Bush or Obama? - U.S. Marines Give You Their Answer

This video is absolutely amazing. The difference in the reaction each president receives cannot be more stark. Our service men and women are not inspired by Obama. And for good reason. He has spent his entire political career pissing on them. Now, they piss back.

U.S. Marines show their love for George Bush. For Obama? Not so much.



Semper Fi!!!

h/t The Real Revo

Bush Stops Missile Parts From Reaching Iran

If Obama had done this, he'd have a school named after him. Wait. Well, he'd have another school named after him.

Only weeks before dropping North Korea from an official U.S. blacklist of countries that support terrorism, the Bush administration apparently thwarted the transfer of missile parts (possibly including gyroscopes for guidance systems) from Pyongyang to Iran, U.S. officials tell NEWSWEEK. On Aug. 4, an Ilyushin aircraft operated by North Korea's state airline was granted routine permission by India to fly from Burma to Tehran via Indian airspace. Three days later, the office of India's prime minister "hurriedly" asked authorities to withdraw clearance, according to the Indian Express newspaper. Two U.S. officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, confirm the Bush administration asked India to block the flight.

GREAT MOMENTS IN CONSERVATIVE HISTORY: GORE'S "GEEKY MOMENT"

This was just priceless. Al Gore walks over to Bush like that big retarded kid in Something About Mary, as if to say, "Have you seen my wiener?"...And Bush is all like "Sup my nizzle?...I think Tipper has your wiener".

BUSH WARNS OF SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OVER PAKISTAN'S AID TO TALIBAN

That's right! Serious action! No more 7-11 job exchange program.

The United States has accused Pakistan’s main spy agency of deliberately undermining Nato efforts in Afghanistan by helping the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants they are supposed to be fighting.

President George W Bush confronted Yusuf Raza Gillani, Pakistan’s prime minister, in Washington last week with evidence of involvement by the ISI, its military intelligence, in a deadly attack on the Afghan capital and warned of retaliation if it continues.

The move comes amid growing fears that Pakistan’s tribal areas are turning into a global launch pad for terrorists.

Bush warned that if one more attack in Afghanistan or elsewhere were traced back to Pakistan, he would have to take “serious action”.

VIRTUAL JIHADIST VIDEO GAME CHALLENGES PLAYERS TO KILL PRESIDENT BUSH

And now, your douchebag of the day:

An artist's video game that is being exhibited at a free-speech exhibit in Chicago challenges players to kill the president.

The video game is part of a "confrontational art" exhibit by Chicago-based artist Wafaa Bilal.

In the 3-D game, "The Night of Bush Capturing; A Virtual Jihadi," players are sent on a mission to kill President George W. Bush.

Bilal, 42, said his art is a personal attempt to deal with the deaths of citizens in the country of his birth. The artist said his brother died in Iraq in 2004 from a U.S bomb.

The game is part of the Freedom of Speech exhibition at FLATFILE Galleries. It runs until Aug. 22.

What a coincidence. The Big Feed is currently holding its free speech exhibition. Burn in hell you Muslim dirtbag.

See video report here.

FORMER CIA OFFICER: IRAN ATTACK COMING SOON

Not a whole lot of hard facts here. But I reckon this kind of rhetoric sells papers:

In a new editorial published by AntiWar.com, former CIA officer Ray McGovern states that he believes "a perfect storm seems to be gathering in late summer or early fall," when the Bush administration and allies in Israel will launch attacks against Iran.

"This time it will be largely the Air Force's show, punctuated by missile and air strikes by the Navy," writes McGovern. "Israeli-American agreement has now been reached at the highest level; the armed forces planners, plotters and pilots are working out the details."

He ultimately concludes that a handful of senior military officers have been key in preventing an attack on Iran thus far, though their numbers are thinning thanks to administration efforts.

BUSH DIDN'T LIE ABOUT IRAQ: AND THAT'S ACCORDING TO THE WASHINGTON POST

The Washington Post of all outlets is saying that Bush didn't lie about Iraq. Of course, there is a major political party attracting votes for lying about lying. So don't expect the mainstream media to take this angle.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

Of course, this information means nothing to those it should mean the most. Those running for office on the "Bush lied" lie.

