Get this ad on TV! – http://truthandhope.org/
Although I enjoyed Barack Obama’s recent web ad “Embrace” (the one with lots of hugging between Bush and McCain), I still think the campaign needs to be a little harsher. The idea of a continuation of Bush policies into a third term should be scary, not playful. Furthermore, I think it’s important to emphasize that McCain has been “doubling down” on Bush’s policies at the same time the rest of the nation (and world) has been abandoning them.
I created this ad to illustrate the kind of concept I’d like to see Obama’s team develop.
Again, not claiming to match the quality of Obama’s ad team here. 
But I think that it’s a good message, and would work well on the disenfranchised former Bush supporters (or at least people who had neutral feelings about him early on), who feel like they know better know, and wouldn’t make that mistake again. If the American people can “get it” about Bush, why can’t McCain?
(p.s. — music by Kevin MacLeod!)
Duration : 0:1:4
[youtube gBfngOsvmA0]
Black babes love …
Black babes love facials Compilation – VIDEOPORNTEEN[.]COM
freaked out right …
freaked out right now so sorry In 2003 there was a boy named Link, and his friends at school were bullying him and laughing at him because his name was the same as a game character. Half a year later he was found in the kitchen with a knife. He had slit his throat. If you don’t put this on 3 videos in 10 minutes, he will stab you with the knife in your neck while you’re asleep. again sorry some weirdo posted this
Do you yourself a …
Do you yourself a favor and stop argueing with him. He will try to break your points with frivilous things and will refuse to quit argueing. Trust me its pointless, just let it go.
So, that leads to …
So, that leads to March 19, 2003 – a war declared without official treaties and based on the existence of a weapons arsenal that was declared as destroyed 4 years and 3 months earlier. Once again, I know almost everything there is to know about the Middle Eastern theatre. The reason for war against Saddam was weapons of mass destruction. Not “multiple warnings and refusals.”
No, Iraq joined the …
No, Iraq joined the CWC in February of this year. Intel showed that most of the WMD and chemical infrastructure in Iraq was destroyed in Operation Desert Fox in December of ’98. Saddam, along with Egypt, refused to sign the CWC until something was down about Israel’s weapons program since this aspect left Muslim countries defenseless against Israel and allies if they chose to strike. The UN tried to force Iraq to join in ’97, but to no avail – making this an illegal sanction by int’l law.
Look up the Both …
Look up the Both the Chemical and Bio weapons conventions. The UN forced Saddam to join both after the first gulf war and constant supervision was required as part of the terms set after the 1st gulf war. You didn’t study hard enough. And in a way it was the reason for the war against saddam. HE was warned Multiple times and each time he refused.
All the while, Iraq …
All the while, Iraq has become the biggest nation-building effort that the conservative Right has blamed the left for since Vietnam. Bush even said himself that we shouldn’t be in the business of nation-building (a pop-shot at Clinton’s policy in Bosnia and Somalia, for which there is no evidence of nation-building).
So then why …
So then why couldn’t this be the justification for war when it wasn’t?
I’ve read and studied the history on the entire Middle Eastern theatre. I’ve never read in any UN resolutions, meeting minutes, or declarations that Saddam had broken any disarmament treaties. If this were the case, wouldn’t the entire world community know whether or not he had moved said weapons out of the country? If you ask me, it was a war started on made-up intel.
Yes the whole …
Yes the whole Looking for WMD’s was rather “bogus” But the fact remains he still broke a treaty that required UN weapon’s inspectors to search for and eliminate Bio chemical weapons of any kind. That was basically the point of the weapons inspectors that he kicked out. Breaking a treaty doesn’t deserve but REQUIRES action and failure to comply requires punishment. He refused to comply after multiple warnings. When negotiations fail there are no further need for future negotiations.
But don’t get me …
But don’t get me wrong – I don’t think Saddam was a wholesome leader. I think it’s great that he’s no longer in power, but why did it have to be done on a lie? Even then, why should we have to stay there? It’s their country. Let them fight for it. Let them die for it.
Well, I’d think ” …
Well, I’d think “weapon of mass destruction” is a pretty self-explanatory term. Condi Rice said herself, “Well, Saddam is a weapon of mass destruction.” The only thing we’d ever heard about was aluminum tubes and yellow-cake uranium, which Saddam “May or may not have tried to purchase.” Saddam’s biggest campaign came against the Kurds in the North before the 1st Gulf War. Otherwise, there is no evidence to suggest he held WMDs in 2003.
