who Has Already Gone Head-to-Head Against "The Obama Experience"
* The Mainstream Media Bias * ACORN Voter Fraud * The Blog Shutdowns and Intimidation Tactics * The "Fix is In" Frustration
PUMAs: Been There, Done That
These days, the most energetic investigations, the loudest warnings and the people most experienced with unpleasant Obama campaign tactics come not from the Republican Party, but from a segment of the Democrat Party: the PUMAs.
They represent a significant proportion of the Democratic Party--a portion the Mainstream Media is loathe to acknowledge, let alone report. Some became PUMAs after what they felt was unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton. Some because of the unfair treatment in the media of Sarah Palin. Some because they cannot support a candidate who Joe Biden said "wasn't ready" just months ago--before Biden became Barack Obama's running mate.
Party Unity My Ass (PUMA)
PUMA is a movement born shortly after Hillary Clinton conceded the Democrat nomination to Barack Obama. PUMA blogs and websites almost immediately popped up on the Internet.
An AP-Yahoo News poll claims that Democrats who backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries are still not warming up to Barack Obama. Fifty-eight percent of Clinton supporters now back Obama.
That was the same percentage who said they backed Obama in a June, when Clinton called it quits and the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) movement was born.
The poll shows that while Obama has gained ground among Clinton's supporters — 69 percent view him favorably now, up 9 percentage points from June — this has yet to translate into more of their support.
In part, this is because their positive views of Republican presidential nominee John McCain have also improved during this period. Those supporting McCain have also edged up from 21 percent to 28 percent, with the number of undecided staying constant, the survey showed.
That was last month. Have things changed since then?
Hillary Clinton has been campaigning for Obama--and there are plenty of stories that report that the PUMAs practically don't exist.
That message seems to be resonating with Clinton’s former supporters. Interviewed at Friday’s event, a dozen of them said they all had swung behind behind Obama.
Margaret Miller, 64, of Oakdale, Pa., proved to be a typical Obama convert.
“I was very skeptical at first. We heard all the rumors saying he was an Arab, but now we know better,” said Miller, who added: “After getting to know Obama a little better and seeing his outlook for America, I decided he’s the one.”
In other words, the post-primary bitterness that spawned the “PUMAs” — the Hillary supporters whose acronym stood for “Party Unity My (lower part of my anatomy)” — virtually has dissolved. --Clinton stumps across U.S. for Obama in run-up to the election
Then apparently every PUMA runs a website, judging from the number of them.
The above article does concede that "it's been hard" for Clinton to support Obama.
Touting Obama is quite a turnaround for Clinton, who derided the Illinois senator as not much more than a speech-maker during their long primary battle. Clinton also famously ran a campaign ad questioning whether Obama was ready to be president.
Close your curtains, Lock your door's my fellow PUMA's. We're being chased by...by...HOUNDS.
Yup, The same party who Ignored us when we voted for Hillary, and stole delegates from her, and handed the Democratic nomination to NObama (Yup handed.... he didn't win it) Have sent Dog's after us PUMA'S. --To the Anti-PUMA websites: we still say NO DEAL!!!!
This reminder a few weeks ago from PUMA08 a few weeks ago:
PUMAs,
If and when you get polled, remember to let the pollster know that not only do you intend to vote, but that you are strongly committed to voting for: Barack Obama
If the story of the PUMAs in the Mainstream Media is that they are "virtually dissolved", Steven M. Warshawsky, Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory, takes a different view.
Remember how quickly the MSM jumped off the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and onto Obama's? Remember how annoyed and angry they became as Hillary refused to concede the nomination? The MSM decided that electing the nation's first black, socialist, anti-American president was politically and historically more important (and, for them, more exciting) than electing the nation's first female, socialist, patriotic president. And they are doing everything they can to achieve this goal.
Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.
Yet, surprise surprise, the mainstream media is not talking about these voters, not talking about the real rift that is occurring within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Needless to say, if a similar rift were occurring in the Republican Party, it would be treated as the major story that it is. (Indeed, as such stories about the political fault lines in the Republican Party have been treated in the recent past.)