TERRORIST ATTACKS DECLINE 40% DURING BUSH YEARS

Oh Obama...You got some splaining to do.

A group of researchers from Simon Fraser University says global terrorism is on the decline, despite previous data and public perceptions that suggest otherwise.

The university's Human Security Report Project says fatalities from terrorist attacks around the world have, in fact, decreased by 40 per cent since 2001.

Researcher Andrew Mack says previous data showing increases in terrorism have included civilian deaths in Iraq.

But he says such deaths in civil wars have traditionally been treated as war crimes, not terrorism, and it makes sense to remove them from the data entirely.

Mack says even in Iraq recently there has been a sharp decline in attacks after several years of increased violence.

He says part of the reason is that global support for Islamic terrorist groups, such as al-Qaida has declined.

Strange that it takes the Canadians to report this.

THE AUDACITY OF EVEN MORE BULLSHIT: OBAMA FLIP FLOPS ON HIS OWN FLIP FLOP -- AND THEN CRITICIZES HIS OWN FLIP FLOPPED FLIP FLOP

This might be a first in U.S. presidential politics. Barak Obama is flip flopping on a flip flop. Last week, we posted about Obama's claim (via his political adviser) that he never stated he would talk unconditionally with Iran on a direct presidential level. What we learned, in summary, was the following (bear with me---writing about a flip flop of a flip flop isn't easy):

May 10, 2008 Barak Obama's political adviser, as quoted in The New York Times stated the following:

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

Which in response to Ms. Rice's misstatement, we reminded Ms. Rice, The New York Times and our readers of The New York Times' own previous article about Obama's stance on negotiating with Iran which read, in pertinent part:

Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president, and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues…

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees…

Mr. Obama’s willingness to conduct talks at the highest level with Iran … differs significantly from the Bush administration.

We even offered a video documenting Obama's then stance on negotiating with Iran


And to further illustrate Obama's then stance on negotiation without precondition with Iran, we provided the following screenshot taken from Obama's own campaign website:

(Click to enlarge)


His website still says he will negotiate with Iran without preconditions. I imagine that will disappear soon in light of what Obama is now saying.

So what is Obama now saying? Just a week later, and while his website still says he will negotiate with Iran on a presidential level without preconditions? Obama now claims the following is his foreign policy towards Iran:

“It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice,” Mr. Obama said. “If it abandons its nuclear program, support for terror and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions.”

And in a remarkable demonstration of sobriety, The New York Times, of all entities, notes the drastic change in Obama's stance on Iran in just a week:

On Friday, Mr. Obama tried, not for the first time, to deflect and counter the criticisms by articulating his view of foreign relations, one in which military might is accompanied by diplomatic engagement with all countries, including enemies. His most specific example was a significantly changed policy toward Iran, one that would be equal parts carrot and stick.

This "carrot and stick" approach certainly sounds like negotiation with preconditions to me. Even more significant, it sounds exactly like the Bush administration's policy towards Iran for the last 5 plus years. The same foreign policy Obama loudly criticized just Yesterday.

So there you have it. In the span of 9 days, Obama has gone from negotiating without conditions with Iran, to denying he would negotiate without conditions with Iran, to stating he would negotiate with Iran with conditions, to criticizing negotiation with Iran with conditions.

Barak Obama has been running on nothing but a platform of hope and change. I hope he quits changing.
*

(SIGH)...WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN: BUSH LAYS THE SMACKDOWN ON PRESS REPORTER

This is a spectacular clip of Bush laying out the overall concept of fighting these animals in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Dirty Liberal Media. Where has this George W. Bush been? I believe had he been out there talking like this to these agenda pushing socialists we'd be in better shape in this war.

Enjoy the smack down.

LITTLE KID WANTS TO KILL PRESIDENT BUSH

Uhhh...Secret service...You want to get on this?

View it here...at the hip hop web site