Why Barack Won?

Kamal

I think McCain is trying to do what you suggesting. The problem is so much is going wrong for him. Don't forget he needs the support of the neocons whowant him to hae an aggressive foreign policy

Dear Mr. Nawash,

Barack is winning, in part, because he is SMART (not just 'lucky'). He is well schooled, intellectually more subtle, and capable of a greater sweep of imagination than McCain, among other things. McCain showed disastrous judgement in choosing a provincial, lightweight, completely unqualified running mate (Palin) who is an insult to intelligent women (and frankly liberal Jews and Muslims) everywhere. This, as much as the Iraq war is why he is losing.

You might want to consider changing parties--since you seem like an intelligent man as well.

Sincerely,

Kamal, Wonderful article. Are you still a Republican?

I'll call you today.

THE VERY LAST REAL DEMOCRAT
OBAMA HAS WON ??

THE GREATEST HOAX IN AMERICAN HISTORY. THE POLLS ARE RIGGED. THE MEDIA HAS TAKEN THE SIDE OF THE ISLAMO COMMUNISTS.
THE NEW YORK SLIMES WON'T EVEN PUBLISH MCCAIN'S VIEWS. BE SURE TO STOP BUYING GRAY LADY TOILET PAPER. NEWS WEAK HAS INTERUPTED KILLING AMERICANS AND THEIR BABIES TO SHOW THEIR TRUE ALLEGIENCE TO KARL AND GROUCHO MARX.

SLIME MAGAZINE HAS BROKEN OFF SUPPORTING AL QUEDA TO CONCENTRATE ON GETTING THE FIFTH IMAM ELECTED. OBAMA BIN LADEN.
I AIN'T NOT ALLOWED TO SAY HUSSEIN.

YOU THINK I AM JUST BLOWING OFF PRO AMERICAN STEAM AND I AM TRASHING THE ALLEGED MOHAMEDAN CANDIDATE WITH WHITE COMMUNIST HANDLERS POSING AS A BAPTIST.

Kamal, It's not that half of us didn't support the war, it's that it was executed as though we were taking over a day care center. We wasted our resources, the most important were the lives of our young men, trying to preserve the lives of what still appear to be an ungrateful lot. It should have been a smack down, over in months or a year at most. Coddling street thugs is similar to those in MS-13 that we've let our cities. All the while McCain and his sidekick Graham talked the high ground with 'no torture' positions. My 50% felt that once we chose our battle, we had to fight it full force, and we didn't. Obama's a wolf in sheep's clothing who has spent most of his early time on college campuses appealing to the ignorant and inexperienced aka students, primed by campaign officials aka professors, all in the bag for Obama. Seen it with my own eyes.

It is easy to say that perception that Iraq was a mistake should drive opinion. But was it a mistake? I don't think so. I would not want to say that to the families of thousands who were killed under Saddam's regime. I agree that mistakes were made in the conduct of the long and arduous task of stabilizing Iraq, but I think it was a justified regime change at the outset. In response to a reporter at the RNC in 2004 in New York, I responded that we needed to go wherever the Global War on Terror took us. It was a matter of where the resources were best used, and quite frankly, I could argue that we should have gone into Iran and deposed Ahmedinajad and his cronies as a greater threat than Saddam. And we need to have all options on the table about Iran. Yes, we also need to win in Afghanistan. I don't want to permanently occupy another country, but we need to stick to the goal of having a stable and democratic Iraq which will be an ally in the war on terror, and only then will we able to defeat global jihad, when we have help from the leadership of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other contries.

Dr. Nawash.

Former (Republican) Secretary of State, Collin Powell, has given much better reasons as to why Obama is winning than you have come up with, when he endorsed him. As for my reasons?

Tomorrow!!!!


The orphan Anne sings,

“The sun’ll come out, tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar, that tomorrow
There’ll be sun!

Karl Rove-Dick Cheney administration has been a nightmare for America since it came to power in 2001. But, like the orphan Annie, we must look for a brighter tomorrow [January 2009] when “The sun’ll come out ” and a “regime change” would take place in Washington, DC.

When the sun’ll come out, tomorrow:

1. The government will be “of the people, by the people, and for the people” rather than “of the PACs, by the PACs, and for the PACs” [PACs stands for Political Action Committees, Lobbyist Groups, and Influence Peddlers etc.]
2. The people will select the candidates to represent them in the government, rather than the government selecting the candidates to represent the people.
3. The public opinion will shape the government policy rather than the government shaping public opinion to support its policy.
4. The people will demand that the government serve their interests rather than the government demanding that people serve her interests.
5. The leaders in the government will choose and control their advisors rather than the advisors in the government choosing and controlling their leaders.
6. The government will be held accountable to the people rather than the people being held accountable to the government.
7. The political system of the nation will be rendered subservient to the judicial system rather than the judicial system being held subservient to the political system.
8. The government policies and actions will be engineered to benefit the masses at the expense of the few rather than benefiting a few at the expense of the masses.
9. The intellectuals will use open debates to restrain the powers of the government rather than the government using her powers to restrain open debates of the intellectuals.
10. The political party bosses will be made answerable to the free press rather than the free press being made answerable to the political bosses.
11. The humility of diplomatic process will control the arrogance of military power rather than the arrogance of military power controlling the humility of diplomatic process.
12. The terrorists will adopt tactics of the civilized government rather than the civilized government adopting tactics of the terrorists.

When the “sun’ll come out, tomorrow,
Bet your bottom dollar [and it is at the bottom], that tomorrow
There’ll be sun!
America will no longer be considered a nation on the “Axis of David Frum” by our friends and foes alike.

M. Safiuddin

How quickly we forget. Saddam was so fearful of containing Iran that he fabricated an elaborate web of lies concerning WMD. It was so convincing that our intelligence people (and other nations' intelligence people) believed it to be true. Bush believed it and decided to act. That is where it began.

Once the war was engaged, the ambivalence among the left in America started to undermine the effort in an increasing volume until they have convinced themselves and many others that "Bush lied." The lie is the one they are telling themselves.

Obama is not as evil as he is being portrayed by some but he is not the epitome of balance either. He is ultra-left wing, he is deceptive about his past, he has virtually no experience for the office he seeks and his henchmen are being investigated for introducing fraud into the election.

