I've kept my mouth shut, but can't take it anymore

Below is the transcript from his first press conference that reflects the Iran question and his answer. I am sure the video is on YouTube and you can easily see his cheeks turn red as blood. Thugs look for such signs. Plus the transcript does not show all his delays, uhs and stutters..

I did watch it already. Like I said, I noticed he was unsettled and did not display his typical self assuredness. One thing that did confuse me was whether he said Iran is making nuclear weapons or the possibility of that. if the transcript is correct, then that was a flub and maybe that is why the red face. Intelligence we are not privy to? We all know their nuke tech is under ground and they swear up and down its for electricity, but we the public, haven't heard of a weapon being definitely produced.

Below is the transcript from his first press conference that reflects the Iran question and his answer. I am sure the video is on YouTube and you can easily see his cheeks turn red as blood. Thugs look for such signs. Plus the transcript does not show all his delays, uhs and stutters.


QUESTION: Senator, for the first time since the Iranian revolution, the president of Iran sent a congratulations note to a new U.S. president.
I'm wondering if, first of all, if you responded to President Ahmadinejad's note of congratulations and, second of all, and more importantly, how soon do you plan on sending low-level envoys to countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, to see if a presidential-level talk would be productive?

OBAMA: I am aware that the letter was sent. Let me state -- repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign.

Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. And we have to mount a international effort to prevent that from happening.
Iran's support of terrorist organizations I think is something that has to cease.
I will be reviewing the letter from President Ahmadinejad, and we will respond appropriately. It's only been three days since the election. Obviously, how we approach and deal with a country like Iran is not something that we should, you know, simply do in a knee-jerk fashion.

I think we've got to think it through.

But I have to reiterate once again that we only have one president at a time. And I want to be very careful that we are sending the right signals to the world as a whole that I am not the president and I won't be until January 20th.

Is that the one he gave about 3 days ago? If so it sounded good to me. I don't know what you mean. In writing it looks perfect. Sorry!

Below is the transcript from his first press conference that reflects the Iran question and his answer. I am sure the video is on YouTube and you can easily see his cheeks turn red as blood. Thugs look for such signs. Plus the transcript does not show all his delays, uhs and stutters.


QUESTION: Senator, for the first time since the Iranian revolution, the president of Iran sent a congratulations note to a new U.S. president.
I'm wondering if, first of all, if you responded to President Ahmadinejad's note of congratulations and, second of all, and more importantly, how soon do you plan on sending low-level envoys to countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, to see if a presidential-level talk would be productive?

OBAMA: I am aware that the letter was sent. Let me state -- repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign.

Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. And we have to mount a international effort to prevent that from happening.
Iran's support of terrorist organizations I think is something that has to cease.
I will be reviewing the letter from President Ahmadinejad, and we will respond appropriately. It's only been three days since the election. Obviously, how we approach and deal with a country like Iran is not something that we should, you know, simply do in a knee-jerk fashion.

I think we've got to think it through.

But I have to reiterate once again that we only have one president at a time. And I want to be very careful that we are sending the right signals to the world as a whole that I am not the president and I won't be until January 20th.

That is total nonsense about his cheeks turning red as blood. He discusses Iran at about 4:00.

[Edit] The video doesn't seem to be showing up and I don't know why.

YouTube - Part 2 - FIRST Press Conference - President Elect Barack Obama

Maybe this link will work. Iran questions starts at 8:30.

YouTube - President-Elect Barack Obama Holds First Press Conference

I don't know if uncomfortable is the word , more like unsettled, but I agree, as a whole he looked unsettled, not just about Iran, but on everything. he started to gain more composure towards the end of the press conference. I am not sure what you mean though about his response regarding Iran. He didn't say anything we haven't heard already, and the Iranians already are in an uproar about his comment related to not tolerating their aiding terrorists. Also, lets not forget that there is a an election for the Presidency in Iran and Ahmandinejad is playing the politics game. Obama's got Poland spreading rumors that he said the missile defense program was go, Russia is breathing down his throat about it. We've got major economic problems here for him to contend with. The CIA and FBI have reported an exponential amount of domestic death threats since September. He's got Pelosi and Reid to deal with and setting up his Cabinet and staff members. To boot, I am sure there is intelligence that, we the public, are not privy to. Let's give him some time to gain his footing.

Hail, if it were me, I would be looking for some remote island for me and my family and to heck with it all.

