The march will protest McCain's support of the Iraq war, they said.
-Good, and don't forget to protest Obama's support of the Iraq war at the DNC.

Yawwnnn......

Yawwnn.... more impotent
liberalism that will
accomplish nothing.
"A variety of tactics that
COULD include civil disobedience
with sit-ins and die-ins" proves
this.
Without question, the lack of a firm
commitment to conduct the weak, wishy-washy,
soap bubble, cold unsweetend tea act of die-ins,
sit-ins and even five minute stand-ins will
guarantee this.

Most sincerely, Dwayne Chandler.

Better to try something instead of just siting in front of your computer, criticizing people who are trying to make some kind of difference.

dumbshit says it all

Obama DID NOT support the George war.

commoner0411

He spoke against it when he couldn't do anything but talk, while in the Illinois Senate, (where his constituency would have demanded it).

Been tracking his voting record since he got into the U.S. Senate?

Obama DID NOT and DOES NOT support the George war.

Obama is on the record as saying he would remove troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. This fact is irrefutable. Troops are not sent to Afghanistan to deliver Girl Scout cookies PFL. Troops are used for war.

Obama told Logan: "There's starting to be a broad consensus that it's time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, [and] deploy them here in Afghanistan. And I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now's the time to do it... If we wait until the next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on the ground here in Afghanistan. And I think that would be a mistake. I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we've got to start doing something now."

Obama saber rattling Pakistan: "What I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value Al Qaeda targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should," he stated. While declaring he would provide increased aid and "push Pakistan very hard" to go after insurgent camps with its own military, his remarks make clear that he is prepared to unilaterally launch attacks over the border.

Iraq was Dick and George's folly
Afghanistan is A Threat and always was.-even more as time was wasting on WMD--yeah right
AND gee---Pakistan is not even on the Iraq boarder--go
figure

Both wars were wrong and illegal. In neither case was an invasion and occupation justified. Only one member of congres got it right. Barbara Lee.

Non-Violent Civil DisObediance let us hope that the response to this isn't too violent in return. And that if it is "We the People" take our own Non-Violent stands all over this country until we take back the country and reinstitute the US Constitution.

#
PFL July 24th, 2008 5:39 pm

Obama DID NOT and DOES NOT support the George war.
======================

What does it matter? He supports his own war. He has continued to fund Bush's war, and wants to send more troops to Afghanistan (no, that one is NOT the good war).

Wake up.

Okay protesters here's what you do. Post observers at every men's room in the convention venue wearing signs that say,"this men's room protected from the wide stance of Larry Craig". Also offer tours of the airport men's room where Larry's little adventure in soliciting an undercover vice cop for homosex took place for intersted parties.

When the Blackwater or Wackykops security goons come calling, say,"whatsa matter, don't you believe in free speech or is it that you just don't have any sense of humor?"

St Paul is not to far from Chicago! Remember 68

I am so friggin' glad the lefties on CD aren't running the country and have no say in the Democratic party.

The facts are that Obama has not flip flopped on Iraq and he was brave enough to speak up against the war when >70% of the country was for it in 2002-2003. He said antiwar statements during his U.S. senate campaign. As for Afghanistan, he will inherit this mess as well. He will have pragmatic decisions to make that are based on real world facts, and not based on the purist, loony, fairy tale bullshit of the far left wing.

kman2 sez:
"I am so friggin' glad the lefties on CD aren't running the country and have no say in the Democratic party."

Maybe you won't be "so friggin' glad" on the day following the November election, when you discover that "the Lefties" have abandoned "the top" of the Democratic ticket en masse.

I am a life-long Dem, but I will vote for McCain B4 I vote for Obama. BOTH men are in the thrall of big business. BOTH men intend for war to go on and on (Obama intends to "shift" to Afghanastan, but he wants the fighting and war spending to never end..in the "real front in the War on Terror).

I say, better the rascal that we know than the rascal who is an unknown, and who is showing the clever talents of the cameleon. I feel "in my gut" that John McCain is a more honest and decent man, and a far less condescending and remote person than is Barack Obama. I may be a Democrat, but I will vote for "a good man" before I will vote for "a man I feel unsure about", especially considering the betrayal of Obama's FISA vote, and his embracing of "War-On-Terror" language.