Oh Lord! First …
Oh Lord! First what do you really consider a WMD? Second, The weapons inspectors weren’t “LOOKING” For Anything They were their to oversee the full and complete disarmament and disposal of Saddam’s Chemical and biological weapon’s of which we already knew he had in the first placed, he only wiped out how many of his own people with them? Sadam did not have a say when he was completely disarmed or when the weapons inspectors should leave and the weapons inspectors never said their job was done.
WRONG! The treaty …
WRONG! The treaty never held a clause saying “UN weapons inspectors are always allowed in Iraq.” It only called for the full disarmament of Iraq. After the inspectors had reported that they had seen no WMDs, Saddam kicked them out. Do I think it was right? No. Do I think that means he’s guilty of WMDs? Absolutely not – let alone an honest justification for war.
WRONG! Saddam …
WRONG! Saddam signed a treaty after the first gulf war that forced him to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq. Saddam Kicked said weapons inspectors out thus violating the treaty.
The only way he …
The only way he would’ve broken the treaty is if anyone had found WMDs. They weren’t found, and the war started anyway. Just go back to 90-92 and listen to what Cheney said about war with Iraq if Saddam were removed from power. His exact words were “it would be a quagmire.” And thus, we have a quagmire.
We went to war with …
We went to war with Iraq because Hussein was to stupid to let weapons inspectors back into the country after DOZENS of warnings telling him what would happen if he didn’t. Saddam broke a treaty by kicking out weapons inspectors a Treaty HE SIGNED. War typically happen’s when a country breaks treaties.
better not eat cake …
better not eat cake during disasters or obama will find u
George Tenet …
George Tenet briefed Bush on Iraq saying that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and that the only formula for war boiled down to weapons facilities not properly destroying weapons. This means that if the weapons did exist, they were no longer a threat. After this, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld decided to bypass the CIA and create their own intel to go to war. This is a lie, or at best, a half truth. I’ve educated myself beyond help. You should do the same.
i didnt, im not a …
i didnt, im not a fatass lol.
The CIA briefed …
The CIA briefed Bush claiming that it was extremely likely that Iraq had WMDs and was planning to create more. Saddam Hussein’s suspicious behavior did not help. The CIA had enormous intel that went both ways, but decided that it was more likely that Iraq had weapons than it didn’t. That is intelligent guesswork. A mistake is not a lie.
The Republicans never ran on fear, they ran with the promise of national defense. Big difference. You have deluded yourself beyond help.
For starters, …
For starters, Mussolini wrote it himself: Fascism is corporate government. Read anything Oswald Mosley wrote, anything Achille Starace wrote, anything Alexander Thomson, E.D. Randall, and Gottfried Benn wrote. Then, read what leaders in the Republican party have been saying about terrorism and immigration since 9/11. It’s quite scary.
We went to war on ” …
We went to war on “intelligent guesswork.” That’s a liars way of saying we went to war on a lie. The weapons were never there, and worldwide intel continually said they were never there. The Republicans were the ones that ran on fear in the ’02 midterms and ’04 presidential elections. They tried to do the same in the ’06 midterms and failed miserably. I’ve read nearly every piece of Fascist literature known to man. It directly parallels with the Bush Admin. and Republican party’s actions.
And what was the …
And what was the lie? The CIA admits that a mistake was possible, our information is almost always nothing more than intelligent guesswork. The fact that WMDs weren’t found doesn’t mean that weren’t ever there, or that Bush lied about it.
Who considered it unpatriotic to question the war? The people. If the republicans were fascist, they would have used their power to stay in power, that’s what a fascist does. If you really knew what fascists do, then you would know that Bush was not fascist
I feel I’ve already …
I feel I’ve already explained this, but nonetheless, I’ll do it again: After 9/11, it was considered unpatriotic to question the motive behind war with Iraq in the name of national security. Sure, plenty of Dems voted for the war. It was a compelling story at first, although, half way believable. Bush sent our troops to war over a lie. If that isn’t Fascist, then I can’t tell you what is.
In what way is the …
In what way is the republican party at all fascist? Democrats have called for war before too, don’t forget that democratic party generally supported the Iraq war in the beggining. Patriotism doesn’t equate to fascism. Just because WMDs weren’t found doesn’t mean it wasn’t a motive. If the republican party was actually fascist it would have taken more steps to retain power than it did. One of Bush’s weaknesses was that he was too much of a gentlemen to defend himself from slanderous dems.