Buddy with staff and skull
sacred staff and buddy
Buddy with staff and guns
Buddy and acred staff2

PESIDENT BARAK OBAMA

Thank You

"Thank you. You did it. You showed America -- and the world -- that change can happen. Thank you for the miles you walked, the doors you knocked, the phones you rang, the hard-earned dollars you gave, the spirit you committed to this campaign. Thank you for never wavering, even when the days were dark, the clouds grayed the skies, and the rain poured. Thank you for tuning out the static of the cynics and believing in your power to change this country." Barak Obama

bidenandobama

America's super hero for change!!!

Message from Senator Barack Obama

Dear Buddy:

Thank you for relaying your concerns about getting U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. I share this objective and appreciate knowing of your opposition to legislation that funds the war in Iraq without a timeline for withdrawal.

More than five years have passed since the war in Iraq began, longer than World War I, World War II, or the Civil War. In 2002, I strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq because I felt it was an ill-conceived venture that would "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequences." I was concerned that an invasion without strong international support could drain our military, distract us from the war with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and further destabilize the Middle East. Sadly, all of those concerns have been borne out.

Today, over four thousand brave young Americans are dead, and tens of thousands more have been wounded. And rather than being welcomed as "liberators," our troops have become targets of the sectarian violence in Iraq. Our military has been strained to the limits, and the cost to American taxpayers has already reached hundreds of billions of dollars. It is time to turn the management of this conflict over to the Iraqis and remove our troops from harm's way.

In January 2007, I introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act (S.433), which would have begun a redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that was consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. Since this legislation was introduced, I have continued to advocate for legislative actions that could bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end.

I oppose funding for the war in Iraq that does not immediately begin the responsible removal of our troops from Iraq, with a clear timeline and end-date for this drawdown. On May 22, 2008, I voted against an amendment to the FY08 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 2642) that would provide war funding because it did not include a binding timeline for redeploying combat troops in Iraq.

In my view, it is long past time for a minority of Senators to stop stonewalling a responsible removal of our troops from Iraq, and for the President to stop threatening to veto anything that is not a blank check for his failed strategy. Our national security depends on the removal of our combat troops from Iraq, which will finally pressure the Iraqi government to reach a political accommodation, and allow us to restore our military and renew our leadership around the world.

I share your frustration and sense of urgency on this issue, and will continue working on ways to change the course in Iraq, empower Iraqis to determine their own future, and address humanitarian and human rights issues in Iraq. In the days ahead, I hope you will stay in touch on this or any other issue of concern to you.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
President

P.S. Our system does not allow direct response to this email. However, if you would like to contact me again, please use the form on the website: http://obama.senate.gov/contact/

Bar in blue

Letter from Senator Obama 6182008 2

dear buddy
You and I are clear about our goal. We are out to change Washington in a deep and lasting way, charting a new course for America. That means winning the White House. But it also means building a strong foundation in Congress by electing dozens of new, change-oriented candidates nationwide

Bar in blue

Thursday, June 19, 2008 8:22:01 AM
Message from Senator Barack Obama

Dear Buddy:

Thank you for contacting me concerning the President’s domestic surveillance program. I appreciate hearing from you.

Providing any President with the flexibility necessary to fight terrorism without compromising our constitutional rights can be a delicate balance. I agree that technological advances and changes in the nature of the threat our nation faces may require that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), enacted in 1978, be updated to reflect the reality of the post 9/11 world. But that does not absolve the President of the responsibility to fully brief Congress on the new security challenge and to work cooperatively with Congress to address it.

As you know, Congress has been considering the issue of domestic surveillance since last year. The debate continues, but the shift in party control on Capitol Hill has clearly had an impact on this critical discussion over the balance of power in our system of government. On January 17, 2007, after conducting its wiretapping program without court approval for over 5 years, the Justice Department announced that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court had approved its program to listen to communications between people in the U.S. and other countries if there is probable cause to believe one or the other is involved in terrorism. Then, in early February, the Justice Department announced that it would give the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of both chambers of Congress access to previously withheld documents on the NSA program. The congressional committees with jurisdiction over this issue hailed the agreement as a step in the right direction.

However, there is still significant work to be done. Just before the August recess in 2007, Congress passed hastily crafted legislation to expand the authority of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of suspected foreign terrorists without a warrant or real oversight, even if the targets are communicating with someone in the United States. This legislation was signed into law by the President on August 5, 2007, and expires after six months.

As you are aware, Congress is working on reforms to the FISA bill to be enacted before the expiration of the current legislation. On November 15, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3773, the “Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007” (RESTORE Act) by a vote of 227-189. The House bill does not provide retroactive immunity for private companies that may have participated in the illegal collection of personal information, nor does it provide immunity for Administration officials who may have acted illegally.

On February 12, 2008, the Senate passed S. 2248, making its own reforms to FISA. I am disappointed that S. 2248, if signed into law, will grant an unprecedented level of immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the President's warrantless wiretapping program. I was proud to cosponsor several amendments, including the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strike the immunity provision, that would have enhanced privacy protections while maintaining the tools to fight terrorism. However, with the defeat of this amendment, telecom companies will not be held accountable even if it could be proven that they clearly and knowingly broke the law and nullified the privacy rights of Americans. I am frustrated by the President’s decision to play politics by threatening to veto any legislation not containing immunity. Why the President continues to try to hold this important legislation captive to that special interest provision defies explanation. The House and Senate must reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill before being signed into law.

The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe, and that our intelligence gathering capability needs to be improved. What they do not want is for the President or the Congress to use these imperatives as a pretext for promoting policies that not only go further than necessary to meet a real threat, but also violate some of the most basic tenets of our democracy. Like most members of Congress, I continue to believe that the essential objective of conducting effective domestic surveillance in the War on Terror can be achieved without discarding our constitutionally protected civil liberties.

