Letters to the Editor
dcbrown
Published Letters: 43 Editor's Choice: 1
-
pwoxby Obama's equivocation -- Hillary supporters get out the chicken suits
[Read the article: Obama declines debate invite, so Clinton will go it alone]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We may be debating semantics on what is "equivocate", but this excerpt from the Chicago Tribune 9/25/04 quoting Obama seems like a different position than Obama's position today -- he is talking about taking military action against Iran while staying in Iraq. Considering Missle strikes on Iran and Pakistan. See below.
I hope I get to see some news coverage of people in Obama Chicken suits. . . I do not understand why Obama supporters aren't encouraging him to debate -- it is an opportunity to prove side by side that he is the best candidate and to talk substance rather than stump speeches.
_________________
"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.
Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.
"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."
As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.
-
-- pwoxby Do you blame Obama for structuring a deal to buy his house on the back of poor people?
[Read the article: Obama declines debate invite, so Clinton will go it alone]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The logical conclusion then is that you think Obama bought his house on the back of poor people since his Syrian business partner made his money by taking advantage of the very people Obama was supposed to be "for." Hillary cannot be blamed for Walmart's transgressions, nor can Kathie Lee Gifford. Hillary spent countless hours internationally and before the UN working on children's and women's rights. What has Obama done to make it "right" to those people that helped the Syrian business man buy the plot of land next to Obama's house? Obama knew his business partner's flaws and entered into the deal anyway. I don't know why. I would not partner with a crook. But, I have no "need" for a million dollar plus home when I could buy a pretty decent condo for $500,000 in Chicago or a decent house in Naperville for about the same amount if not less. Delusions of grandeur. Of course, we also need to hold Oprah personally accountable for the assault on her students in Africa, right?
I understand that the strategy is to try to spin only an aside in a post I made in order to assert unfair snippets in an attempt to malign a candidate. Therefore, I would at least expect an acknowledgement that Obama and Oprah fall in the same category. Only Hillary and Oprah have actually worked to help those that may have been effected by what others around them did, Obama has not in his State legislator or Senator days helped the people in the hood where he was a community organizer nor did he help the people "abused" by his Syrian business partner.
-
Vox Veritas -- Obama evading one on one debate
[Read the article: Obama declines debate invite, so Clinton will go it alone]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The issue is not who is a "good debater" but discussing issues - discussing substance. People will come up with a weighted average based on everything they know about a candidate's position and credentials to cast a vote in favor of one or another. Reagan was a great debater, but everyone knew his strength would be in those that advise and he was clear on that. Reagan was a good President. Bill Clinton was a great debater, despite his personal transgressions, he was also a good President. Obama sells himself as a confident, intelligent reformer. Well then, there is no reason not to debate. It is more cowardly than Chicken George, because Bush concedes he just wasn't very good at the debates - -he conceded that in joint interviews while sitting next to his friend, Bill Clinton. The joke is Bill is the son he wished he had. . .