I don't know who will win, but this is the dirtiest, most divisive campaign in my lifetime and I can't wait for it to be done. I believe that historians will show that Bush did what a reasonable man would do with the intelligence of that time. It was understood as a genuine threat and defense was the main point.

Not only was this war wrong and totally misguided but the Economic Agenda of this current president was totally misguided also. Huge tax cuts for wealthiest Americans during a time of war has exploded deficits and doubled our national debt in 8 years.

McCain promises just more of the same failed economic policies. Not to mention his less than stellar health care plan.

And "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain's comments were no joking matter for International community. His advisers have similar mindset as necons who pushed Bush into Iraq.
Like Colin Powell said in his endorsement "so what if he was a Muslim?" It shouldn't matter his race or religion but the policies he pushes... no surprise to me that vast majority of Muslims and other non-Christians will likely vote for him

Obama has my vote, He is fresh, serious, family man with good heart, good vision, and his intention is focused on improving quality of life in America, education, health care, and stability. America needs to focus on stability, Money needs to be redirected back into this country. Pride, has cost this country enough and it is suffering as a whole.I personally would rather see funds go into establishing better security in the homeland. In addition, Our education system failing with more and more cut backs,education should be a priority as our children the future. This tune is sung each year, and each year it seems I see more kids on the streets,more security/police in the schools, and less activities,sports,eductional material. I feel Obama is more focused on issues as a whole, how they affect the future of Americans without letting self pride blind him, or puff him all up. When I watch McCain, I see alot of self arrogance,pride. When I watch Obama, I see him reaching out, speaking out to the American people,from inside with honest concern,care.

There is another consideration about the invasion of Iraq. The centuries old misunderstanding between Islam and other Peoples of Faith. Islam is treated as 19 Jihadis killing only innocent people: "and they are all the same" by many who do not understand reconciliation. If, from Iraq and all its woes and misunderstandings, a new dialog can be undertaken, the world may yet find accommodation and peace. It will not be an easy. Your activities are appreciated by many people. Please continue!

If I am not mistaken (and, unless there is a different Kenyan dialect meaning), the root of "Barack," as also "Mubarak," means "bless" in Arabic. (Mubarak = blessed). I am happy that the right-wing radicals have not seized on that, and have only perpetuated the Hussein screed. Barack Allahu fik! --Steve

That's great! You are doing great work in general--time to join the Democrats! :-) All good wishes,

Dear Sir:

I would only quibble with one piece of your commentary, albeit a major piece. You seem to view the decision to engage in the Iraq military action as mistaken, that McCain’s support for it was “wrong.” Maybe taking that position makes political sense, but surely McCain was correct in his support for the war. Indeed, also correct on that issue were, among so many others, the United Nations Security Council, then-Secretary of State Powell, Senators Clinton and Kerry, and former Vice-President Gore.

The decision to enter the war was the correct one because the free world had every reason to believe the intelligence information provided to it (largely by the Clinton Administration, I might mention). The evidence was strong, so strong that Secretary of State Powell testified at the U.N. at length on it. In addition, and here is a point rarely mentioned, it was Saddam’s obligation to prove he had rid himself of weapons of mass destruction; it was not the obligation of the United States and others to prove he still had them.

My point is a simple one: the rectitude of a decision is determined by the information available at the time of the decision. How the decision works out in the end is relevant, but not determinative. (And, might I add, the decision to remove Saddam might yet work out for the best.)

Allow me one example to show how results do not prove a decision was either “good” or “bad.” Suppose I get so drunk at a party that I can only crawl to my car. I manage to finally place myself behind the wheel, and, drink in hand, careen my way home. I make it home safely.

Was my decision to drive home a good one? If one looks only at the results my decision produced, it was an ideal one. I arrived home safe and sound and no-one was hurt. Yet I feel certain that you would agree with me that a decision of this sort would be entirely unjustified.

The real political problem with Iraq is that others (see the list above) have not the spine to say, in the current political climate, that their original support for the war in Iraq was just fine, thank you.

And I thank you for taking the time to read my commentary.

All the best.

Eric Pearson

I am a bit shocked by your article, let me explain why:

- you are exposing here what McCain needs to do. You are actually spending time and energy to advise an imbecil (something even the most radical republicans cannot deny) and a party of imbecils whose ideology makes me puke everytime I hear or read about it. I cannot understand why you would want to send them advices that may shorten the small gap that separates them from a winning Obama. In your article you talk very little about Obama and why he's winning, instead, you are exposing why McCain is losing and what he should do to win. This is unacceptable, as we don't give a &*&? about what this danger to humanity should do to win. George W. Bush is a criminal and has hurt this nation more than any other president in the history of the USA, and McCain is identical to Bush. These people should be denounced for their disgusting ideology, or lack thereof, and for the brainwashing of the United States population. The world doesn't need bullies deprived of an IQ like McCain and Bush, or people like Bush who are aligned with the big corporations and whose only interest is to fill their own pockets and their friends'. Your article is way too kind and it's shocking.

- "It should be noted that I am not arguing that Iraq is a total failure" --> this comment made me fall off my chair. The British Newspaper Lancet states that more than 700,000 civilians died because of the american-led invasion of their country. The UN reports that 5,000 kids were dying EACH MONTH during the 10-year embargo led, again, by the Americans. The Americans have built more than 14 impenetrable fortresses in that country and they couldn't care less about the fate of this nation - all they care about is the oil. The amount of orphins, injured, paraplegic kids, raped women, entire urban areas totally destroyed, and the list goes on - is incalculable. Many people have gone back to using tools of the pre-industrial era. The nation is destroyed, because its youth was annihilated, and it will probably *NEVER* get back up on its feet, as the US made sure of this with their most potent experts in the matter of "country shredding". Iraq was one of the strongest nations in the Middle East and that's partly why it was annihilated in such a barbarian way: it had economic strength, a very high level of education (it had the most Ph.D's in all of the Middle East), it had resources and it had a very young workforce. All of these elements have vanished because the Americans made sure to destroy every single one of them, except the oil which it stole from the country. And you call this "not a total failure"? Are you writing this article with a gun pointed at your head by a FoxNews goon?

I think that the one and only goal of your newsletter is to give the impressions to the Americans that not all muslims are radicals. While this is true and while it's understandable, I think that your judgment is very biased by that objective and that you are making terribly erroneous comments.