Thank you again for writing. Please stay in touch as this debate continues.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

P.S. Our system does not allow direct response to this email. However, if you would like to contact me again, please use the form on the website:

Bar in blue color

Message from Senator Barack Obama
May 7, 2008

Dear Buddy:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the legalization of marijuana. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter.

I am aware of the arguments that legalizing marijuana would make the drug more "controlled" or safer, and that it may curb the violence associated with the sale of an illegal substance. I also appreciate that many physicians support prescribing medicinal marijuana to some patients. Currently, Illinois state law prohibits the use of marijuana for medical purposes unless the user has applied for permission and proven their need for use.

As you may know, the Supreme Court in 2006 issued a ruling on medical marijuana, deciding on a 6-3 vote that the Federal government has authority to override state laws that allow for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Federal law prohibits the possession or cultivation of marijuana for any purpose, including medicinal uses, and no exceptions have been made on the national level.

Again, thank you for writing. Please make sure to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senato
r

separator bar in blue

Thank You Senator Obama

Thank you Senator Obama for sticking to your principles. Thank you for not running scaremongering ads featuring bin Ladin, or little girls sleeping at 3am in the morning (by the way, that footage was taken a decade ago and now that girl is a grown up Obama voter no joke!). Thank you for rejecting political stunts like the puny tax break on gas this summer that Hillary Clinton and John McCain trumpet. As you have noted, this band aid tax break will only come out to about $25 bucks per family this Summer. This stunt from Washington, D.C. would give the appearance of relief when in fact real American need far more serious relief from the hundreds and hundreds of dollars Americans are wasting on high fuel prices. Thank you for standing up to denounce your former Pastor as he has become a serious distraction over the past few days with his media infatuation. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?hp You have rejected the Pastor and his words because they are against your principles and love for America. Thank you for your strength and courage Senator Obama. This is nothing new. You have championed much needed ethics reform in Congress. You don't take money from lobbyists like Hillary or McCain. You are better organized and tougher. You are not giving up your lead in delegates, the popular vote and states won. Most importantly, thank you for your superior judgment. In the toughest decision facing America this Century, you stood out from Hillary and McCain because you were the only one who stood up against the decision to enter into a needless war against Iraq. You were the only one to speak out against the war BEFORE it started. You were the only candidate who as President would not have dragged America into this disastrous war. And by the way, Hillary's judgment has continues to be poor through the present. Even as recently as last Fall Hillary voted for another warmongering Bush resolution - this time against Iran in declaring its military to be "terrorist." In the last debate a few weeks ago Hillary said she would extend our nuclear weapons umbrella over Saudi Arabia and Syria. Treating Saudi Arabia and Syria like they were members of NATO would by very risky. We don't even provide that kind of protection to Israel. That is why we allowed Israel to develop its own nuclear weapons in the 1960s. Thank you Senator Obama for speaking up more than any other candidate for finishing the job in tracking down bin Ladin. Months after you said we needed to nail al Qaeda even if they hid in Pakistan, Bush finally started to get more aggressive. More al Qaeda members in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, our real enemy, are eliminated. Pakistan was not destabilized as a result – to the contrary it now wants to help us more than ever in response to our show of resolve. Lastly, thank you for your hope and strength. You can bring us together. You have shown that you understand that without unity and broad popular support across party lines, any change will be washed away the moment the Republicans assume the Presidency again. Your.Friend.Buddy-A-Nam-Tay-Say.Hosick.Chief.Deputy.Of the Cherokee Tribal Council 

Separator bar in blue

ADVERTISEMENT

"In fact, you could argue that there are more foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration supporting me than Senator Clinton," Obama said. He added that "should raise some pretty interesting questions."

"Why is the national security adviser of Bill Clinton, the secretary of the Navy of Bill Clinton, the assistant secretary of state for Bill Clinton, why are all these people endorsing me?" he said. "And it's not just because I give a good speech. They apparently believe that my vision of foreign policy is better suited for the 21st century and is not caught up in the politics of fear that we've been seeing out of George Bush for the last seven years."

Asked for a counting of which officials were supporting Obama, spokesman Bill Burton provided a list of 47 nonmilitary advisers who served in the Clinton administration and have endorsed Obama — part of a broader list of 73 foreign policy experts the campaign announced Wednesday.

Burton compared that with a list of 32 former U.S. ambassadors and diplomats who served in the Clinton administration and signed a letter two weeks ago attesting to her foreign policy credentials.

Obama's statement, at a campaign stop with just 13 days until Iowa's presidential caucus, came in response to a questioner who asked him to compare his foreign policy vision to the former first lady. On Thursday, Clinton warned another Iowa audience not to support someone who isn't "up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters."

"That's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place," she said. Advisers said the line was part of her closing argument against Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, with the three in a tight race in Iowa.

Obama began his response by saying he's been on the Foreign Relations Committee while serving in the Senate the past three years, "so even by the standards of Washington I have dealt more with foreign policy than, let's say, Bill Clinton had when he became president, or Ronald Reagan, who was a governor at the time. And these same arguments were made about them."

He said that unlike Clinton, he opposed the Iraq war from the start; he opposed an amendment to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization; and he thinks presidents should be willing to negotiate with leaders of rogue nations.

"My foreign policy record stands up very well against the people who say they've got all this experience in Washington," Obama said. "And part of the reason is because I'm not relying on the conventional wisdom. I'm relying on judgments made from a lifetime of experience and my service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and that's why I'm confident about my ability to provide leadership on the foreign policy front

HOME