Obama 'Appreciates' 9/11 Conspirators

I have a feeling our Democratic Candidate will be moving to distance himself from these theorists as soon as possible:

Democrat Presidential frontrunner Senator Barack Obama has responded to a question posed by an Infowars reader regarding government complicity in the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks.

Three months after the reader sent Obama a correspondence outlining her great concern that criminal elements of the government were directly complicit in the attacks, the Senator sent the following response via email, which was then forwarded to us:

Dear Penny:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your belief that the U.S. government was complicit in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. I appreciate hearing your passionate views on this matter.

While I do not believe the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, I do think it should be held accountable for the unacceptable mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day. The blunders that occurred prior to the 2001 attacks were inexcusable and often outrageous. The series of clear warnings about the potential use of hijacked planes as weapons is just one example of why the "surprise" of 9/11 should have been anticipated. In my view, proof of government complicity is not necessary when making the argument that the U.S. should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

Why would Obama go out of his way to address such madness? Is he that desperate for votes?

See also the involvement of 'Investigate 9/11' morons on Obama's campaign trail:

Please note that I understand Obama is not explicitly aligning his political views with the 'Investigate' mob, but he doesn't seem to be doing much to play down his involvement with such views. I've also been unable to confirm the above picture has not been tampered with by the 9/11 loony squad.

(Thanks to 240 at Getbig's Political Forum)

Oscar The Grouch!

The Oscars have turned their collective (waxed) backs on evil carbon emitting activities (well, sorta):

This year, the Academy, the Oscar telecast producer Laura Ziskin and the entire production team endeavored to select supplies and services with a sensitivity toward reducing the threats we face from global warming, species extinction, deforestation, toxic waste, and hazardous chemicals in our water and food. With guidance and assistance from the Natural Resources Defense Council, a non-partisan environmental and advocacy organization, we learned that it was easy (and often cost effective) to make simple changes to reduce Oscar's ecological footprint.

Touching, although the advertisement (found far-right) for a gas-belching vehicle somewhat confounded me.

Citizens Polled, 'Worried' and 'Compassionate'

USA Today conducts a poll of 1,002 Americans regarding the Iraq war with some interesting results:

Given a range of possible words to describe their feelings about the overall situation in Iraq, people were most likely to identify with "worried," selected by 81% of those surveyed.

Other descriptive words selected by respondents:

•Compassionate: 74%.

•Angry: 62%.

•Tired: 61%.

•Hopeful: 51%.

•Proud: 38%.

•Numb: 27%.

The fact that so many respondents returned a 'compassionate' opinion of the war is a positive sign - it shows that American's still have a positive view of the typical Iraqi, and want the US forces to succeed in their efforts. That more than half of the respondents described the situation as 'hopeful' is also a pleasing result.

Goriffic Scenes

Andrew Gumbel gets a little too excited over Al Gore's enviro-popularity in The Independent.

Here's a scenario that sounds like it could only be invented in Hollywood. Al Gore wins an Oscar this weekend for his documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Later this year, he is the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to raise awareness of global warming. At which point, why shouldn't he also run for president?

It's a scenario that has crossed more than a few minds in Hollywood this week...

An Oscar, a Nobel Peace Prize? Surely the next step is Presidency!

Why have the people (what do they know, anyway?) approve of your candidacy, when Hollywood and the Nobel Committee already have?

Glowing Green

Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, demonstrates that it's okay to change your mind once in a while, so long as the facts support you.

Climate change is now high on the global agenda, and I believe nuclear energy holds the greatest potential to arrest the dangers we face from global warming. It is the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power source capable of effectively replacing fossil fuels and satisfying growing demand.

Hmm, but isn't nuclear power dangerous?

Worldwide, nuclear energy is one of the safest industrial sectors. Here in North America, no one has been harmed in the entire history of civilian nuclear-power generation. Indeed, it's proven safer to work at a nuclear power plant than in the finance or real-estate sectors.

I never knew I was in a dangerous profession, although, what exactly killed those daring finance workers is beyond me. The good doctor goes on:

Nuclear energy also makes economic sense. The cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States is on par with coal and hydroelectric. That's a very important consideration in New York, which has the country's second-highest elec- tricity costs.

So, that's a big tick for environmental, safety and economic benefit. No wonder most greenies don't approve nuclear - it's the pragmatic choice. Now, if we could only have a decent and reasonable debate on nuclear power in Australia....

Zimbabwe Left Breadless

President Mugabe hits 83 years of age as the last man alive in Zimbabwe that still has something to eat.

Zimbabwe’s economy is so dire that bread vanished from store shelves across the country on Wednesday after bakeries shut down, saying government price controls were requiring them to sell loaves at a loss. The price controls are supposed to shield consumers from the nation’s rampant inflation, which now averages nearly 1,600 percent annually.

Hmm, looking good guys, and you never know - with inflation figures like that - his mailbox should be overflowing with offers to visit Australia.

Cockburn Hurts

The Independent, through Patrick Cockburn, throws forward a view of Iraq that only it can:

(T)he civil war is getting worse by the day. Food is short in parts of the country. A quarter of the population would starve without government rations. Many Iraqis are ill because their only drinking water comes from the highly polluted Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Ol' Cockburn must remember with great clarity the social and economic masterpiece Iraq was with Saddam running the show.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair clarifies the decision to begin removing troops:

In addition, there have been changes made by Prime Minister Maliki - to whose leadership I pay tribute - to the way economic development and reconstruction monies are administered within the Iraqi Government - with DPM Barham Saleh given specific responsibility. This will allow the disbursement of funds to be made and will allow, in Baghdad and elsewhere, development and reconstruction to follow closely on the heels of improved security.

The objective of all of this is to show the terrorists they cannot win; to show those that can be reconciled that they have a place in the new Iraq; and the Iraqi people that however long it takes, the legitimate Iraqi Government which they elected and which the international community supports, will prevail.

The aim of the additional US forces announced by President Bush is precisely to demonstrate that determination. If the Plan succeeds, then, of course, the requirement for the MNF reduces including in Baghdad. It is important to show the Iraqi people that we do not desire our Forces to remain any longer than they are needed; but whilst they are needed, we will be at their side.

(Via Andrew Bolt)