I am not muslim myself. I don't give a damn about religion. Religion is an insult to the intelligence of human beings and it has created the most horrible atrocities in the history of humanity, all in the name of a non-existent God, or, if he exists, a God who doesn't give a damn about us or our destinies. That said, I am of palestinian/coptic/lebanese descent and I'm very much interested in what affects the population of these areas. And I find your newsletter lacking substance and flavour. Most of the articles I read are mild to the point of having no impact on anything other than serving the objective I stated above. Another objective is maybe to collect emails from muslims across the world, which could always be useful when waging a war with or against them...

To Eric Pearson:

You are totally ill-informed. Powell's presentation to the U.N. was laughed at all across the world. Nobody believed it except brainwashed Americans. The photographs of supposedly dangerous compounds were obvious fakes, and even Powell didn't seem convinced of his lies. There was no intelligence behind this.

Also, the concept of a preemptive war is unacceptable according to international law. You know, INTERNATIONAL LAW, the very law that the US has violated on many occasions, with his partners like Israel (who is currently violating many Security Council resolutions in total impunity). The US doesn't recognize the International Court of justice in La Haye, there's another example.

It's unbelievable how uninformed you are. You actually believe that the decision was made based on false information. UNBELIEVABLE. You guys really don't get it, do you. It's almost formidable.

From the Jewish Press (no not all media are owned by the Jews). The author of the piece is "spot on" as the British would say. I cannot vote for someone who has "0" experience because that is exactly what Mr. Barry Soreto (until the last ten years when it was becoming to adapt to his other name) has. I'm not a Clinton supporter anymore (I did vote for Bill in 1992 but went to Theodore Roosevelt in 1996 and have continued to vote for him ever since -- because that is the kind of leader we really need. Not a "tuchus lecher" or an appeaser, not a Neville Chamberlain wannabe - and someone who uses common sense instead of socialist ideologies and has people who are not of a questionable character in his circle. But then, again that's my opinion.

Hello Kamal,

I am a bit shocked by your article, let me explain why:

- you are exposing here what McCain needs to do. You are actually spending time and energy to advise an imbecil and a party of imbecils whose ideology makes me puke everytime I hear or read about it. I cannot understand why you would want to send them advices that may shorten the small gap that separates them from a winning Obama. In your article you talk very little about Obama and why he's winning, instead, you are exposing why McCain is losing and what he should do to win. This is unacceptable, as we don't give a &*&? about what this danger to humanity should do to win. George W. Bush is a criminal and has hurt this nation more than any other president in the history of the USA, and McCain is identical to Bush. These people should be denounced for their discusting ideology, or lack thereof, and for the brainwashing of the United States population. The world doesn't need bullies deprived of an IQ like McCain and Bush, or people like Bush who are aligned with the big corporations and whose only interest is to fill their own pockets and their friends'. Your article is way too kind and it's shocking.

- "It should be noted that I am not arguing that Iraq is a total failure" --> this comment made me fall off my chair. The British Newspaper Lancet states that more than 700,000 civilians died because of the american-led invasion of their country. The UN reports that 5,000 kids were dying EACH MONTH during the 10-year embargo led, again, by the Americans. The Americans have built more than 14 impenetrable fortresses in that country and they couldn't care less about the fate of this nation - all they care about is the oil. The amount of orphins, injured, paraplegic kids, raped women, entire urban areas totally destroyed, and the list goes on - is incalculable. Many people have gone back to using tools of the pre-industrial era. The nation is destroyed, because its youth was annihilated, and it will probaly *NEVER* get back up on its feet, as the US made sure of this with their most potent experts in the matter of "country dislocation". Iraq was one of the strongest nations in the Middle East and that's partly why it was annihilated in such a barbarian way: it had economic strenght, a very high level of education (it had the most Ph.D's in all of the Middle East), it had resources and it had a very young workforce. All of these elements are have vanished because the Americans made sure to destroy every single one of them, except the oil which it stole from the country. And you call this "not a total failure"? Are you writing this article with a gun pointed at your head by a FoxNews goon?

I think that the one and only goal of your newsletter is to give the impressions to the Americans that not all muslims are radicals. While this is true and while it's understandable, I think that your judgment is very biased by that objective and that you are making terribly erroneous comments.

I am not muslim myself. I don't give a damn about religion. Religion is an insult to the intelligence of human beings and it has created the most horrible atrocities in the history of humanity, all in the name of a non-existent God, or, if he exists, a God who doesn't give a damn about us or our destinies. That said, I am of palestinian/coptic/lebanese descent and I'm very much interested in what affects the population of these areas. And I find your newsletter lacking substance and flavour. Most of the articles I read are mild to the point of having no impact on anything other than serving the objective I stated above. Another objective is maybe to collect emails from muslims accross the world, which could always be useful when waging a war with or against them...

Regards,

I used to think you had some very intelligent insight into today’s current events. However, you are so far off on so many things now that I am doubting that you were ever really a moderate as you claim.

You can take me off your mail list as your “insight” is no longer needed by me. There is not enough time in the day to read the writings of people who do nothing but repeat talking points of those that never wanted America to win the War in Iraq or Afghanistan in the first place.

As to Barack winning? He is not winning anything yet. The polls are not official counts of the American electorate. We do not select our leaders by having biased media outlets select certain people to poll, usually asking 10% to 25% more Democrats thereby giving the Democrat a huge advantage and skewing the actual numbers. All of this is more like a game that go’s on with no score until the end. More like a boxing match than anything else. And sure, you can sometimes tell who the winner is going to be in a match. But, McCain is still standing and fighting. Barack is on the ropes and playing defense.

Anyway, please remove me from your lists.

Thanks,

Kamal, good to hear from you. An incisive commentary that I do not disagree with. Obama has clearly defined and tagged McCain as Bush's Siamese twin - 4 more years of the last 8 years.

The country is simply tired of Republicans and their drunken ways of limitless spending; unparalleled pork-barrel projects; corruption and deregulation of financial institutions gone amuck. Of course the economic turmoil is center stage.

You know McCain is on thin ice when all he relies on is Ayers, the Iraq surge, tax cuts and Palin's personality.