Others haven't quite pronounced the PUMAs dissolved, as well.
"...the PUMAs...oppose Barack Obama because they believe, in their hearts, that Barack Obama has amply demostrated, by his tactics and philosophy, that he is simply WRONG FOR AMERICA." --Ragnar Danneskjold, A Question to the P.U.M.A.s: Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? WTF???
The PUMAs run a campaign separate and apart from the Republican one. Many produce their own anti-Obama videos and publish lots of information the MSM ignores.
PUMA sites run stories of voter intimidation that don't seem to make their way through the MSM "McCain-Palin: Hate and Racism" meme.
Twenty-five residents of a Gainesville neighborhood woke up this morning to discover their homes had been spray-painted with an obscene comment about the 2008 presidential race. Several businesses were hit as well.
“This is clear voter intimidation,” Corey A. Stewart, At-Large Chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, said. “The residents targeted by these hoodlums all had McCain for President yard signs in their front yards.”
“Having your home defaced with obscenity because of political beliefs is a hate crime” Stewart said, “This is terrorizing the community.” --Obama followers vandalize homes in Gainesville
The PUMAs have seen it all before during the primaries: the media bias, intimidation and other unpleasantness.
What voter fraud you might ask? Some of the mainstream media still hasn’t asked, or asked enough questions. Some have only just started to ask.
A reader asks …
are you sure you want to do this Barry?
If you do, it could turn up some interesting answers. Like PUMA and Clinton Democrats have been saying all along, it is systematic fraud.
The PUMAs are also used to every report of unpleasantness being ignored--or worse, whitewashed--by Big Media in the ceaseless MSM drone for Obama.
Democrats vote early in higher numbers than Republicans in almost every state. And that’s not including the big persuasive push by Obama. Logic dictates with all the attention Obama’s put on early voting, that Democrats should be clobbering Republicans right now…if they vote early in higher numbers to begin with, and then Obama’s made a big push for early voting on top of that.
That’s not happening.
Republicans have a slight lead in early voting right now.
Where is all the enthusiasm for Obama the media keeps braying about?
And remember: not all of those Democrats are voting Obama. We know 30 Democrats right here in Chicago who voted early — and voted Republican for the first time in our lives. We bet there’s a higher percentage of Democrats voting Republican in Colorado this year than any year in the past. --Bad news for Obama in Colorado early voting
For their trouble, some have gotten trouble--from Obama supporters. DBKP knows how this feels.
The members of the Party Unity My Ass movement are used to the media misinformation: they remember the press calling--no, begging--for Clinton to drop out of the primary race after a string of early Obama wins. They also remember the MSM predictions of Obama victories in states where Clinton went on to crush the eventual nominee in the primaries.
That's one reason most of the PUMA sites visited for this article are not only skeptical of the MSM polls and reporting, they're convinced the MSM is not telling the truth once again.
Regardless of what the Mainstream press writes these days about them disappearing, the PUMAs have long memories of intimidation, dirty tricks and MSM "reporting". They have lived through one contest where it all occurred.
They're working hard to prevent it from happening twice in the same year.
2004: Congressional Democrats Shoot the Messenger Warning of Problems at Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae 2008: Obama declares problems are result of "Deregulation" by Bush, McCain
"...I'm just pissed off at FHEO (Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight), because if it wasn't for you, I don't think we'd be here today." --Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) 2004 Congressional hearing To Almando Falcon, FHEO director who presented the report of widespread accounting irregularities in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
"I don't see anything in the report that raises safety and soundness problems." --Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) 2004 on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac irregularities
C-SPAN video footage of a Congressional hearing you will not see in the Mainstream Media.
Democrats insist that the $700 billion bailout will have "oversight". What happened four years ago when the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight director issued a report raising the alarm about irregularities at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?
Democrats attacked the agency in charge of oversight. Will it be any different with the "New Improved Oversight"?
