In every aspect, Obama lacks sound judgement. He’s been wrong on every major policy decision he’s taken a position on.

Saddam was actively working to disrupt no terrorist cells in Iraq. Where’d you dig that one up from?

Hell, Saddam and Zawahiri are old buddies, from when Zawahiri ran Egyptian Jihad — which merged with Al Qaeda in 1999.

Beyond that, here’s a helpful report: http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

It debunks your bullshit talking points. Here’s the abstract:

“Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.”

The 9/11 commission didn’t limit their finding to debunking the Bush administration’s claim that Saddam did not help plan 9/11, they said no substantive link whatsoever between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the U.S. invasion, a finding corroborated by the 2005 CIA report on the issue. In fact, it actually concluded that Saddam was actively trying to disrupt Al Qaeda’s attempts to established roots within Iraq.

I’m interested in your evidence that apparently the commission and the CIA managed to overlook.

Those are all indisputible facts.

And BTW — Al Queda was in Iraq before we invaded.

Haha.. WHAT?

Where is there evidence of collaboration between Saddam and Al Queda? Indeed, the 9/11 commission specifically debunked that theory.

I realize they are in Iraq, but only after we invaded.

Well at least PD is on record stating that the purpose of the gas tax was to “sufficiently pinch” people to change their habits.

You get a star for honesty.

“How is mass-transit a non-road problem?”

Because they diver money from roads to things that are not roads. How much more clear does that have to be? Moreover, mass-transit is not self-sufficient. Those who use mass-transit don’t cover the cost of the conveyance or the roads they ride on. Mass-transit is a parasite.

“I get that you think the buses and “choo choos” are empty.”

That’s because they are. Metro transit runs less than at less than 50 percent capacity. That’s after ridership increases.

“train ridership is near capacity.”

Bullshit. I drive near half-empty trains in the morning. I even rode one at mid-day… it was completely empty.

“Those mass transit users are staying out of cars and lowering the congestion you feel when you ignore mass transit and drive yourself.”

Bullshit.

“Bush still stands behind his decision to go to war with Iraq.”

So do I. So does Hillary Clinton. And they’re right. It was the right decision. Unfortunately, Democrats like Barak Obama and yourself don’t have the judgment to understand what’s right to do, only what feels good.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing reading your post.

when you have a press that is 90%+ promoting the liberal ideology, i am surprised bush was able to bring us to victory in iraq that now even obama agrees is the case.

the bigger issue is that the libs never want to define victory in the war on terror. the objective of the war on terror is to keep the homeland safe from attack. so far bush has an exemplary record, something that could not be said about reagan, bush sr. or clinton.

no doubt bush will be seen as a great president once we have to suffer thru obama or mccain, similar to how harry truman went from 23% approval ratings when he left office to now being considered as one of the best 10 presidents by historians.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/26056429.html

I mean, after all, to be the longest serving republican, and first sitting senator in over 15 years to be indicted, really makes him sound like the sort of guy who should be telling us all how to abuse ANWR.

About 1.30+ / gallon has changed. It’s clear at 2.70 / gallon people didn’t feel sufficiently pinched to change their habits. Even at $3.25, there wasn’t sufficient pain for ti to register in an overall reduction in mileage. It was somewhere in the $3.50 – $4 area that suddenly people began consuming significantly less fuel.

“Republicans still prefer policies that end the mis-direction of road money to non-roads problems”

How is mass-transit a non-road problem? I get that you think the buses and “choo choos” are empty. Only, they are not. Ridership is significantly higher, and the train ridership is near capacity. Those mass transit users are staying out of cars and lowering the congestion you feel when you ignore mass transit and drive yourself.

“I’d rather have a representative who has a policy he can stand behind”

Bush still stands behind his decision to go to war with Iraq. Thanks for that. We’re going to enjoy the higher national debt in history, the erosion of our military (both in actual resources and in international perception), and our higher gas prices.

What different circumstances? Gas was expensive then and causing pain. It’s expensive now, and causing some pain. The infrastructure needed work then, it’ needs work now.

What’s changed? Nothing.

Republicans still prefer policies that end the mis-direction of road money to non-roads problems. Democrats still prefer to RAISE THE PRICE OF GAS even further.