Personally, I would like Obama to win handsomely so that he will have a real mandate, not the false mandate that Bush claimed. If Congress goes to a super Democratic majority in the Senate that would naturally help him push in a new, more just, social and fiscal direction.

obama is a member of the new party socialists and befriends terrorists..also a liar!

I just realized that you are a Republican after re-reading your article more in detail.

A muslim Republican, that is the most amazing thing I've ever seen.
How can you vote against your interests to such an extent is beyond me.
The Republicans have waged an all-out war against Muslims and yet, you vote for them.

Oh well, some mysteries are better left unquestioned.

Thank you Kamal Nawash. At first, I was upset that you added me (along with hundreds or thousands of others) onto your listserv without my permission. I'm still confused as to how you got my email addresses.

But then, after reading a couple of your articles, I really am grateful for the addition. You see, your writing is so illogical, elementary, and stupid, that your articles are a constant source of comedy for me. I mean, just look at the title of this post "Why Barack is Wining?" First of all, winning (two n's) is the correct spelling. Second, "Why Barack is Win[n]ing?" is not a question for you to place that question mark. Hilarious.

Thanks Kamal, keep on writing.

I may have been a little harsh in my email before. I just can’t stand when people buy the media-created story about our lack of success in Iraq. I have friends and family over there and get the news straight from them when they return. The truth is always very different than the media-created picture. I don’t even like it when people argue that we should not have gone to war with Iraq. Those are the worst arm-chair generals we could ever have among us. We had more than a dozen very valid reasons for continuing the war that Saddam started, signed a cease-fire agreement and then broke it repeatedly. He tortured and brutalized innocent people by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. He sponsored terrorism and is directly responsible for the death of so many innocent people.

I watch a show recently called “Little People, Big World”. They are a dwarf family and the show sort of chronicles their lives. The father, Matt Roloff, went to Iraq to meet an Iraqi family that has three dwarf children. One of which is thirteen, but is the size of a baby and has about the same motor skills of a baby. The meeting was facilitated by an American Soldier, who also has a child with dwarfism. Mr. Roloff ‘s desire was to get information and x-rays of the children to bring back to a specialist to determine what treatment would be best for the three Iraqi children. In the end, those three forgotten innocent children are now going to be getting some help and treatment. I know, the relevant point is that they would have continued to suffer needlessly without American troops in their land. But, I saw something deeper. The Iraqi father showed the wounds he received in the first Gulf War. Paralized face, head injury, some brain damage…all while he was fighting American troops. Yet, here stood an American Soldier and an American Family reaching across the world to help an Iraqi family and three little innocent children. The mother even said that they feel like they are invisible, like they are forgotten. Well, an American Soldier saw them and did more than remember.

So, I’m tired of any insinuation or outright lie about our lack of success or even the validity of going in there. The enemies of Freedom are what caused the Iraqi mess. We are helping them rebuild a once great nation. We first had to rid them of the freedom haters.

Thanks,
Lee

p.s. I guess keep me on your lists. I may have overreacted a bit.

Fadi

you are such a loser. Mr. Nawash does more for Arbs and Muslims than all the homos like you.

I enjoyed your article, as an insightful analysis of the presidential campaign. I agree with most of what you have written, but one passage raises serious questions. You write that:: "It should be noted that I am not arguing that Iraq is a total failure. In fact, I believe that Iraq will bounce back and actually become a success story within a short period of time. Iraq has the people and resources to reinvent itself once security is established and all indicators are pointing to a success story in Iraq." I don't think I'm expert on the subject of the Iraq, the war or the divisions within Islam, but I have paid attention, read a number of books and tried to understand both what went right, very little in my view other than the fast overthrow of Saddam, and what went wrong, virtually everything else and most of it due to the stupidity and ineptitude of my government. What I see in Iraq is the continuation of a centuries old struggle between Sunni and Shia Muslims, compounded by a tribalism or localism, to use a less judgmental term, where identity as an Iraqi is of far less importance than one's religious or local affiliation. This kind of a situation is not totally foreign to Americans, our Civil War, one of the bloodiest struggles in all of history, involved primary identification with region and state as opposed to nation. Indeed the leader of the Confederate army, Robert E. Lee, left the American army and joined the Confederacy because he a saw himself as a Virginian first and as an American second.

If you have the time are willing to do so, please explain to me in concrete terms what leads you to believe that Iraq "will bounce back and actually become a success story within a short period of time" and what leads you to conclude that the Iraqis have the resources to reinvent themselves. Frankly, what I see is an ancient conflict and no reason to think that it's about to end. To me the Iraqis in charge have made almost no progress in resolving their political arrangements and the tribalism that seems to be at the heart of the conflict seems entrenched in every way.

Thank you for whatever time you can give to a reply.

Dear Kamal:

I had in the past criticized you with harsh words for recommending the US to continue supporting General Musharraf, one of the many dictators our government has propped-up and supported. (See: Cheering for the Bully to Save the Victim! http://groups.google.com/group/19org/browse_thread/thread/c7321d88991add5b# )

But, today, I agree with the direction of your thinking on the current presidential race. I will vote for Obama not because I agree with all his political positions, but because of the manifold disasters brought upon Americans and the world by the coalition of Neocons; Oil, Weapon companies and Arms dealers; and the warmongering Evangelists.

Peace,
Edip Yuksel
www.19.org
www.yuksel.org
www.islamicreform.org
www.brainbowpress.com

"However, it is not unheard of to change one’s view on a major issue. Obama changed his view about drilling for oil when it became apparent that most Americans wanted drilling."

There is a difference between changing one's views and simply changing one's promises. Obama tells people whatever will get him elected. Obama promises people he will support them with government money that the country does not have and cannot get. Obama wants strict gun control, and has proven this year after year with his actual voting record, but tells people in red states that he "supports their second amendment rights" and "won't take away their guns." Obama says he only wants to increase taxes on the ultra-rich, making him the third Democrat in the past 50 years to make this promise -- but as the previous two discovered, when you spend money like water on new social programs, the "ultra-rich" quickly include most middle-class incomes.

Obama is ahead only because of the same reason that casinos and state lotteries continue to thrive: there are enough people foolish enough to believe that you can get something for nothing, and that you can live comfortably off the money generated by rich slaves.

It seems to be all about the economy. When the US went off the Gold standard, every time there was an excessive inflation or recession, the people picked a candidate from the other party.

