> That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
>
> Roughly half of the voters voted for him.

It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46% for 
McCain.

From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, and 
I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician would sound 
like that.  I'm going to wait to see how he tackles environmental issues, 
although judging by the size of his car he's not setting a very good example 
:-)  (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but still...)

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
>
> > The Israeli government is probably not so certain about him or they would
> > not have used the last days of GW Bush to attack.
>
>   Oh, wow. I thought the very same thing. Why did they do what they did when
> they did and why did they pull out just before the next President was going
> to be in power. Apparently, this is a cease-fire for about a week. Will
> Isreal continue?
>
> Is this to see what Obama says about it all? (As far as I know, he hasn't
> said anything yet about it, but I think he may have something up his sleeve
> in some way).
>

I'm quite cynical when it comes to US/Israel relations, and I live in the US. My
own feeling is that Israel had this invasion planned in detail for some time,
had tacit US approval, and was simply waiting for a 'window of
opportunity'--either through their own machinations of 'forcing the issue'
through their military behavior, i.e., 'tweaking' the Palestinians one too many
times in hopes of a response--or by using some transgression/aggression by the
Palestinians as an excuse. In any case, a foregone conclusion. The timing of
their invasion, its ferocity, and the pullout on the very eve of the change in
US administrations, all point to this, in an oh-so-obvious way. And the latest
Gaza destruction could never have happened without US consent (or at the very
least, its lack of a restraining voice.) My only surprise, a real one, is that
the US media has not put forward or discussed this scenario in any meaningful
way. Perhaps over here it is just too much of a hot-button topic.  I can only
HOPE that Obama and his team will take a different tack in dealing with the
Middle East.  It can only be better than what's come before.

I'm definitely glad to see Bush go. It's a solemn but happy day: A dark veil has
been lifted off of my country.

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message 
news:web.4976ff4bfd4289c3f50167bc0@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>> news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
>>
>> > The Israeli government is probably not so certain about him or they 
>> > would
>> > not have used the last days of GW Bush to attack.
>>
>>   Oh, wow. I thought the very same thing. Why did they do what they did 
>> when
>> they did and why did they pull out just before the next President was 
>> going
>> to be in power. Apparently, this is a cease-fire for about a week. Will
>> Isreal continue?
>>
>> Is this to see what Obama says about it all? (As far as I know, he hasn't
>> said anything yet about it, but I think he may have something up his 
>> sleeve
>> in some way).
>>
>
> I'm quite cynical when it comes to US/Israel relations, and I live in the 
> US. My
> own feeling is that Israel had this invasion planned in detail for some 
> time,
> had tacit US approval, and was simply waiting for a 'window of
> opportunity'--either through their own machinations of 'forcing the issue'
> through their military behavior, i.e., 'tweaking' the Palestinians one too 
> many
> times in hopes of a response--or by using some transgression/aggression by 
> the
> Palestinians as an excuse. In any case, a foregone conclusion. The timing 
> of
> their invasion, its ferocity, and the pullout on the very eve of the 
> change in
> US administrations, all point to this, in an oh-so-obvious way. And the 
> latest
> Gaza destruction could never have happened without US consent (or at the 
> very
> least, its lack of a restraining voice.) My only surprise, a real one, is 
> that
> the US media has not put forward or discussed this scenario in any 
> meaningful
> way. Perhaps over here it is just too much of a hot-button topic.  I can 
> only
> HOPE that Obama and his team will take a different tack in dealing with 
> the
> Middle East.  It can only be better than what's come before.
>
> I'm definitely glad to see Bush go. It's a solemn but happy day: A dark 
> veil has
> been lifted off of my country.

     I can only imagine. It wouldn't surprise me if this Israeli action was 
sanctioned by 'someone'.

      ~Steve~


>
> Ken W.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:56:40 +0000, St. wrote:
> 
>>    I can't see that relationship working well. I think Hillary will see
>> Barak as the 'new boy on the block', and will want to advise 'too' much.
> 
> One could argue that her being Secretary of State means that she'll be 
> traveling a lot and thus not around to "advise" him in ways that are 
> unwelcome.  :-)
> 
> Jim

Obama is smarter than we think.  The perfect plan!

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:25:32 -0000, Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay  
<jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> did spake thusly:

> Does this mean that the rest of the world will stop hating us (the USA)  
> now?

