Ask Me Help Desk - Why is the Media pushing for Obama so hard?

Voting for "change" for the sake of "change" is downright (I'll say it pc) naïve!

Didn't work out so well when Dubya got re-elected. And your point is... to vote for McSame?? No thank you.

My knee jerk? The media is a bunch of A-holes.
Obama is a possible Biblical prophesy.
The US government is busy giving our money to those who have not earned it.

Where do we fit in? Who cares.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BABRAM

Pakistan Special Weapons - A Chronology

1983

1983--Declassified US government assessment concludes that `There is unambiguous evidence that Pakistan is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons development program * * * We believe the ultimate application of the enriched uranium produced at Kahuta, which is unsafeguarded, is clearly nuclear weapons.'

1984

1984--President Zia states that Pakistan has acquired a `very modest' uranium enrichment capability for `nothing but peaceful purposes.'

1984--President Reagan reportedly warns Pakistan of `grave consequences' if it enriches uranium above 5%.

1985

1985--ABC News reports that US believes Pakistan has `successfully tested' a `firing mechanism' of an atomic bomb by means of a non-nuclear explosion, and that US krytrons `have been acquired' by Pakistan.

1985--U.S. Nuclear Export Control Violation: Texas, krytrons (nuclear weapon triggers).

1985--U.S. Nuclear Export Control Violation: US cancelled license for export of flash x-ray camera to Pakistan (nuclear weapon diagnostic uses) because of proliferation concerns.

1985/6--Media cites production of highly enriched, bomb-grade uranium in violation of a commitment to the US.

1985 -- Pressler Amendment [section 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act] requires a total cut-off of U.S. aid to Islamabad unless the president can certify that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear weapon, and that continued US aid will significantly decrease the probability of its developing one in the future.

1986

1986--Bob Woodward article in Washington Post cites alleged DIA report saying Pakistan `detonated a high explosive test device between Sept. 18 and Sept. 21 as part of its continuing efforts to build an implosion-type nuclear weapon;' says Pakistan has produced uranium enriched to a 93.5% level.

1986--Press reports cite U.S. `Special National Intelligence Estimate' concluding that Pakistan had produced weapons-grade material.

1986--Commenting on Pakistan's nuclear capability, General Zia tells interviewer, `It is our right to obtain the technology. And when we acquire this technology, the Islamic world will possess it with us.'

1986--Declassified memo to then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger states, `Despite strong U.S. concern, Pakistan continues to pursue a nuclear explosive capability * * * If operated at its nominal capacity, the Kahuta uranium enrichment plant could produce enough weapons-grade material to build several nuclear devices per year.'

If the Republican administrations are so brazenly smart then why did Pakistan already have it and yet now the crux of the nuclear issue is over Iran??? Maybe Dubya should let them have it also?! And since when did oil become the reason that OBL's terrorist act on 9/11 happened??? That's a new one. So OBL's in a cave recording videos saying to the United States give me your oil?! LOL! http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/frontp...x220041030.pdf

BTW "oil" was John McCain's explanation as to why we went to war in Iraq. McCain accidentally says what he believes about the war in Iraq - The Carpetbagger Report

My point exactly, you have to really think hard and long before you go to war with a nation with nuclear capacity.

Fortunantly, Sadamm did not have nuclear capability. How much more of a world tyrant would he have been, had he had nuclear capability?

With Pakistan having nuclear capability before 9/11/01 how smart would it have been to attack them? For what benefit?

The USA going to Pakistan for OBL is war, another war with much graver consequences.
We have no choice but to work with their government. That is the smart thing. ;)

Hmm... I don't think that argument sits well for those in the WMD click concerning Iraq. But I do think most would agree that Afghanistan should had expedient attention and focus in pursuit of OBL originally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galveston1

Voting for "change" for the sake of "change" is downright (I'll say it pc) naive!

Have you maybe just perhaps thought that people might be voting for him because they want change? Maybe?? Is that too hard to understand? It may seem inconceivable to a Bush man but if you really really try hard enough, or perhaps even pray to be able to comprehend it, then you might be able to see why some people want change.

The MSM have turned into political whores; they just want to adulate a left-wing candidate about feelings and charisma. They want someone (the president) to put them to bed, tuck them in, and say, "Everything is going to be alright". They would like a prince and princess, such as Princess Diana, to care for them (much like New Yorkers with Hillary). They believe Obama is the one, but Obama is changing into Bush-Light, so he can tempt enough voters to put him over the top. And this is so funny because the whackos are finding out there is no tooth fairy, after all.

Speaking of wackos... why is there a sketched cartoon of Hitler under your user name?? You think Jews are amused looking at the drek??