BTW, Mr. Nawash, I was reading some other articles from 2006 and you mentioned Muslims getting mad because Al-Queda is killing muslims as well. Seems to me that the Muslim world only starts criticizing when muslims are killed or threatened. That too when ISLAM is threatened.
What is the Muslim world doing to punish the men and the families that do 'honor-killing', stoning for alleged adultry, etc.

I believe you have issues within Islam that are far graver than issues dealt by the US Govt.

Dear Mr. Nawash,

What is the muslim world doing to give back land taken by Muslims in recent History.
Muslims constantly cry about the 'occupation' in Palestine when every country that is so-called 'islamic' is an occupied country ---- especially PAKISTAN !!!!
Muslim invaders drove out and killed off anyone not conforming to Islam in most countries they OCCUPIED.

This Karma is not at all good.... what goes around comes around !!!

Why is Barak Obama Winning?

Because he is the better candidate. Because he has vastly out-raised the Republicans in donations (and that is neither by accident or by luck). Because he is both smarter and wiser then McCain. Because he is more handsome, more charming, more persuasive and has a much better sense of humor. Plus, he picked a heavyweight for VP, as opposed to ‘Peg Bundy’ (from “married with Children”) who (and this is true) did not know what the job of the VP was before she was selected http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESkSGMnUihs and after she was selected (and presumably briefed), wrongly asserted that that V.P. was “in charge of the United States Senate” and “could make policy changes”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cQREmZ27L8
It is also credibly alleged that she believes that dinosaurs shared the Earth with humans (or at least she has never denied this allegation).
Warren Buffet did not invent that bumper-sticker to which you reference. But you call it ‘bad luck’ that McCain is a Republican? I say that the USA has had unprecedented bad luck in the form of George W Bush. That is not McCain’s bad luck, it is ours and none more so then those who have suffered under this semi-retarded president (and McCain has NOT so suffered). The people who’s 401-k’s are now 201-k’s have suffered such bad luck. The National Guardsman who signed up for weekend war games and possible crowd control but have since been deployed in the hell-hold of Iraq and those who have been killed or maimed have suffered bad luck. The literally legions of people who have been ground-up like dog-food in the U.S. Court system, which has been run like an exclusive country-club for Republican potentates, they have suffered bad luck. McCain has a young wife and seven houses (he thinks) and his problem is NOT luck. His problem is that his Party’s policy sucks. Maybe (in retrospect) he might have had a better chance (and better “luck”) had he run as a Democrat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxNly1kJr-g

Fantastic view, well written.

Marhaba Kamal, good article...good points.,

Trollstein hit the nail on the head

It ain't over till the fat lady sings--Just like the NYT headlines declared in big bold letters "Dewey Beat Truman." Remember? Or were you not around then? Spending 5 times more than McCain does not give BO a 5 point lead. How come? Why is BO running scared? Rationalizations, polemics will end November 4th.

Martin

First I would suggest that someone proof what you wrote. Second if you think it would be best if McCain "apologizes" and "admits" that he has flawed thinking then you would be wrong. If he admits anything our liberal media will eat him alive and obama will forever be seen as the smartest person on the planet. The media and the liberals never forgive any conservative for anything, period. They simply use the admission to drive a stake through the conservative's heart. It is bloodsport for them. I am not convinced that you aren't an obama supporter, you pick out everything McCain is accused of doing wrong and you overlook anything obama has done. You don't mention anything about obama personally and his party are fully responsible for this mortgage fiasco and they were warned by McCain and his party that we were headed for disaster. As for the public seeing obama in a positive light you can give a ton of credit to the media, they have yet to find a single thing he has ever done wrong! I would also say that when you say you pity me it sounds like all the liberals who feel sorry that anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid, uneducated, or uncaring. This is the liberal modus operandi. So please don't pity me because I have the free will to disagree with you.

Hello, Kamal. Greetings from Colorado! (Kansas, actually, I am on the road at present.)

Still another excellent analysis, thank you! Is it really possible that this country is ready to elect an African American to the Presidency? I hope so, and I shall vote for him!

Hey this is a great piece Kamal... What are you up to these days? I was going to call you the other day to say hey. I am reluctantly supporting Barack Obama, but still have lingering concerns about him.

Burak:
Thanks brother. Just one question. Are you sure you are not actually Barak?

Sir,

It is good to know and see that your view about mis-adventure in Iraq and the misbehavior of Republican Party (President Bush) has finally changed. Unfortunately, your previous commentaries were all in favor of Bush and his misguided policies, which many amongst us from the beginning of this war have been saying that, this is and was, a misguided policy. Previously your commentaries were camouflaged under a patriotic flag waver and managed to miss the undercurrent of the disgruntled Americans, not just a few but majority in numbers.

Perhaps Fox News was your only source of information.

What Republican Party and Rush Limbaugh (& Fox News) fail to tell the public that dis-agreement about War in Iraq is as "Patriotic and American" as agreement with the War.

Now you are finally jumping on the bandwagon, that Obama's has been right and the war was wrong to begin with. Also, realizing from your previous commentaries, had McCain numbers been a little better, you might be still be singing his blues! Your comment is too little too late. On the other hand, I guess, it is Better Late Than Never!

Welcome aboard!

Regards,

Trollstein

I am actully surprised that you support Barak. I thought u would definitly be a Mccain guy. I know you care a lot about Israel and Mccain seems to keep talking about protecting Israel

You are nuts.

The Iraq war was necessary and good.
I am a Soldier on my 2nd tour here.
Till this article I liked what you had to say...you were the only sane muslim out there speaking things that made sense.

So I guess you wish saddam was still in power murdering and raping his own people?

We HAVE to use force at times...evil people will NOT always stop with just diplomacy.
To think otherwise shows that YOU are the one who has flawed thinking.

Stupid!

