Levedy

YESSSS! mom o' the year award.

During a conversation with a few neighbors I interrupted: "let me get this straight. based on what you are saying you are worried about--that Obama is linked to terrorism.... you all think that within a year or two of his presidency that he will be ousted and executed for treason?"

I mean let's be honest here. In order for the president to use executive power he has to move military. That isn't something you do quietly. There is a big 5-sided building that will be interested in anything said that contains the words "mobilize", "invade", or "leave". I can't get it out of my head that the one of the worst places for a terrorist sympathizer to land is in the uber-high-profile position of President of the United States. Much better to be a ground-forces leader or a washington lobbyist or a military-industry business owner.

If Obama really did promote another country's agenda from the oval office, he would be in a LOT of trouble VERY quickly. Press on all sides would have an absolute field day. I mean, I suppose he could quietly ignore confirmed intelligence for a little while or meet covertly with foreign leaders on American soil, but the idea that he could orchestrate another 9/11 or hamstring the CIA or plant Al Qaeda supreme court justices.... am I the only one to think that is Wesley-Snipes-movie ludicrous?

Brian--

I think that it is silly that people believe that Obama is linked to terrorists. However, I also can't believe that what those people don't realize is that the policies of Bush border if not meet the definition of terrorism (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism).

See the following items as support for my statement:
-George Bush's public television appearance threatening Saddam Hussein
-The policy of declaring people as "enemy combantants" and being able to suspend that person's contitutional right to an expedient trial
-The use of torture and imprisonment without trial in Guantanamo Bay

I can certainly name others, but those are the most obvious. Am I defending Saddam Hussein? Absolutely not. Am I saying that all of the people held at Guantanamo are innocent? Not at all. But the president of the United States is supposed to support the Constitution, not subvert it whenever he/she feels like it, and going around threatening people with war without both justification AND international support.

My point is two fold:
First, the people that believe Obama is linked to terrorism have every right to think so-- but I believe that most of these same people probably voted for G.W. Bush. If McCain supports the policies of G.W., then who is the terrorist here?

Second, I would have never thought that I would see such actions from G.W. Bush when he was elected. If someone were to say that he was a terrorist (or was linked to terrorism) 8 years ago, I would have thought that they were crazy too. Obviously, my view has changed. Who is to say what we will think of Obama 4/8 years from now should be be elected?

In conclusion, Obama may or may not be linked to terrorism. I myself may or may not be linked to terrorism. You yourself may or may not be linked to terrorism. How can you be linked to terrorism until there is proof that your own actions resulted in "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." McCain, by virtue of his open and public support for the above policies of the current administration, IS in fact terrorism by definition.

Feel free to share with your neighbors who are afraid of electing a terrorist. :)

-Dimitri