"...I'm just pissed off at FHEO (Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight), because if it wasn't for you, don't think we'd be here today." Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) 2004 Congressional hearing To Almando Falcon, FHEO director who presented the report of widespread accounting irregularities in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
"I don't see anything in the report that raises safety and soundness problems." --Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) 2004 on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac irregularities
"I get the feeling that the markets are not worried about the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae..." --Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO) 2004 hearing
"Under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 Act has worked just fine." --Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) 2004 hearing
"But the concern that I have is that you are making very specific--what you have correctly acknowledged--very broad and categorical judgments about the management of this institution, about he willfullness of practices that may or may not be in controversy. You've imputed various motives to the people running the organization. You went to the board and put a forty-eight hour ultimatum on them, without having any specific regulatory authority to put that ultimatum on them. It sounds like some kind of invisible line has been crossed." --Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) 2004 hearing To Almando Falcon, FHEO presenting the report about problems with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Franklin Raines
Thanks to Naked Emperor News, this incredibly incriminating footage on C-Span from 2004 shows a Congressional hearing on oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, investigating illegal book keeping of the government backed banking companies.
You’ll notice Democrats like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Gregory Meeks and Artur Davis saying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were doing just fine, didn’t need to be investigated and beating up on regulators trying to keep Fannie and Freddie honest.
One of the chief roadblocks to the $700 billion bailout is the House Republicans not buying into handouts to the very people that we were warned about four years ago.
The House Republicans are well aware how well "oversight" worked four years ago when the agency responsible exercised some oversight.
Meanwhile, the Mainstream Media cautions their remaining "news" customers not to make the financial bailout into a partisan issue.
Obama Offices Different, Separate and Apart From Democrat Party Offices Does Obama Campaign Not Trust the Democrats? Or is it Clintonistas?
Will Election 2008 be remembered as the first contest between Republicans and Obamacrats--or the first between the Obamacrats and the Democrats?
Senator Barack Obama is building a national organization separate and apart from the national Democrat Party apparatus--at least in any state where the outcome of the November election is at all in doubt.
In state after state, the Obama campaign, in a break with tradition, has opened up its own offices--which largely push Barack Obama, and only Obama--apart from the Democrat Party's own offices in those very same communities.
Obama has, literally, hundreds of these offices dotting the USA.
[ABOVE: Obama offices in Ohio--these are separate from local Democrat Party offices in the communities listed.]
The list goes on: Virginia, over forty offices; Georgia, thirty-eight; North Carolina, thirty-six; Indiana, thirty-two; Colorado, thirty; Iowa, twenty-three; Minnesota, twelve; West Virginia, six.
In states where the outcome is already pretty much decided, Campaign for Change operates few offices: one in Texas and California, for example.
Does Obama Trust the Democrats? Do the Democrats Trust Obama?
The Campaign for Change offices push one product: Barack Obama.
In our weekend visit to Obama offices, we found that local and state Democrat candidates did have a presence at the Campaign for Change offices--but not much of one.
Almost all of the usual campaign giveways were there: pencils, literature, stickers. They were all on a small table in the back of the room.
That small table represented all of the local, district and state Democrat candidates--combined. The rest of the spacious room was dedicated to Barack Obama. In almost every case, it was Obama without a meniton of running mate, Joe Biden.
The local Democrat campaign office, we were informed, was "down the street, around the corner."
One of the offices visited last weekend was in Ohio.
The Obama campaign and supporters will likely dismiss the separate offices as "smart thinking" and "targeting resources". But, each office sucks up resources: lease money, campaign materials and manpower. The Campaign for Change offices are staffed by volunteers, but a volunteer sitting behind a desk is a volunteer not knocking on doors.
But in this way, the Obama campaign is sure of one thing: the volunteer on the phone in a Des Moines Campaign for Change office will be talking about Barack Obama--not the local Democrat candidate for County Commissioner.
The Obama campaign is apparently charging fellow Democrats for Obama campaign materials. At a Democrat-sponsored booth at an event in Wheeling WV, local Democratic candidates manning the location complained about this sign of Obamaization. The booth featured many local and state Democrat candidates, but not much Obama signage or literature.
