Mr. Fusion said,
on December 3rd, 2009 at 7:45 am

#83, pedro,

I knew there was something you loved about Micheal Moore.

Touché!

Obama is owned by the Money. He does what the Money tells him. Just like Bush and others before him. As Mark Twain said, history never repeats itself but it often rhymes.

I knew there was something you loved about Micheal Moore.

he’s right. OBAMA has defiled the institute of the presidency. I’m not about race hatred, 44 has turned POTUS into a public relations office for the corporates who have held power for how long 20/40/100 years? At least his predecessors had the ability to hide this fact.

Oww, what’s gonna happen if a true third party gets on the scene.

Go see his movie ‘Capitalism, a love story’, brilliant even if you hate his guts.

– Lyndon Baines Obama

“A quick in/out to topple the government”? How did you come up with that one? We can’t even keep the old government toppled after years of war. Think of something else.

75. McCullough. Pardon me for confusing you with the rest of the mob now making the exact same Obama excuses on this blog for Dear Iconic Leader.

“The problem is that Obama is controlled by the same people who controlled Bush”
“The control I refer to seems to be out of your grasp.”

Yes, it must be a very veiled and subtle thing you refer to that sends a nation to war. What, you’re Deep Throat now, or what?

Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)
http://tinyurl.com/y8z5lqd

NWO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

“In conspiracy theory, the term “New World Order” or “NWO” refers to the emergence of a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government.”

Heh, McCullough, I owe you a big apology for thinking it was obviously just the US military bullying Obama.

76. Keep going, Dallas, you’re almost there. Transfer of power is long over and Gates is still SoD. There goes the prudency theory. Clearly Obama wanted and still wants Gates as SoD. All Obama’s actions to date are consistent with that choice. Try to grasp that one.

So now McCullough is telling me in conspiracy code it was actually the New World Order that chose Gates.

RBG

With Obama all he does is write a letter?
Shouldn’t he be trying to crash a White House party, and yelling to Obama? I’m sure the media will celebrate, just as they told us that Cindy Sheehan had absolute moral authority.

#65 You just showed, as another poster once said, that you have no shame and no limits on how low will you go to please your handlers.

He announced a SoD ahead of assuming office because stability in our national security during a time of war and a transfer of power is important. Seems like the prudent thing to do.

How sad your world must be to be unable to grasp these important issues of our time. I really expected more of you and now deeply disappointed.

In many ways, you’ve undermined the 6 things you’ve said here in the past 6 months that were reasonably accurate.

The control I refer to seems to be out of your grasp. Not sure I can help you there, but just to be on the safe side…try to think globally.

Yeah I know, the NWO is just a bunch of CT bullshit, right?

What a silly thing to say.

As to our continued presence in Iraq, while I am initially disappointed as well, Iraq has been so out of the news for the last few months, I have to suspend any continuing conclusion on that. There is again a non-moot principled DIFFERENCE between WAR and occupation with consent.

These mere words actually have very serious differential consequences.

A quick in/out to topple the government was justified. Mission Creep was exchanged for a few Giant Steps from that decapitation into “Nation Building.” COMPLETE AND TOTAL misuse of the military tool. Dropping a Nuke on them could “almost” be more justified than what we have done.

Finally, “all tolled” it would have made more sense to “ignore” the entire attack and respond with Israeli type assiassination squads. Much cheaper to lose a building and few thousand people each decade than change our society and waste billions as we are doing.

You are saying that Obama is being “controlled” against his free will and that is why he does the things you disagree with respect to the Afghanistan war.

I say the history of Obama’s decisions and actions belie your assertion.

Your “control” must obviously also include choosing Bush’s Secretary of Defense to run Obama’s war effort. (Or does Obama get to choose when and when not he is “controlled?”)

Thus Obama’s “controllers” must have “gotten” to him early. Even well before Obama took office, since Obama announced his SoD choice almost 2 months prior to assuming office.

That scenario and his sudden and immediate conversion by “controllers” to Bush-thinking is pretty unlikely, to say the least.

So you are left with the presumption that decisions regarding the course of the war going all the war back to the decision to hire Robert Gates are in fact Obama’s own carefully considered decisions.

And not the work of unknown “controllers.” Any attempt to now rationalize Obama’s decisions in order to prop up some liberal-manufactured leadership ideal is disingenuous.

Obama’s free-will past and present actions speak far louder than your wishful thinking.

Now go back and read my reply again. That’s the “Huh?” I’m talking about.

RBG