It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"direct engagement" with Iran

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 02:28 PM
What line of thinking are you?
DO you believe certain people gave bush the presidency?
Maybe the Neo-cons, ensured he'd be in office to carry out there goals?
Me personally, i follow that tune.
The 2000 election was definately fixed, to ensure the right man was in power when the kick off began.

So why do I get the feeling, the same has already been decided over the 2008 election, and Obama.
Especially when I see something like this:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday blamed Bush administration failings in Iraq for strengthening the strategic position of Iran, which he says must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Obama also emphasized in his speech his commitment to protecting the security of Israel

The Illinois senator said that means "direct engagement" with Iran similar to the meetings with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

I look at that picture, and I dont see the bustling, brimming, potential filled candidate i saw 6 months ago.. I see someone different.

I see a man who's been approached, someone who's sat down with those 'few'

Obama's been told the elections his, as long as he focuses on Israel's survival, and on Irans demise.
The only way to leave Iraq with a banner of Success, is through Iran!

The Neo-cons have grown tired of Bush's inability to think, his inability to come across as genuine, and honest.

Obama's the next best thing, he's young, he's black and he came out of no where.

A picture tells a thousand words.
I believe a picture can tell you all you need to know about a man, and looking at that photo.. Obama knows a dark secret.

[edit on 2-3-2007 by Agit8dChop]

mod edit, fix link

[edit on 2-3-2007 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 2-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 02:35 PM
Based upon that look I'd say he was a 33rd Degree Mason. Well maybe not, but I think it's awfully difficult to say what any individual photo says about someone, and whether or not they've been "approached" by nefarious individuals.

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:33 PM
It does seem like an odd thing for Obama to be saying.
OTOH, it's a bit refreshing as lately its been the Obama and HIllary Hour.
Maybe all he's doing is trying to ditance himslef from HIllary?
Do you relly think there's something sinister at play here, Agit8?

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 12:50 AM
Here is the real question:
Whom do you serve?

Answer that and you answer all that will or will not be!

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 07:25 PM
With Bush's term coming to an end, nows the time to find the means to still have power in the whitehouse once the puppet is gone.
I dont think the Neo'cons would of been able to pulls hillary's strings as much, she'd have bill whispering in one ear for one....

Is was too good an opportunity to pass up, find out who's symapethetic to you, then ensure they get put in office.
Why take the risk of losing the gamble on voters, like they did with gw snr and clinton?

Because right now, when public opinion is against war, is against influencing hte ME, it seems odd for him to come out and cement his attitudes like that, especially when its against the majority vote.

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:37 AM
The Illinois senator said that means "direct engagement" with Iran similar to the meetings with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.


he means talking with them, not giving ultimatums and then proceeding to blow the heck out of them when they don't bow down to our whims....

actually, umm.....the events leading up to 9/11 was under bill's watch.....much was ignored throughout his presidency...

you sure that those pulling the strings wouldn't want a bush, clinton, bush, clinton....just to make sure that the power stays within the family?

new topics

top topics

log in