This is addressed to Buraq and Erik:
Buraq: I am a lifelong Democrat and was the senior civilian on the Clinton campaign in my state in 1992. I like to think I am not one who puts Israel ahead of the USA but it is impossible to be 100% objective. Each situation has a different set of multiple choices--which I address on their merits. I believe Israel's position to be morally and legally defendable (most of the time) and therefore, should the 'D' candidate be hostile to Israel, it would be a negative attribute on the underlying question of their judgment and fairness. That said, I am also a vocal supporter of the Black Sudanese victims of 20 years of genocide. So I am somewhat consistent and do not put Israel solely on a favored pedestal. To my thinking, the primary difference between the several million dead Sudanese and the corresponding (still living) Israeli-Jews is: ~ Apache Choppers ~.
McCain is the stronger supporter of Israel. But Obama and I agree on virtually everything except: equal pay for equal work (and as it turns out, he has women on his payroll being paid less then their male counterparts). So I guess we agree on everything. No one has bothered to ask Obama if, (in his professional opinion as a law professor), Israel is compelled to hand over 100% of the land it acquired in 1967 and if so, to whom? I would have liked to know his answer on this because my legal opinion is already formulated. So therefore I am down to one question: Is Obama sincere? (and is McCain sincere?). I think both mainly are--although it is more in McCain's personality to morph positions over time. In this election, because McCain has such a profound monetary disadvantage, he needed to bargain with the RNC for ad cash. This created some of the problems he is now paying for in votes (including Palin). That strategy might have made marginal sense--only if the RNC money gave him a financial advantage over Obama, which it did not.
For Erik:
Below is a copy of an email I circulated. It is self explanatory. I believe that toppling Saddam was necessary but the 5- year+ military action has been grossly bungled, unless we accede to the fact that its strategy was to enrichen the U.S. defense contractors and to create a point of national distraction. Please remember that regardless of the reasoning for the invasion, we were promised a 6-month to 1-year duration at limited cost. McCain was one of the leading trumpets of that sales pitch.
++++++++++++++++++++ My email is below:
An estimated 50,000 angry Iraqis protested against the U.S. in Southern Iraq last Friday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24895873/
This was an inevitable consequence of the hapless and wrong-headed strategy employed by Washington over the past five years. Not surprisingly, our only Iraqi friends the Kurds have today approved the pending security deal. "Kurdistan leader Massoud Barazani announced in a press conference he held at his return from Arbil that Kurds approve the security agreement, warning other political parties of the consequences of rejecting the agreement--as any other alternatives would be alarming to the country." http://www.alsumaria.tv/en/Iraq-News/1-23674-.html
But exactly what "consequences" is he referencing? Its impossible to be certain but if you know the history of the region, he fears a return to totalitarian rule. The Shiite population (the ones demonstrating) are the ethnic majority and want unfettered control of Iraq. No rocket-science there. The Kurds are (marginally) the second largest ethnic group but they sit on 80% of the oil reserves. Right away this becomes like a computer simulated war-game. As it now stands, the 60% Shiia get 60% of the oil revenue, but that is insufficient for them because they also want political control of the oil and ultimately, the cleric who staged this demonstration (al-Sadr), wants Sharia (Islamic) law within an Islamic caliphate (state). And you thought you had problems with your 401-k. Al-Sadr made his way to the top by killing rival clerics, who were more favorable to military help from the USA. This is pretty much the standard for the region and closely mirrors the process whereby the Palestinian-Arabs were radicalized. Any and all political or religious opposition is first eviscerated.
I consider myself patriotic but part of what that means is that I would prefer our nation (and its policies) to function rationally and productively. When I hear the bumper-sticker: 'Don't you want us to win?' it makes me cringe. Win what? Permission to get screwed when this 60% Shiia majority seizes control? This was never a winning strategy. The Kurds were the only Iraqi group who ever liked us and that is mainly because they had been decimated over 90 years by the brutal regional politics. They are ethnic 1st-cousins to the Turks and as you know, the Turks are our Nato allies. The Sunni are only 15% of Iraq's population but have been in political control since 1920. They have little local oil and while they are not as fully fundamentalist as the Shiia, hate us nonetheless because we removed them from a dominant political position. The reason they don't demonstrate (yet) is because they (rightly) fear the Shiia majority and merely consider us a temporary inconvenience. There are two reasons why we probably can not export a lasting democracy to a three-tribe Iraq.
1. Our own democracy is fraught with defects. Those who did not believe me a year ago may have reconsidered, after hearing this stated by John McCain.
2. Democracy only functions properly so long as the three core freedoms are solidly in place: a. Free Speech; b. Free Press and; c. Free religion. Additionally, a functional and unbiased court system is a prerequisite to a viable democracy. Iraq falls short on all four counts and we can't possibly teach them (even if they wished to learn--which most don't) because we fall short on the fourth category ourselves.
The various regional terror leaders have no hesitation to target the area's oil reserves, either for conquest or alternatively, for vandalism. We should have no problem admitting that protecting those energy supplies is our main interest--and stop pretending that we care so much for people who never liked us and probably never will. Plus, if we could not afford this pretense 5 years ago (which I for one believe) then we certainly can't afford the pretense today. The Shiia and Sunni will be slowly ejecting us and if we leave the Kurds unprotected, they will probably be overrun. Problem is that this is more-or-less the same position we had been in before the invasion.

Extre~ Extre~
Sarah Palin defines "domestic terrorist". Specifically asked if an abortion clinic bomber is so defined and replies: " . . I don't know if you're gonna use the word 'terrorist' there but its . . unacceptable. . "
(1:20) ~ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27347418#27347418

John McCain is simply the wrong candidate for the Republican Party. McCain has been losing since Super Tuesday, when guys like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee gave up the race. Conservatives would have rallied behind either of them, but McCain's "maverick" label cost him the support of Conservatives.

That's why it was brilliant of him to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate. It brought conservatives back into the fold, and it forced all the angry Hillary voters to put their money where their mouths were. And that's exactly why the Obama-controlled Media HAD to destroy her. They chopped up her interviews to make her look stupid, they ridiculed her family, and now they're questioning how much she spends on clothes. Note the economic crisis was a non-issue before Palin came along. The Palin factor would have easily won this for McCain, save that the Media is on Obama's side.

This brings us back to the "war," because the Obama Media is clearly against the war. Nevermind that when Obama first got into office, he voted to fund the war (despite his expressed opposition to it!) Compare Obama to Kucinich or Russ Feingold for democrats who oppose the war. Obama is merely an opportunist. Not to mention that Obama has threatened to bomb Iran, Pakistan, and unwavering support for Israel (which, let's face it, is the real reason we're at war!) Nevermind that he wants to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely and has the same stance on Georgia as McCain and George Bush. Nevermind that Colin Powell came on Meet the Press and endorsed Obama--the same guy who stood in front of the U.N. and convinced the entire world that we needed to invade Iraq.

