Posted on 07/24/2008 5:12:56 PM PDT by Kaslin
Here are some questions that Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson should be asking Barack Obama as they follow him on his trip:
Q: Before your trip to Iraq, you said that you intend to give the military a "new mission" — all of the combat troops withdrawn within 16 months. Why bother traveling to Iraq and consulting with commanders on the ground, if you've already decided on a new mission?
Q: In 2004, you called it unwise to announce a timetable. By 2008, however, you announce a 16-month timetable. Only a few days ago, your top campaign strategist stated that you were "not wedded" to that timetable. The next day, you reiterated your 16-month timetable, but added it's important not to "undo" our gains. Isn't this confusing?
Q: On Iran, you criticized President Bush for leaving all options on the table up to and including a "military option." And during the campaign season, you criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton for voting to call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. But you later said that, as to Iran, all military options are on the table, and said that you consider the Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. Did the facts change or the politics change?
Q: You announced support for a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians, with Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. The next day, you reversed course, leaving the disposition of Jerusalem a matter to be negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Can you clarify?
Q: You said you would sit down, without preconditions, with leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Kim Jong Il of North Korea. You later agreed to hold such talks only under prearranged conditions.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
ping
Great questions. I wouldn’t count on The One deigning to answer any of them.
“Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson”
The 3 Stooges ask legit questions?
LOL
My pleasure. You’re welcome
Bump. Good article.
Actually Katie Couric did ask him some legit questions
She did.
The best questions were these.
Q: The Canadians recently agreed to accept 550 tons of yellowcake from Iraq. The Associated Press called it the remaining portion of Saddam Hussein’s “nuclear program.” David Kay, the weapons hunter, found no stockpiles of WMD, but maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed the intent and capacity to restart his chemical and biological program following the lifting of sanctions. Was President Bush, therefore, correct in saying that Saddam posed a “grave and gathering threat”?
Q: Before you joined the Senate, you said that you opposed this war. But you later said that you understood how and why your Senate colleagues voted for the war, that they were “privy” to national security information you did not have. You also said the vote must have been “difficult.” Your nomination opponents Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Clinton — all in the Senate at the time — voted for the war. How can you be so certain that had you been in the Senate, you would have voted against the war?
“Katie Couric did ask him some legit questions”
If you watched “the perky one”, you are a braver man than I, Gunga Din!
(Actually is she a Hildabeast supporter, I wonder?)
What were the answers?
Great questions that Dr. Sowell has but they’ll never be answered by BO.
I was noting the two best question by the author Sowell, that have not been asked from nor answered by the NeoGod.
I don’t watch her, but I saw the video and read the transcript. I was surprised by it
Apology accepted - thanks for the clarification!
“With all due respect, I have seen this column in two other places as being the writing of Larry Elder, not Dr. Sowell. I believe IBD is in error.”
Agreed. I read the Larry Elder article earlier, and was thinking this was familiar.
Q: Before your trip to Iraq, you said that you intend to give the military a "new mission" — all of the combat troops withdrawn within 16 months. Why bother traveling to Iraq and consulting with commanders on the ground, if you've already decided on a new mission?
"The mission should be get the @$#$@ out of there NOW!!!!! Bushitler's evil fascist war for oil must end!!!
Q: In 2004, you called it unwise to announce a timetable. By 2008, however, you announce a 16-month timetable. Only a few days ago, your top campaign strategist stated that you were "not wedded" to that timetable. The next day, you reiterated your 16-month timetable, but added it's important not to "undo" our gains. Isn't this confusing?
"We've never made any gains in this $#@$# %#@#@ war, it's just like Vietnam, all we've done is kill innocents and warmonger for Bushitler's oil buddies! Get out now, Obama will save us from right-wing fascism forever!!
Q: On Iran, you criticized President Bush for leaving all options on the table up to and including a "military option." And during the campaign season, you criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton for voting to call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. But you later said that, as to Iran, all military options are on the table, and said that you consider the Revolutionary Guard a terror organization. Did the facts change or the politics change?
"There are only poor people because AmeriKKKa has made them poor, Obama will change that. I believe in CHANGE!!!! HOPE!!!! YES WE CAN!!!
Q: You announced support for a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians, with Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. The next day, you reversed course, leaving the disposition of Jerusalem a matter to be negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Can you clarify?
"Palestine should own that entire region, Israel is a warmongering industrial state that opresses the Middle East. Barack will CHANGE for the better!!! HOPE!!!
Q: You said you would sit down, without preconditions, with leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Kim Jong Il of North Korea. You later agreed to hold such talks only under prearranged conditions. You further stated that such talks would occur only when and if you choose to hold them. Again, please clarify.
"What's to clarify? Obama will talk and heal the world and the world will love and respect AmeriKKKa and we'll be cleansed of our racist, slaveholding past once and for all!! HOPE!!!