Quelle and kman2 are both clueless, and they reflect a more general cluelessness pervading this benighted country. The "purist, loony fairy tale bullshit" of kman's centrism will be exposed for the fraud it is in due time. "Saying anti-war statements" in 2002 hardly makes Obama any kind of anti-war candidate. Bush was also "saying anti-war statements" then. Quelle is totally befuddled if he thinks McCain is more honest, decent, less condescending, etc. I guess that's how perceptive a "life-long Democrat" is. Obama's mostly a fraud, McCain's a complete fraud, and neither kman nor Quelle have the faintest clue what's going on. Good luck to the USA in 2009-2012!

Quelle needs to read this if he's so enamored of McCain, lifelong Democrat that he is:

http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/McCain_Melts_Down.html

Try thinking with what's left of your brain, instead of your questionable gut.

kman2 July 24th, 2008 10:26 pm writes "The facts are that Obama has not flip flopped on Iraq and he was brave enough to speak up against the war when >70% of the country was for it in 2002-2003."

Try to understand this "logic", he claims Obama was against the war(before becoming a Senator and when it didn't count).

So that is good, but reconcile it with the fact he has voted to fund the war ever since. This fact appears to elude this blogger altogether which is hard to believe.

The fact that Obama is now as hawkish as McCain and wants to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is apparently unknown to the blogger who appears to believe Obama is an "antiwar" champion.

Here is the $24,000,000 question: Do they actually believe Obama is against war in spite of all the abundant press coverage about his wanting to attack Afghanistan and add more troops to the military or are they deeply delusional?

With people like the above, I'm afraid our country is lost. The only way to make a difference is to stick TOGETHER. I respect no one who would vote for a lesser of 2 evils. The U.S. has an abundance of war mongers for sure! GOD bles us all, not just American sheeple.

if every one of you happy bloggers, yes, you too, got out into the streets every week, not just for the annointed conventions, we could take back this lovely country! start something in your own hometown, today!

PFL July 24th, 2008 5:39 pm: "Obama DID NOT and DOES NOT support the George war."

That's if you believe what Obama SAYS, and ignore what he DOES. Unfortunately, those are opposite things.

Obama became a U.S. Senator in January 2005, and since then he has not introduced any legislation to end the Iraq occupation. Neither has he voted for, or supported, any legislation that would end the Iraq occupation.

Since Obama has been a Senator, only one piece of legislation has come up for a vote which would require withdrawal of even the COMBAT troops from Iraq: the Feingold-Reid Amendment (S.Amdt. 3164) to the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. This very serious piece of legislation was sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold [D-WI] and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The vote came in October 2007, at a time when public opinion had turned strongly against the Iraq occupation.

Yet, Senator Obama chose NOT to vote for Feingold-Reid.

But, that's not all. In response to numerous reports of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan (murders, rapes and torture) committed by U.S. mercenaries, and the revelation that such crimes fall under no one's jurisdiction (and are not prosecuted), Senator Bernard Sanders [I-VT] introduced S. 2398, which would end the use of Blackwater, DynCorp, Triple Canopy and other mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senator Obama OPPOSES Senator Sanders' bill.

Obama introduced his own bill, S. 674, which offers the "Sense of the Congress" that the Department of Defense should decide whether mercenaries who commit crimes are prosecuted. Not only would that leave the fox guarding the henhouse, "Sense of Congress" resolutions do not make law and are not enforceable.

Like Obama's other campaign rhetoric — FISA, NAFTA, energy, the environment — his Iraq-occupation rhetoric is a LIE.

By the way, Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY] voted FOR Feingold-Reid, and she is co-sponsoring Senator Sanders' bill.

To anyone who is planning to respond to this last statement of fact with "just as bad" rhetoric or ad hominem attacks, YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

Bob K. July 25th, 2008 12:04 pm To anyone who is planning to respond...
-well done!