"We had to pay for them," a lady complained. "They don't give us anything."
Even Obama supporters have to pay the campaign for everything in the offices. "Al" who we spoke to at a local Obama campaign offices said he had to "pay for the lease out of my own pocket. All of the t-shirts, button, stickers here, I paid for."
So, if Obama volunteers are paying the campaign for everything and picking up the tab for leases, isn't this just a smart move?
Each Campaign for Change office becomes a cash cow: it not only pays for itself, it sends money to the national Obama campaign for campaign materials.
And, the staff isn't wasting time contacting voters about the other Democrat candidates. At Campaign for Change, it's All Obama, All of the Time.
Is there any other reasons why the Obama campaign built this network dedicated to the election of Barack Obama outside of normal Democrat Party channels?
The Spectre of Hillary Clinton
The Obama campaign may have set up all of those separate offices--in any state that might be the least bit in play--because of the woman Obama beat in the Democrat primaries: Hillary Clinton.
A Campaign for Change office is an office beyond any possible control of Clintonistas.
The preceding headlines come from the front page of PUMA08.com. They help illustrate the rift between some supporters of Hillary Clinton and the candidate that they claim was "selected, not elected" to represent the Democrats in November.
An AP-Yahoo News poll claims that Democrats who backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries are still not warming up to Barack Obama. Fifty-eight percent of Clinton supporters now back Obama.
That was the same percentage who said they backed Obamaa in a June, when Clinton called it quits and the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) movement was born.
The poll shows that while Obama has gained ground among Clinton's supporters — 69 percent view him favorably now, up 9 percentage points from June — this has yet to translate into more of their support.
In part, this is because their positive views of Republican presidential nominee John McCain have also improved during this period. Those supporting McCain have also edged up from 21 percent to 28 percent, with the number of undecided staying constant, the survey showed.
Obama and many of his supporters haven't warmed to the Clintons.
The Clintons, and many of their supporters, haven't warmed to Obama.
It’s 44 days until the General Election as I write this and after a long and hard fought primary season the Democratic Party, and the Obama campaign specifically, are still unable to get over their terminal case of CDS. I can’t help but ask “Why”? For the uninitiated, CDS stands for Clinton Derangement Syndrome, usually defined as the uncontrollable impulse to rail against all things Clinton (Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, Hillary’s supporters, and basically anything connected to centrist positions).
Team Obama not only masterminded the overthrow of the Democratic Party to form the “New Democrats” (remember the May 31, 2008 coup when all semblance of the rules were overthrown at a behind-closed-doors meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee), they literally declared the nomination belonged to Obama despite the fact that:
Will Bower, of PUMA08.com, isn't buying the "Dump Biden" rumors.
"I believe that the "Dump Biden" rumor is exactly that -- a rumor."
Bower added that "I don't believe that Hillary would encourage Obama to do such a thing at this juncture. It would only serve to make him (accurately) look weak and indecisive."
Will then directed us to the following video.
The View: Bill Clinton Pretends He Wants Obama To Win
Will Obama win using his national network of Campaign for Change offices, which are separate from the local Democrat Party?
Will Obama have any coattails, helping local Democrats to victory in close local races?
Does it matter?
After all, Barack Obama--who may be described as having been in perpetual campaign mode--is building his own network of volunteers, fund-raising and organization. It's a network beholden to no one outside of the Obama campaign.
In case of an Obama win, it's a network that's already in place and can be expanded upon in 2012 for a re-election run.
In case of an Obama loss, it's a network already in place that can be expanded upon in 2012 for another run against all comers--Republican or Democrat.
Will the Obama organization supersede the Democratic Party? Or will the Clintons and their supporters be able to circumvent this looming obstacle?