Barack - a-ah - he'll save everyone of us
Barack - a-ah - he's a miracle
Barack - a-ah - king of the impossible

:-P

> Yes, it's a dumb question, but the Bush hatred was so prevalent that if
> there were any other reasons to hate the US, they were overshadowed if  
> not completely forgotten.
>
> Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime.

May have been?

> Obama will not be pulling out of Iraq any time soon.  Dates will lapse.   
> New reasons for staying will be given.  Left-wing activists will begin to
> realize that, "OMG!  He's a politician!"

No, left-wing activists will be "OMG leave him alone look at what he's  
inherited" meh as an excuse it's worked well for our government here in  
the UK for the last ten years. Heh bet that'll be the first bit of  
'advice' Brown tries to give him.

>  The economy isn't going to pick up any time soon.

But that'll be Bush's fault - boo, hiss!

> (Just my $0.02USD.  I realize this is an international forum, and that's  
> why I posted it here.  I hope to hear several viewpoints.)

As has been mentioned the simple fact that he's not Bush will endear him  
to the world regardless of what he does next, the bonus that he's young  
(comparatively) and seems to recognise that other countries actually exist  
will certainly help even if he does produce insular reforms.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 21-Jan-09 9:06, scott wrote:
>> That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
>> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
>>
>> Roughly half of the voters voted for him.
> 
> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46% 
> for McCain.
> 
>  From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, 
> and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician 
> would sound like that.  I'm going to wait to see how he tackles 
> environmental issues, although judging by the size of his car he's not 
> setting a very good example :-)  (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but 
> still...)
> 
> 
armour plating does not make it more fuel efficient.

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:

> Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime.   Nixon screwed up,
> was paranoid, etc.  Carter just didn't seem to know what to do.  But Bush 
> seemed to do whatever the **** he wanted, and never bothered to explain why 
> to anyone, least of all the American people.  World opinion could have been 
> swayed to some extent if he had given it a reasonable attempt, but he never 
> did.

Perhaps he noted that they hated the US before any American presently 
alive was born, and decided that courting their opinion was a waste of 
time.  Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic 
habit of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions. 
Perhaps he noted that the press had made a habit of distorting anything 
he said, so he decided that saying nothing was the wisest course of action.

> Obama will not be pulling out of Iraq any time soon.  Dates will lapse.  New 
> reasons for staying will be given.  Left-wing activists will begin to 
> realize that, "OMG!  He's a politician!"  The economy isn't going to pick up 
> any time soon.  Lucky for him, at least, it has probably bottomed out now. 
> But in the meantime, he gets the benefit of being a very new fresh face that 
> appears to be 180 degrees from Bush.

I think a rude awakening is in store for a lot of his supporters.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:40:41 -0500, Tom Austin wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:56:40 +0000, St. wrote:
>> 
>>>    I can't see that relationship working well. I think Hillary will
>>>    see
>>> Barak as the 'new boy on the block', and will want to advise 'too'
>>> much.
>> 
>> One could argue that her being Secretary of State means that she'll be
>> traveling a lot and thus not around to "advise" him in ways that are
>> unwelcome.  :-)
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> Obama is smarter than we think.  The perfect plan!

Well, here, we think he's pretty smart. :-)

Of course, the proof will be over the next 4 years, but we're pretty 
hopeful.

I'm so glad my hangover^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hheadache is gone now. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:47:23 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:44:59 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>>   If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?
>> 
>> Both times Bush was elected it was controversial.  I'm still angry with
> 
> 	That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
> 
> 	Roughly half of the voters voted for him.

...or voted against the other guy.  In US elections, many people aren't 
voting for someone so much as voting against the other candidate likely 
to win.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:06:40 +0100, scott wrote:

>> That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
>> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
>>
>> Roughly half of the voters voted for him.
> 
> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
> for McCain.
> 
> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions,
> and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician
> would sound like that.  I'm going to wait to see how he tackles
> environmental issues, although judging by the size of his car he's not
> setting a very good example :-)  (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but
> still...)

The President doesn't get a choice on things like that - the Secret 
Service takes care of things like transportation details because it 
becomes a safety issue.

That said, I read something recently about them retiring the existing 
fleet of 747s that are "Air Force One" and that the USAF is looking to 
contract for some new planes for that purpose.  They actually are 
considering Airbus.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message