Colin Powell is a Neo-Con and a War Criminal. His endorsement of Obama said it all for me--this is a ruse, a trick, a hoodwinking, a bamboozlement. We're being led like sheep to the slaughter into 8 more years of Endless War and bad economic policies. Obama has nothing to offer me. His speeches don't resonate with me, and his socialist policies offend me greatly. I wish there were more people who would wake up to the truth.

The other reason Obama is winning, (and this still has to do with the Media) is that no other political party has been allowed to share their views in a visible forum. None were allowed to participate in the debates. We've got Chuck Baldwin (my pick), Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Bobb Barr to choose from as well. If people really want a Socialist president, they've got Brian Moore. But people are being tricked into voting for a Socialist who calls himself a Democrat.

If people voted the issues, and not for the person who they think will win, I'm sure this would be a different election. I, like many others, was disappointed that Bush won in 2000. I was even more disappointed that he won again in 2004 off of scare tactics and 9/11, a devastating faliure in National Security. The backlash is clear and deserved. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party. But that does not mean that Democrats should win because they're the "other team."

Plenty of Democrats are going to sweep into victory in Congress as well because of Obama. Voters don't realize that many of the Democrats voted FOR the war. I took on Al Wynn in Maryland, to make sure he lost his seat. But the voters replaced him with a nother Democrat. Chances are, no Democrats will lose their seats in the ineffective warmaking, financial-crisis-causing body, which is Congress.

The bottom line is that Barack Obama is winning because either a) The USA is ready for socialism, or b) The American people are stupid. Either way, I am against him.

"Obama-controlled Media . . "
"The Palin factor would have easily won this for McCain, save that the Media is on Obama's side."
The foregoing is possibly the most poorly reasoned statements I have yet heard on the subject.
Obama controls the media because he has raised far in excess of his Republican counterpart and more importantly, these were small donations. Finally, tanks God, the internet has provided us with a tool to level the playing field and no longer do the economically all-powerful plow the common citizen under with big checks and bigger networks of check providers.
"They chopped up her interviews . ."
She has done a total of about 10 and 7 of them have been with McCain there to kick her under the table when needed.
She chopped herself up by not being qualified. And its not about her clothing. Its about the campaign paying $150,000. for them.
She is a female George Bush only Bush-W knew when not to press his intellectual luck. She 'doubles-down' with a 16, against the dealer's ace of spades.

Of course the media support Barak. This trend is all over the world where white people are committing soicide.
White people lost their religous values and value for their heretage. They vote for Obama for no reason other than he is black. It is part of that white guilt that our public schools have engraned in our students. God help white people because we will be slaughtered by the blacks in the futur

Kamal – Excellent analysis.

If McCain saw the wisdom of your approach, do you think it would make a difference with just a week to the election? I fear it would make him look desperate and even ‘erratic’.

Regards,
Steve

Thanks for sending me unsolicited email through my Ron Paul meetup in support of one of the worst candidates in memory (after W.) which email directs me to your shyster website when I try to unsubscribe.
I'm glad the US is losing in Iraq and Afganistan and will lose again if it attacks Pakistan or Iran. I'm glad Hezbullah kicked Israeli ass. I'm glad the stock market is headed for the crapper and I look forward to seeing all the "support the troops" dumbasses and soccer moms begging for spare change on the side of the road. I'm glad Americans are going to elect a Communist to save their economic system by increasing taxes on the few remaining productive people. You all deserve to suffer for what you have done to innocent people around the world, especially in Iraq, and I hope someday you will ask me for help so I can spit in your stupid, lying faces. Please send me more emails so I can comment further

Here's a really good one. It is self explanatory: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cc65ed650d Opie, Ange, Richie and the Fonz. Here is another good one (interactive--click on the door, globe, window shades and anywhere your mouse-cursor shows a hand). http://www.palinaspresident.us/ Lastly but possibly bestly, more noted Republicans have jumped-ship. 1. Bush's own former press secretary, Scott McClellan has endorsed Barak Obama and Joe Biden. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmSOCPsXq3Nwa4snARSuJV7Qto3A 2. The Republican former governor of Massachusetts, William Weld has also endorsed Obama/Biden. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jH5hJZpqsw9f2rel0QANnhN6c96gD940SK480 3. The Republican former Minnesota governor, Arne Carlson, has also endorsed Obama/Biden. http://www.keyc.com/node/12476 4. Ken Adelman, Republican former adviser to Ronald Reagan has also endorsed the Obama/Biden ticket. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/24/uselections2008-republicans-obama-obamicans

Great Aticle, I am a Mccain supporter and this article made a lot of sense to me.

Thanks, keep them comming.

Whe I criticized the Media, Trollstein said:

"The foregoing is possibly the most poorly reasoned statements I have yet heard on the subject."

This is the same argument I made against the media. If you don't agree with someone, you attack their intelligence. The fact is, when Palin's candidacy was announced, that put McCain ahead of Obama. I assume that someone as smart as you would remember that. What the media SHOULD have done was attack her continued willingness to violate Habeas Corpus. Instead, knowing that Obama/Biden would probably do the same, the Media attacked her intelligence. I guess that's good politics: If you put both campaigns side-by-side, you don't get any real difference. They both want to violate the Constitution.

Trollstein also said:
"Obama controls the media because he has raised far in excess of his Republican counterpart and more importantly, these were small donations."

Again, this is wrong. There are 3 Liberal Cable News channels to one Conservative one. There are 3 liberal national channels to one FOX channel. This is not because of "small donations." This is because of rich media execs. I thought we were supposed to be in a recession, but somehow Obama raised almost a billion dollars. He's a country unto himself. This election is about alot more than just the Presidency, but ALL of the media networks want you to keep focused on electing the next KING who will oppress us. They don't want real "change." They want you to forget about the Congress, who voted AGAINST the will of the People to steal our money to give it to rich fat-cats on Wall Street. They want you to forget about Proposition 8 which, if it fails, will bolster legislating from the bench and keep gay marriage legal in California against the will of the People. They want you to forget about Slots in MD and so many other issues...

