Lara Logan Interviews Barack Obama in Afghanistan
tags:
Stumble ThisFrom Face the Nation July 20, 2008, Lara Logan interviews Barack Obama in Afghanistan.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
lara logan,barack obama,face the nation,afghanistan,policy Lara Logan Interviews Barack Obama in Afghanistan
Comments  who voted for this video NetRunner
- siftbot
x52who has this post bookmarked ElessarJD
Lara Logan Interviews Barack Obama In Afghanistan Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
how do you back that up? A 2 second google will show every news outlet on the planet reporting the video tape in which *he* takes credit for it.
eg.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html
This was the most powder puffy piece I've seen from Lara Logan - there's no doubt who she favours in the election.
ehhhh....i dont know if you guys over there noticed, but osama looks a little chubbier ...
that would be the "fatty bin laden" tape.
understandable. it comes up often, in this context.
now, i'm not going to pretend to know, because i wasn't there, but here is someone who went to a good deal of trouble, to respectfully examine the 'fatty' issue:
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html
what. the. fuck. is. the. battle. against. terrorism.
Several things at once:
1. The battle for politicians to benefit from people's fears after 9/11
2. The battle for revenge against the people who perpetrated 9/11
3. Preemptive attempts to destroy the support systems for people who might be thinking of another terror attack on the U.S.
Bush championed #1 over everything, Obama wants all three.
I'm not particularly in favor of any of the three, but 9/11, and the reaction to it has poisoned America into thinking that at least #2 and #3 are totally justifiable, to the point where you couldn't win an election without some sort of warlike posture towards terrorists.
I still think using the military to fight terrorism is like trying to fight mosquito swarms with a bazooka, but in Afghanistan there's actually a real opposing force (the Taliban) we're fighting. Unlike with Saddam, the Taliban was actually involved in 9/11, so we at least have some reason to be there, and fighting there might actually have a positive effect along the lines of #3.
I'm thinking we need to stop pretending this is the Cold War 2.0 though, and get real specific about just getting our revenge for 9/11 and then getting over it. I don't want this to be the defining paradigm of American foreign policy for the next 50 years.
Now we just need to sit back and wait for the sex tape to be released. Hopefully after the election.
"So, losing is not a option...(?)"
... now theres a lazy drifter right over the plate. I know for a fact I've heard O'Reilly say this exact "question" to Bush people about Iraq.
But yeah, a fairly kissy-poo interview, though based on what she's done with her reporting up to this point, you really think she wants to try to give a hostile interview to Obama?
McCain's right to call this an extended photo-op, just like every trip McCain himself has ever taken overseas, since becoming a Senator.
This wasn't the time to sit down for an interview with a tough inquisitor, this was time to sit down with the pretty lady who's interested in seeing him succeed in winning the election.
Expect most coverage to be positive, unless he calls himself a jelly donut in Berlin.
"No, ma'am, I have no doubts that you'd like to shag me."
chubby or not, there is not a single prove that any of the hijackers had connection to osama. i know that sounds far out, but prove me wrong.... there isnt any prove...oh, there was a 100.000 dollars transfer to muhammed atta from a pakistani general.... pakistan being a military dictatorship....supported by u.s......this is so weird.... ever seen "zeitgeist"?
Have your tinfoil hat sources made mention of an Ahmad Shah Massoud? I'm sure they have been careful to ignore any mention of him. He was the military leader of the "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan". In April 2001 he spoke to the EU and warned them of strong ties between the Taliban and Al-Qaida, and that a major terrorist attack was imminent. On Spetember 9th, 2001 he was assassinated in Northern Afghanistan. His death on the 10th made papers all over the world, but the next day's events left his death largely forgotten. Would you still like to insist the tapes are fake? Even though a prominent Afghan military leader who warned of Al-Qaida planning exactly the kind of attack made on 9/11 was assassinated 2 days prior to it?
Go with the tinfoil hat blanket, perhaps replace the soggy security dragged around as a toddler....
Same can't be said for who has been running your country for the past 8 years, or the running candidate for the 'other' side.
This trip of his is a smart political move though, it's really a case of looking and acting like he's already president, and getting people really comfortable that he would work in the role.
I do hope he is your next president.
I also was watching a program last night here in Australia on John McCain and it showed one of his new supporters, who used to be a Clinton supporter, saying that he was going to vote for McCain because he had been in the airforce and shot down and a prisoner of war, and so that meant that he had what it takes to lead the country.
Um
Wah?
How the hell can people be so dense as to think that because you got SHOT DOWN, and then spent time as a prisoner of war, you have ANY... I mean ANY greater claim AT ALL to be a good leader of a country? Wow... and I've heard many others spout that because of his military record he would be the better leader.
For god's sake people... being a member of the armed forces does NOT immediately make you a fine leader.
(Being a member of the armed forces who showed great bravery and strategic and diplomatic knowledge maybe, but not just automatically 'armed forces = good').
GAH.
Basically, what I see here is a politician who is very well spoken, has a good head on his shoulders and can speak clearly, and intelligently without a teleprompter.
Same can't be said for who has been running your country for the past 8 years, or the running candidate for the 'other' side.
This trip of his is a smart political move though, it's really a case of looking and acting like he's already president, and getting people really comfortable that he would work in the role.
I do hope he is your next president.
I also was watching a program last night here in Australia on John McCain and it showed one of his new supporters, who used to be a Clinton supporter, saying that he was going to vote for McCain because he had been in the airforce and shot down and a prisoner of war, and so that meant that he had what it takes to lead the country.
Um
Wah?
How the hell can people be so dense as to think that because you got SHOT DOWN, and then spent time as a prisoner of war, you have ANY... I mean ANY greater claim AT ALL to be a good leader of a country? Wow... and I've heard many others spout that because of his military record he would be the better leader.
For god's sake people... being a member of the armed forces does NOT immediately make you a fine leader.
(Being a member of the armed forces who showed great bravery and strategic and diplomatic knowledge maybe, but not just automatically 'armed forces = good').
GAH.
Well, I'd say he showed some bravery when he refused a prisoner exchange that would see him released early because of who his father was. Also showed some diplomatic knowledge of what his staying would deny his captors. That said I agree there is a lot more to being president, but his military record is exactly what one would want from a president. He's pretty certain to condemn the use of torture and understand what the cost of war is on the soldiers fighting it. I still favor Obama, but Mccain isn't half so bad as most McCain=Bush folks want to believe.
The obamemperor wears no clothes.
Because Fox is so pro Obama.
yeash, love playing the underdog don't you, poor misunderstood right wingers, never get any airtime... Sorry, but the media is strongly right wing in general, don't try and convince people otherwise.
A nice example are the related vids below... like this one
Don't apologize for being wrong, it's unliberal. I don't mind that 90% of the drive-by media are card-carrying members of the taxocrat party, it just annoys me when they deny it. Altho they're certainly capable of that level of delusion.
None are so blind as those who refuse to see. Next you're going to claim all of Hollywood is conservative because of lone Chuck Norris.
Because Fox is so pro Obama.
FOX FOX FOX! Before FOX there was ONLY libmedia. The former Big 3 networks are all liberal and STILL ARE.
yeash, love playing the underdog don't you, poor misunderstood right wingers, never get any airtime... Sorry, but the media is strongly right wing in general, don't try and convince people otherwise.
FOX kicking your sorry butts in the ratings is not a "monopoly".