I’d rather have a representative who has a policy he can stand behind, rather than a spineless dink like Al Franken or Barak Obama who specializes in telling weakminded fools like PD and Yoni what they want to hear.

… Obama is far worse than Bush. Obama was dead wrong on his Iraq policy, and still prefers America surrenders to terrorists.

The flip flopping attack is dumb. I’d much rather have a representative that adjusts their views when circumstances demand instead of a politican like Bush who refused to look at reality and adjust his policies.

Adamski, good luck with that – Democrats never define middle class as they don’t want to limit the pockets they can reach into.

“So what you’re saying is that Al Franken’s entire positions on energy policy, lowering gas prices and giving tax breaks to the middle class should be thrown out the window because he said he wouldn’t not consider any tax on gas if the situation was completely different a decade from now?”

1) Franken has no policy on lowering gas prices; 2) Franken’s position was to raise gas taxes, not to give anyone a tax break. Backing off his position to raise them does not constitute a policy shift toward tax breaks for anyone; 3) What situation is different? The need to spend more on infrastructure? That was the purpose for the proposed tax increase. Has that situation changed?

Franken’s twisting in the wind. Which makes sense, he’s never done anything for Minnesotans, he doesn’t know who they are, he doesn’t care about Minnesotans… so he has no basis upon which to form any policy position.

“And even though Al Franken, himself, has stated clearly that “we need to take that option off the table and find another way to fund our infrastructure” and that he’ll “vote against any increase in the federal gas tax”?

He did take it off the table then, but now that gas prices are “dropping precipitously” is it still off the table? He said clearly that it’d be back on the table under such conditions.

Al Franken’s policy is to raise taxes and keep gasoline prices high.

“You guys really try hard to try to link really two unconnected ideas”

What’s unconnected about the two ideas of raising gas taxes and not raising gas taxes. The issue is one and the same… unless you’re some petulant ass from MNPublis, I suppose.

“and try to frame Franken, who’s actually here to help the middle class and do realistic change to prices at the pump, into the opposite of what he stands for. ”

Me fail English? That’s unpossible.

1) Franken is here to help himself. Not the middle class. 2) The only “realistic change” Franken proposes to prices at the gas pump is to raise them through taxes. He’s offered no solutions for lowering them.

You’re pretty pathetic and stupid Aaron. You’re a good Democrat.

And…many MBB/MDE sympathizers justified PAW CLAWS clawing.

You guys really try hard to try to link really two unconnected ideas and try to frame Franken, who’s actually here to help the middle class and do realistic change to prices at the pump, into the opposite of what he stands for. When all is said and done, I think Minnesotans will really look at what the promises and the records are and see who’s really fighting for the interests Minnesotans instead of the interests of keeping oneself in office.

As I posted on MNpublius, your attempts to distract this way instead of talking about realistic ways to lower the price at the pump are desperate. Coleman can stand behind what he’s done for Minnesotans.

In what context was it good polity then to make gas even more expensive through excessive taxation?

Reporter: “So, you’re taking it off the table, is it off the table forever if you’re elected for six years, twelve years? You’re no longer ever going to support a gas tax? Or, if the price of gas drops –”

Franken: “If the price of gas drops precipitously, I would put it, it’ll jump right back on the table as something that I would consider.” (Al Franken, Capitol Press Conference, July 2, 2008)

The record is clear: Franken still refuses to rule out supporting a gas-tax increase if the price of gas drops.

We can’t afford to raise the federal gas tax. Last year, in the wake of the 35W bridge collapse, I said that I wouldn’t take a small increase in the federal gas tax off the table if it would help to pay for needed infrastructure improvements. But that was when gas cost around $2.70 a gallon. Since then, it’s increased by nearly 50%, and Minnesotans are feeling the squeeze. So we need to take that option off the table and find another way to fund our infrastructure: I’ll vote against any increase in the federal gas tax.

’nuff said. Done deal.

P.S. I kind of like my new title. Just for today though. Can I call you the Coleman for Senate Research and Online Media Director?

There, that cleans it up.

Democrats have no plan whatsoever for dealing with this country’s energy needs. This is an economic crisis of their making.

I mean, only 13 potential voters died, but millions of us benefited from getting those few extra dollars each year. In republican minds, that it a great trade.