I think he looked unsettled because they told him about the UFO's:shock:

I think he looked unsettled because they told him about the UFO's:shock:

You think his Vulcan kin are coming to freeload at the White House? You know how formerly unknown friends and family always appear when you win the lottery. . . or presidency. ;-)

You think his Vulcan kin are coming to freeload at the White House? You know how formerly unknown friends and family always appear when you win the lottery. . . or presidency. ;-)

No, I think they would have shown up if Ron Paul won.

No, I think they would have shown up if Ron Paul won.

No, they told him about Area 51 aliens and they want a piece of the Bailout, too.

Are you sure? This is from a "reliable" news source. It's bound to be Indepence Day all over again.

Uh no. It is because he is inexperienced and we do not know who he is. The same scrutiny would be given by the Democrats had Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal been elected president during this election because they too have limited experience, the difference being they do have executive experience. Every other president since I have been born, from Nixon to George W. Bush has been either a governor or a nationally known political figure before being elected president. That may be good or that may be bad, but at least you know what you are getting into.

So please allow me to simplify-
Are you just saying that you believe that any candidate for president who was not first a governor (but rather a senator) lacks in their background? While I disagree- I understand the logic and completely respect this point.

And you are correct that I would scrutinize Jindal and Palin based on their relative lack of experience and rightfully so. Here is one for you- I scrutinized Obama for his inexperience too. But after taking a closer look at plethora of information out there and the fact that he wisely chose an experienced VP and surrounds himself with experienced advisors from both sides- these concerns were put to rest.

I am afraid of how Obama will "rule" on all of the issues from taxes to the war in Iraq to redistribution of wealth because I have no idea what to expect of him and how far left he will go. Added to that is the fact that he will have a lot of help from Congress.

CCK,
Never before in history has there been more information out there about a presidential candidate- who he is, what makes him tick, his stance on issues, his ideas and vision, etc.

I am not saying that you or any of us know exactly what an Obama administration will look like. But you know as much or more going into this presidency as you could have going into any other.

You deny my thesis that you (like many who do not support Obama- but not all who don't support him) are a victim of the McCain fearmongering. But yet you openly profess your fear and uncertainty. Read your words. Unless you have felt such fear and uncertainty for every other president elect, I'd say you help support my point.

You are casting non-supporters of Obama as weak-minded believers of what you call fearmongering propaganda.

With all due respect... No- I am not. I have many discussions with nonsupporters of Obama who disagree with him on the issues. These folks exclude the McCain smears and fear based talking points from their repertoire during debate. They do not say (nor believe) that he is a dictator, that he is a socialist, that he is a terrorist, that they don't know him, that he needs to be watched, that they have no idea what to expect of him, etc.

Sorry to disappoint, but most of us are free thinking and passionate about our beliefs in the Constitution and what is best for the country.

We are all obviously passionate and want what is best for the country. So I will put that aside. But let's be honest here- if the constitution is so important to you then you would not view trivial soundbytes (e.g. the word "rule" in the Meet the Press interview) to be so disturbing. No. Instead, you would find disturbing all the ways that GW, Cheney et al have twisted the constitution during the last eight years.

Hail, if it were me, I would be looking for some remote island for me and my family and to heck with it all.

I hear you. If it were me, I'd be demanding a recount, in hopes of giving away that four letter word, JOB. (or is it a three letter word, "jobs?" :funn

I have many discussions with nonsupporters of Obama who disagree with him on the issues. These folks exclude the McCain smears and fear based talking points from their repertoire during debate. They do not say (nor believe) that he is a dictator, that he is a socialist, that he is a terrorist, that they don't know him, that he needs to be watched, that they have no idea what to expect of him, etc.

Do they talk about Obama's desire to have a Civil Security Force as powerful, strong and well-funded as our military? Do they compare that to Castro's Civil Security Force in Cuba? Do they talk about Obama's desire to "level the playing field" of wealth, by heavily taxing the people who create jobs?

I think that some people forget that we citizens need to respect the Constitution and the Office of the President -- something which Congress and the current President has not done. I have no problem with anyone not supporting the person who sits in the Office. It isn't the person whom we need to keep in focus. Rather, it is the United States Constitution. If all support and respect it, it makes little difference in who sits in the chair in the Oval Office.

Hi SJ,

Glad you came in- the water is warm.

Do they talk about Obama's desire to have a Civil Security Force as powerful, strong and well-funded as our military?