If I had to vote for one of these two warmongers, I'd vote for McCain because we need more Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. Obama voted against John Roberts because of his ideology. McCain voted for Ginsberg, et al. because they were qualified. That says alot. We also need someone to balance out the Pelosi-Reed Congress. I don't want a king, and like Trollstein says, I don't have to listen to the media.

www.darkenergypolitics.com

If Mccain wins it will be because of Palin. Many people love Palin

Robert Broadus:
You wrote:
"If you don't agree with someone, you attack their intelligence."
What was I supposed to say in reply?
'The foregoing is possibly the most WELL reasoned statements I have yet heard on the subject'?
What I said was as polite as one could be and still make their point. It did not reflect on your personal intelligence--merely the lack of logic of your posted conclusions.
I had attacked no one but now you have begun to annoy me because a false accusation is itself a form of personal attack.
You wrote:
"The fact is, when Palin's candidacy was announced, that put McCain ahead of Obama. I assume that someone as smart as you would remember that. "
Saying that it "put McCain ahead of Obama" is an exaggeration. It created a short-lived sense of excitement, especially among Democratic women who were still miffed because Ms. Hillary (and her vast political machine) had been usurped by Mr. Obama. However, as time ticked-off, these left-leaning women realized that they were being sold a bill-of-goods, that Palin was a reactionary Republican who was essentially a menstruating Jesse Helms with big, Colgate smile, 2/3rds his IQ and proud of it!! Moreover, the general public also noted that she was a light-weight intellectually and so not only did the 'R's loose the women they had expected to gain, they lost back some lifelong Republicans, such as (that Marxist) Colin Powell (or did someone as smart as you not remember that Obama/Biden endorsement?) The day after Palin's selection was announced I posted on other blogs that it was a disastrous mistake and profound misjudgment of how women's loyalties function. So I actually remember both events. The modest bounce she inspired and my dismissal of it as inherently short-lived.
You wrote:
"There are 3 Liberal Cable News channels to one Conservative one. There are 3 liberal national channels to one FOX channel. This is not because of "small donations." This is because of rich media execs."
NBC ) arguably the furthest left is owned entirely by General Electric, a major defense contractor. You are correct that the bulk of the TV media has favored Obama this election. But it is NOT due to "rich media execs". Its because the TV commentators and their back-room production staff are generally high-functioning (like Obama). They read the news every day. They know what has gone wrong over the past two presidential terms. They may even fee, to some degree, partly responsible for going too easy on Bush-W.
As far as the Supreme Court, I strongly suspect that you have a limited knowledge-base of what is going on with the U.S. Courts. The reason I have this suspicion is because your statements on the subject sound like canned sound-bites from the radical right and consequently they ring of a fabled reality commingled with 'NRA' style ideology. Those in true power have kept you not only politically disenfranchised but also misinformed, through the creation and propagation of a pro-wrestling style hero/villain fable. While you bicker with the one whom you suppose to be the 'villain', and whilst they bicker with you, those who have set this scene go on about their business completely unaffected.

Greetings Kamal,

It has been quite some time since I've sent you an email. I hope that you and yours are well.

I would differ that the Iraq front on the Terror War was a mistake. Time, place and circumstance made it almost inevitable. When it comes to that action, pro and con are well dug in. Such is life.

As well, living near D.C., you may be prone to the buzz. My wife-to-be and I lived in D.C. for a year and I can assure you that there is little thinking there reflecting anything like the attitudes and perspectives here. We do not send our children to war. Our sons and daughters, for many years running, have enlisted to serve at the pleasure of the country, eyes open. We, here, understand the sacrifice as well as anyone. It is not widely believed, here, that the sustained Terror War or our actions in Iraq were wrong, but, within the beltway, the faith states that it is widely believed.

Take care, Terry

Have you ever heard of the song McCain sings gleefully?
Bomb Bomb Iran!
And he is going to say I have no Agressive intentions! You kid yourself Mr.Nawash.

I guess the current war is the only war in the history of man, that is illegal and imorale. It is said made possible through the lies of our president. Loud voices coming from people that have absolutely no ideal what they are shouting about. It is in my opinion simply riot syndrome. pied pipers leading heards of non thinkers down the political garden path...

The war in Iraq WAS justified. Enough of this rewriting history. Remember - Saddam was a dangerous threatening force that had to be removed. Europe was apparently in cahoots with Saddam in underhanded dealings. That was their real reason for not acting on the United Nation's threats to take action. Europe is also a continent of cowards and haters of our successes. Their socialist and communist voices under the guise of peacemakers and greenmakers, are backed by big money and have a loud voice. Here, in the USA, mocking and deriding George Bush was an hysterical sport based on lies and ridicule and condescension.
The mistake made in this war was erronious thinking by people that did us all a disservice. They didn't tell Bush that Saddam's armies could reappear as an insurgency. And they didn't tell Bush that these people wanted to get rid of Saddam so that they could be free to murder each other in a centuries old mutual bloodbath. Without knowing what we were dealing with, we were finished before we started. By the way, Bill Clinton, at the end of his presidency outlined a need for the exact kind of attack that George Bush executed. He spoke of nuclear plans, WMD's, having to take out Saddam militarily. You people that say that "Bush lied" disgust me.
I have to say too, though it's only tangentially related, but part of the syndrome, that a world famous African American performer, after Katrina, told the world that "Bush hates black people." What an ignorant lying creep!(Kanye West)
Ok, you get the idea.

If you're in uncomfortable position and have got no cash to get out from that point, you will require to take the <a href="http://bestfinance-blog.com/topics/mortgage-loans">mortgage loans</a>. Just because that will aid you unquestionably. I get financial loan every time I need and feel fine just because of that.

Different students have skills to perform a superb topic just about this topic but most of them are lack of time for that deal. Thus, every thesis writing service will to assist people with the doctoral dissertations composing. And as a fact, it would economize some time.

Different students that are searching for the information just about order essays at the essay writing service could read your really good data close to this post. Other way, it is real to utilize the aid of the custom essays service.

The crisis caused a lot of harms to people's pockets. Neverthelss, writing a research paper organization will provide the best prices for high quality essays. Thence, your outlay will be minimal.

I can argue for a long time about the historical knowledge of essays writing, but will recognize that the buy essay service could perform the prominent online essays eternally. Is it right?

Sometimes you work very hard, nevertheless, cannot get your aim just because of short deadline. Do not trouble because essays online service will fix all for you.