2008 may be remembered as the beginning of a battle in which John McCain was only one opponent among many.
by Mondo image: dbkp; dbkp file
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Barack Obama & Joe Biden The Democrat Foreign Policy Team: Their Judgment One Year Ago
“I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed the war in 2003. I opposed it in 2004, and 2005 and 2006. I introduced the plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades out of Iraq by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now – not tomorrow, not the next day, not six months from now, but now." --Barack Obama, September 12 2007
“It's time to turn the corner in my view, gentlemen. We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home. We should end a political strategy in Iraq that cannot succeed and begin one that can.” --Joe Biden, September 11 2007
[Click images to enlarge]
September 11, 2007: General David Petraeus was in Washington, DC to present his report to a Democrat-controlled Congress on how the surge of troops in Iraq was working.
Democrats already knew: the war was lost, the surge was a hoax and Patraeus was "not believable". Democrat after Democrat attacked Petraeus before he spoke a word, both professionally and personally.
According to Kevin Mooney, CNS, "On Sept. 11th of last year, when Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), that the U.S. troop surge in Iraq was working, he was met by a hail of criticism from members of Congress who believed it was failing."
On September 10, MoveOn.org ran its infamous full-age "General Betray Us" ad in the New York Times. The NY Times cut the price of the ad 60%, in effect, co-sponsotomh this ad, in a blatant attempt to influence the political debate on the issue.
But then, that last item does not really qualify as "news".
Petraeus' report, and the notion that the surge was working, was attacked throughout the day by a Murderer's Row of Democrats: Hillary Clinton, Harry Ried, Rahm Emanuel and the Democrat presidential ticket of 2008, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
How have the Democrats' predictions of 'retreat and defeat' played out? Was General Petraeus the puppet or the prophet?
In the intervening year, according to a CNSNews.com database, U.S. casualties in Iraq have dropped to the lowest level since the start of the war six years ago. The Iraqi government, meanwhile, has made real, if faltering, progress toward political reconciliation between Iraq’s Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
Just what did General Petraeus report that set off the Democrat Congressional policy poobahs?
What in his report was deceitful? It might be helpful to recall what Petraeus said one year ago today.
As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, coalition and Iraqi security forces have achieved progress in the security arena.
Though improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq, for example, has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks. During this time, ethnosectarian violence has also been reduced and the number of overall civilian deaths has declined, though both are clearly still at troubling levels.
The progress is a result of many factors. Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to al Qaeda-Iraq and have disrupted Shi'a militia extremists. Additionally in a very significant development, we and our Iraqi partners are being assisted by tribes and local citizens who are rejecting extremism and choosing to help secure Iraq.
Iraqi security forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of the load albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks.
“Innumerable challenges lie ahead, however, coalition and Iraqi security forces have made progress toward achieving sustainable security.
The BBC noted the Democrat attacks: "Sen Obama - one of the Democratic nomination frontrunners - called the war a "disastrous foreign policy mistake" and said the impact of the surge had been modest given the resources."
“I opposed this war from the beginning,” Obama told the crowd in Clinton on Sept. 12, 2007. “I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed the war in 2003. I opposed it in 2004, and 2005 and 2006. I introduced the plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades out of Iraq by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now – not tomorrow, not the next day, not six months from now, but now.
“The administration points to selective statistics to make the case for staying the course. Killings and mortar attacks and car bombs in certain districts are down from the highest level that we've seen. But they're still at the same horrible levels that they were 18 months ago or two years ago. Let me repeat that,” Obama said.
“Yesterday, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee pointing to this reduction in violence,” Obama added.
“We are at the same levels of violence now that we were back in June of 2006. That is the improvement that's been made after an additional 30,000 troops and billion dollars have been spent in Iraq,” he said.
Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, supposedly picked as vice-president for the 'foreign policy experience' he added to the Democrat ticket exhibited that experience one year ago.
“It's time to turn the corner in my view, gentlemen. We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home. We should end a political strategy in Iraq that cannot succeed and begin one that can.” --Joe Biden, September 11 2007
What did John McCain say in September 2007? According to the BBC:
"Republican Senator John McCain, a contender for his party's presidential nomination, defended the US strategy in Iraq, saying: "Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq and I will do everything in my power to ensure that we do not."