Some do, yes. And we end up discussing Roosevelt's CCC, the concept of community service, etc. The debate usually heads in the direction of whether or not such a program could be designed and implemented in a way that can be done so that we get our money's worth and this is not just a big welfare program.

Do they compare that to Castro's Civil Security Force in Cuba?

No. Conversations about Cuba usually come back to whether or not we should reexamine and change our trade policy toward Cuba. And the conversation often heads in the direction of whether or not we should be speaking with our "enemies" with/without predefined conditions.

Do they talk about Obama's desire to "level the playing field" of wealth, by heavily taxing the people who create jobs?

They openly acknowledge that a proposal to reset tax rates on families making greater than 250K to Clinton levels while giving cuts to the middle class is not socialism- even though they might not want such a reset. They express dissatisfaction that some folks who pay no taxes will be getting a refund check. We debate if this is really a redistribution of wealth. We discuss the potential impact on job creation but factor in other aspects of Obama's plan which include tax credits for job creation. We get into the numbers- how many small businesses would actually take a hit. We try to arrive at the net effect.

I think that some people forget that we citizens need to respect the Constitution and the Office of the President -- something which Congress and the current President has not done. I have no problem with anyone not supporting the person who sits in the Office. It isn't the person whom we need to keep in focus. Rather, it is the United States Constitution. If all support and respect it, it makes little difference in who sits in the chair in the Oval Office.

I totally agree. EDIT- Save for the last part about it making little difference who sits in the chair in the Oval Office.

Geo, you don't remember all the folks promising to leave the US if Bush were elected in 2000? Do you remember the couple of celebrities who called him stupid and an idiot?

Here is an article by a journalist who shadowed Bush for years in Texas and talks about his ascendancy to the national stage - and oh yeah, how he once said publicly how stupid Bush is.

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_print.asp?id=5156&custom=

Sure- I remember these things. People who believe that Bush lacks intellect feel this way based on Bush's own merit. Typically it is because GW said something (or said it in a way, with a look, etc.) that lead them to believe that he might not be the sharpest tool in the drawer. Some folks kid that they were leaving. And in 2004, some folks actually did leave because they felt embarrassed and ashamed that he was elected a second time despite his many blunders.

I just don't see this as being the same as folks being afraid of Obama, not knowing him, socialist, communist, terrorist, we need to watch him closely, etc.

Do you?

And there was plenty of talk about Bill Clinton's lack of experience on the international stage. Here is a story in the NY Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DD1331F936A35752C1A964958260

Sure. Folks should always question a candidate's experience. This should be a factor in deciding for whom to vote. I have no problem with anyone questioning Obama's experience or even choosing to not vote for him because of that concern.

We weren't talking about experience until recently in this thread. We were talking about fear. If we need to watch closely everything that every single president elect does because there are disturbing signs that they just might be a dictator and can't be trusted then I'm cool with that. I'm just not cool with folks rationalizing these things only this time around.

Again, the reason there is so much attention given to Obama is that we have a wartime transition. Consider the challenges thrown the way of past new Presidents. Kennedy was tested by the Soviets as they brought nuclear missiles into Cuba. Carter experienced kidnapping of Americans by Iran. Clinton was in office several months when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center. And Bush was in office just several months when 9/11 reared its ugly head. Today there was an article in which Bin Laden promised another attack much larger than 9/11. Iran probably is very close to having nuclear weapons and already has an arsenal of Shahab missiles. Iran has stated that Israel should not exist. North Korea, who knows? There are a lot of issues for a President elect who has virtually no national security experience. Listen, I have no doubt that he will surround himself with smart, experienced people such as, I hope, Colin Powell but the truth is that sneaky world leaders focus the world through the prism of other world leaders especially the US.

If you say that some view Obama so suspiciously because this is a wartime transition and this is such an important time in our history then I guess I will need to take your word for it. But I am admittedly having a hard time doing so based on their own words of fear and uncertainty. Only recent posts have readjusted the messaging to point to things like experience.

Do they talk about Obama's desire to have a Civil Security Force as powerful, strong and well-funded as our military? Do they compare that to Castro's Civil Security Force in Cuba? Do they talk about Obama's desire to "level the playing field" of wealth, by heavily taxing the people who create jobs?

I think that some people forget that we citizens need to respect the Constitution and the Office of the President -- something which Congress and the current President has not done. I have no problem with anyone not supporting the person who sits in the Office. It isn't the person whom we need to keep in focus. Rather, it is the United States Constitution. If all support and respect it, it makes little difference in who sits in the chair in the Oval Office.