Q: You point to Kennedy's 1961 summit with Khrushchev, held without preconditions. But Kennedy's secretary of state, Dean Rusk, advised against the meeting, and Kennedy later declared the talks a disaster. Many historians say that Khrushchev sized up Kennedy as a novice, which em-boldened Khrushchev in building the Berlin Wall and in putting missiles in Cuba. Is it wise to hold up the Kennedy/Khrushchev summit as a model?
"Talking always works, stupid Americans are so $#@$#@ing hung up on fighting and growing their fat $#@$#es that all they want is constant war and fighting!! Obama will stop the damning of AmeriKKKa!"
Q: The Canadians recently agreed to accept 550 tons of yellowcake from Iraq. The Associated Press called it the remaining portion of Saddam Hussein's "nuclear program." David Kay, the weapons hunter, found no stockpiles of WMD, but maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed the intent and capacity to restart his chemical and biological program following the lifting of sanctions. Was President Bush, therefore, correct in saying that Saddam posed a "grave and gathering threat"?
"Yellow cake is NOT A $#@$@#ING WMD! THERE WERE NO WMD's!!!! It was all a ruse by right-wing neocon warmongers to take children out of schools and send them to a senseless war for oil!! I eat yellow cake with at least two meals a day, LIES!!! It's time for HOPE!!!"
Q: Before you joined the Senate, you said that you opposed this war. But you later said that you understood how and why your Senate colleagues voted for the war, that they were "privy" to national security information you did not have. You also said the vote must have been "difficult." Your nomination opponents Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Clinton — all in the Senate at the time — voted for the war. How can you be so certain that had you been in the Senate, you would have voted against the war?
"Obama doesn't need to vote against the war to be against it, I will NOT $#@$@#ing sit here and be unchanged....HOPE!! He wouldn't have even voted, since Obama will vote for things that we need, like gay rights, abortion, health care, and CHANGE!!"
Q: Some argue that if the United States does not attack Iran before they get a nuclear weapon, Israel will. Do you believe this is true? If so, what will the U.S. do, especially since many will blame the U.S. anyway?
"The US of KKK A will probably just start more war and neocons will find another puppet to run the world like they did with Bushitler and they'll just install another $#@$@#ing fundie. That's why we need Obama....CHANGE!!"
Q: In stating your intention to end the Iraq War, you say it costs $10 billion per month. But you, as does John McCain, intend to leave a "residual force." Can you give us the size of that force, and provide a cost estimate?
"That size should be $#@$@ing ZERO, NOT ONE DAMN DIME, $10 billion per month could educate 200 million stupid AmeriKKKans. Don't you see we need CHANGE?!?!!?
Q: Since the surge, 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met. The Sunnis, who boycotted Parliament, have now rejoined it. Polls show Iraqis more optimistic about their country's future than Americans are about ours. At the provincial level, oil revenues are being shared, and Iraq's oil production is at a postwar high. But for the surge, wouldn't things in Iraq now be substantially worse?
"The surge is a sham to line the pockets of Bushitler's oil buddies PULL OUT NOW!!!
Q: You opposed the Iraq War and the surge. If you had gotten your way, wouldn't Nouri al-Maliki and other members of the Iraqi government, with whom you have met, be in exile, in jail or dead?
"Saddam became a problem because that evil $@$#@@% Reagan gave him weapons and bin Laden was trained by the CIA, we had no business killing and invading a country that wasn't a threat. Barack will CHANGE everything!!"
Q: New York Times reporter John Burns estimates that under Saddam Hussein — through war and terror — up to a million Iraqis may have died. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein?
"No, the world is worse because we have the BushCo. Empire in charge of the world. Saddam didn't have WMD's, Obama will prove that and neocons will all go to jail for war crimes and being against CHANGE!!!"
Q: We have not been hit on American soil in the seven years since 9/11. In the last five years, no major American facility in the entire world has sustained a terror attack. Does President Bush deserve any credit for this?
"9/11 was an inside job, everybody knows that except for you dumb@$#@#$@ Freeptards. Jokes on you ha ha!"
Q: Estimates for the monetary cost of 9/11 range from $600 billion to $1 trillion. Is it not possible, just possible, that Bush's actions — including beefing up Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, increased surveillance, and especially the war in Iraq — have prevented another 9/11?
"Another 9/11 hasn't happened because the BushCO neocon $#@$#@$@ and their FReeptard stooges haven't LIHOP!!! Barack Obama will end the neocons forever and will jail them all for war crimes!!! CHANGE!!!!"
----*ahem* Man that was weird. Why does it smell like body odor and bong water all of the sudden????
Budah, budah, budah, and I think we can all agree, tha t t t t t ‘ s all folks!
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.