He said failure in Iraq would turn that country into a haven for terrorists and would let Iran come to dominate the Middle East."
On Friday, Reid went so far as to question not only the true source of the report but also the four-star general's honesty.
"He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual," Reid said.
Harry Reid also led the charge to the rear for the Democrats, beginning in April.
“Now, I believe myself that the secretary of State, the secretary of Defense – and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows – that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” --Harry Reid, April 19, 2007 press conference.
Four days later, Reid was even more explicit about his mistrust of Patraeus and his report in a CNN interview with Dana Bash.
“No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening,” said Reid. “All you have to do is look at the facts. The factors are this has been going on for three months. American deaths are at the highest they've been in two years. We have – it's like a balloon. Things have quieted down a little in Baghdad, but just a little bit.
“They've even moved up in the Kurdish area now. Have tremendous explosions up there, killing two dozen people today. The situation in Iraq is not getting better, and it won't until we change course,” he said.
The other senator from Illinois, majority whip Richard Durbin, was even more insistent that he had a clue.
"President Bush is preparing to tell the nation, once again, that his strategy in Iraq is succeeding. We know what the Bush-Petraeus report will say: The surge is working. Be patient. The reality is despite heroic efforts by U.S. troops, the Bush surge is not working."
"By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working," he said. "Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong."
Illinois had the honor of having a foreign policy three-fer: Rep. Rahm Emanuel joined Obama and Durbin in piling on Petraeus.
"We don't need a report that wins the Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer for fiction."
"Time will tell" is the smart rejoinder when arguing about future events. It is one that the Democrats may have used to their advantage on September 11, 2007. It would have meant a lot less time spinning on September 11, 2008.
However, Congressional Democrats had their talking points already written before they had heard the Petraeus Report.
They chose to attack the man in charge of winning the war in Iraq, General Patraeus, because what he had to say did not support their own views and agendas.
One year later, time has told its tale.
To the exoneration of General Petraeus--and the chagrin of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
The two Democrats now trying to convince the country, on September 11, 2008, that they have the foreign policy judgment to lead the USA forward through a dangerous world.
BLOG: The Outraged Spleen of Zion REVIEWER: Little Baby Ginn READ IT YOURSELF HERE
In cyberworld everyone has their favorite blogs, you know the ones that light that particular fire and dazzle those neurons. Babbazeesbrain is the crËme de la crËme for yours truly, Little Baby Ginn.
Mr ul Haq, 36, was educated and trained at an Islamic seminary in Britain and is part of a new generation of British imams who share a similar radical agenda. He heaps scorn on any Muslims who say they are “proud to be British” and argues that friendship with a Jew or a Christian makes “a mockery of Allah’s religion”.
According to an investigation by TimesOnline (UK), and reported by Reuters, almost half of Britain's mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher hates Western values and has called on Muslims to "shed blood" for Allah:
The Left's usual, reliable poodles are yapping again. This time, they're nipping at the heels of the upcoming report by General Petraeus on the situation in Iraq.
Fueled by this MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times this morning, the LA Times, Yahoo News, and like-minded MSM toadies, the 'surrender drums' are beating louder for a US defeat in Iraq, by any means necessary. It's a steady, unrelenting, unyielding, never-ending 'BOOM, BOOM, BOOM' from Leftards desperately needing, yearning, aching for a US defeat--any US defeat. They would support another invasion of Viet Nam if they were assured that US troops would die and we would run away.
That was what we were talking about at DBKP one year ago today: September 10, 2007.
Same as it ever was.
by Mondoreb images: see original stories for image credits
Weird Scenes from Inside the Gold Mine Wednesday in Denver Inside the Pepsi Center Democrat National Convention
"John Edwards couldn't be here tonight..."
CLICK images to enlarge.
Our man, RidesAPaleHorse, DBKP Special Roving Convention Correspondent, files his report from Denver, assisted by "his friend Kevin", who shot the pix Wednesday.
22 scenes from inside the Democrat National Convention in Denver.