Maybe Obama need to learn a little respect himself

From Drudge:

BUSH ANGER: OBAMA AIDES LEAK CHAT DETAILS
Tue Nov 11 2008 09:28:10 ET

Just hours after President Bush and President-elect Obama met in the Oval Office of the White House, details of their confidential conversation began leaking out to the press, igniting anger from the president, sources claim.

"Senator Obama would be wise to keep close counsel," a top Bush source warned.

"BUSH AND OBAMA AT ODDS OVER AID FOR AUTO INDUSTRY," splashed the NEW YORK TIMES in an exclusive Monday evening, quoting "people familiar with the discussion."

The two met at the White House in private, without staff.

"Bush indicated at the meeting that he might support some aid and a broader economic stimulus package if Obama and congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia," claimed the TIMES.

MORE

The ASSOCIATED PRESS quickly followed with details of the conversation, citing "aides who described the discussion on grounds of anonymity, citing the private nature of the meeting."

Bush advisers view the leaks as an effort to undermine the president's remaining days in office.

"Senator Obama may not be familiar with a long-standing tradition of presidents holding their private conversations, private," a senior adviser explained to the DRUDGE REPORT.

Developing...

Maybe Obama need to learn a little respect himself

From Drudge:

BUSH ANGER: OBAMA AIDES LEAK CHAT DETAILS
Tue Nov 11 2008 09:28:10 ET

Just hours after President Bush and President-elect Obama met in the Oval Office of the White House, details of their confidential conversation began leaking out to the press, igniting anger from the president, sources claim.

"Senator Obama would be wise to keep close counsel," a top Bush source warned.

"BUSH AND OBAMA AT ODDS OVER AID FOR AUTO INDUSTRY," splashed the NEW YORK TIMES in an exclusive Monday evening, quoting "people familiar with the discussion."

The two met at the White House in private, without staff.

"Bush indicated at the meeting that he might support some aid and a broader economic stimulus package if Obama and congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia," claimed the TIMES.

MORE

The ASSOCIATED PRESS quickly followed with details of the conversation, citing "aides who described the discussion on grounds of anonymity, citing the private nature of the meeting."

Bush advisers view the leaks as an effort to undermine the president's remaining days in office.

"Senator Obama may not be familiar with a long-standing tradition of presidents holding their private conversations, private," a senior adviser explained to the DRUDGE REPORT.

Developing...

there's no legacy to undermine

If we knew then what we know now, would we still have voted for Nixon or Bush? I think not. One was a lying crook and the other has bent the Constitution to serve a very twisted political agenda. What history has shown us is that neither did what was best for the countries people as a whole.

Don't you think we should wait until there is evidence of what IS happening before any judgement is passed? Being afraid of something that may or may not happen is simply a projection of one's mind, a way of thinking. It does not exist...and may never exist. Nothing has actually happened yet. What is there to be afraid of?

As Jung stated long ago "the collective unconcious hasn't woken up yet". I think it is past time we did. If we all change our way of thinking to a more positive, present methodology, maybe there won't have been any reason to be afraid in the first place. Our collective good intentions may, just may, make some positive difference, have some positive effect in the world. Don't you think it's worth a try...or have we become so jaded that even trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt and hope for a change for the better is out of the question?

Does anyone else out there believe that "be afraid, be very afraid" is unnecessary for a free thinking and passionate people to survive and thrive, even in a dangerous world? Be vigilant and skeptical, not feaful and cynical...please.

How about putting more positive energy into the coming change. It might just make a difference. What can it hurt to try? I don't think it's too much to ask, do you?

Yes, we don't know enough at this point to project what Obama is going to do. A lot of what I'm hearing is a continuation of pre-election style bashing which no longer makes sense once he is elected. For instance, experience is worth considering before you decide to hire somebody, but it's too late now. He's been hired, he is our president. All of us including long time supporters should be prepared to offer constructive criticism in the hopes that the administration keeps this country on track, but let's stay away from the stuff whose only purpose is to keep him from being elected in the first place. Save that for 2012. Hopefully by that time this country under Obama will be doing well on the substantive issues and detractors can return to the petty mudslinging they seem to enjoy so much.

Obama and the war on Brains

Sure- I remember these things. People who believe that Bush lacks intellect feel this way based on Bush's own merit. Typically it is because GW said something (or said it in a way, with a look, etc.) that lead them to believe that he might not be the sharpest tool in the drawer. Some folks kid that they were leaving. And in 2004, some folks actually did leave because they felt embarrassed and ashamed that he was elected a second time despite his many blunders.

Worry not, the intelligentsia are here to save the country once again...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09kristof.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

and the Intelligent rebuttal by Thomas Sowell
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell111108.php3

there's no legacy to undermine

The point of the story is not a "legacy" it is warning the President-Elect that someone he is talking to cannot keep their mouth shut.:angry: The conspiracy theorist would think that since the campaign was remarkably free from leaks, ( to their credit) then this is no "leak" but Obama authorized to further some nefarious objective. You decide which you believe.

The point of the story is not a "legacy" it is warning the President-Elect that someone he is talking to cannot keep their mouth shut.:angry: The conspiracy theorist would think that since the campaign was remarkably free from leaks, ( to their credit) then this is no "leak" but Obama authorized to further some nefarious objective. You decide which you believe.

Is this sort of like exposing the name of a CIA operative?

Is this sort of like exposing the name of a CIA operative?

Have you heard the old saw: "two wrongs don't make a right." The damage Bush could do is almost over, the damage Obama could do is only beginning. Hopefully he can figure out who has a big mouth and get rid of them pronto.

Have you heard the old saw: "two wrongs don't make a right." The damage Bush could do is almost over, the damage Obama could do is only beginning. Hopefully he can figure out who has a big mouth and get rid of them pronto.

The sad fact is we have no idea the damage Bush has done

Maybe Obama need to learn a little respect himself

From Drudge:

BUSH ANGER: OBAMA AIDES LEAK CHAT DETAILS
Tue Nov 11 2008 09:28:10 ET

Just hours after President Bush and President-elect Obama met in the Oval Office of the White House, details of their confidential conversation began leaking out to the press, igniting anger from the president, sources claim.

"Senator Obama would be wise to keep close counsel," a top Bush source warned.

"BUSH AND OBAMA AT ODDS OVER AID FOR AUTO INDUSTRY," splashed the NEW YORK TIMES in an exclusive Monday evening, quoting "people familiar with the discussion."

The two met at the White House in private, without staff.

"Bush indicated at the meeting that he might support some aid and a broader economic stimulus package if Obama and congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia," claimed the TIMES.

MORE

The ASSOCIATED PRESS quickly followed with details of the conversation, citing "aides who described the discussion on grounds of anonymity, citing the private nature of the meeting."

Bush advisers view the leaks as an effort to undermine the president's remaining days in office.

"Senator Obama may not be familiar with a long-standing tradition of presidents holding their private conversations, private," a senior adviser explained to the DRUDGE REPORT.

Developing...

I see nothing in this "report" and I do use that term loosely, that can substantiate which camp leaked what. Not one is named on record or from which camp it came, except an unnamed Bush aid saying it was the other guys. Put some names behind it and I'll give it more weight. Leaking info and blaming it on the other guys is a long standing tactic that the present administration is not above, as proven by their prior issues with the CIA. And by the way..........I give Drudge no more credit than I would the Huffington Post when sourcing a story. If you want to find someone to back up your fears, you always will, no matter to which party you belong.

Though I'm not convinced that either candidate was a great choice, it seems that many merely voted Bush out of office.....I guess that they didn't realize that he was going to leave anyway! And many others voted simply to see/make "history". In both cases, those votes were wasted. I think that in this election, regardless of who might have been elected, both sides would have ended up equally disappointed, and equally disenfranchised.

That said, many of us have been blessed to earn ourselves a piece of paradise, yet the pointless to-and-fro in this, and many other endless political threads, shows that many prefer their own personal disgruntled hell. All things being equal, in the coming years I will most likely no longer enjoy being a part of the "middle-class", but I will remain "happy2beme" because no one can take from me the paradise that is within my mind and spirit. Four years will come and go quickly; I'll await the next election and hope for a better day.....

Pls be mindful that my post was not about Bush nor did I say he was dumb nor did I say that the smarter people are on the way and will save us all...



EDIT: But that said,
shall we do a poll?

What is better-
a President who is viewed as being smart or a president who is viewed as being dumb?

I think it all boils down to being receptive to a communication style. I like being talked to, not talked at, so I favor the style of Obama over people like Dubya and Palin. Those two have never been very good at formulating ideas. They just shower you with a bunch of verbage. If that's what real America wants then I'm all for the resurgence of fake America. I think a lot of people will tolerate dumbness if they feel the person "speaks to them". I favor smart.