Obama Withdraws from Withdraw
Jul 3, 2008 Political
Barack Obama has changed his position on the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Now, before I continue with this, I know I will get comments from the Obamabots saying this has been his position all along. I would counter by stating that Obama has had about a half a dozen positions (maybe more) on the war depending on what contest he was in and to whom he was speaking. As a matter of fact, one of Obama’s positions included having troops in Iraq until 2013 which is exactly what John McCain said. Of course, McCain was blasted from the left and Obambi never got heat for it. Let’s see how well he does after his latest flip.
Today, in contrast to his earlier positions, Barack Obama stated that he would wait until his trip to Iraq before he defines his position on it (since he never intended to go to Iraq until he was embarrassed in to it, he cannot have always held this position). Obama stated that he wanted to speak to the commanders before making an assessment and he assured us that this has been his position all along. Except that in a debate he said he would immediately withdraw troops and that included a yes, even if the commanders oppose it, statement. Obambi said he would take their advice under consideration but as Commander in Chief the buck stops with him (as if he has more experience than the commanders). He and Hillary were both pandering to the anti war nuts at the time and they had to be tough. They were playing a game to see who could get the troops out faster.
Obama has changed from immediately, to 16 months, to by the end of 2009, to 2013 to any number of answers. This cannot make the nutroots very happy because they supported him and his “I was opposed to the war from the beginning” meaningless statement and they loved his promises to leave Iraq immediately.
For a list of the different positions Obama has taken go here. The list at the bottom are his quotes on the war and what he will do and includes his 2013 position.
The Obama campaign and the candidate himself have a lot of testicular fortitude when it comes to obvious lies. Obama contends that he has always held this position or that one, when the reality is that he did not. David Axelrod stated that Obama said he would always listen to the advice of commanders and that would factor into his thinking. This is a lie. Obama has repeatedly stated that he would listen to commanders but that he was going to withdraw the troops regardless of what they told him. He even had a second news conference today to address the GOP pointing out his flips and Obama stated that he would listen to the commanders but what they say would not affect his 16 month withdraw plan. Obviously, the commanders will not hold sway with Obama if they think we need to be there longer than 16 months.
Obama is playing a game here and he thinks he can get away with it and to be honest he will with part of the country. He and his campaign believe that if they continue to say things and keep repeating them people will hold them as true. They do this regardless of what Obama has said in the past. Obama has ALWAYS been in favor of gun control and he stated that he felt that guns should be taken away from people. He keeps saying he has always been in favor of it so that people will believe it is true but his record and his statements say something entirely different.
Obama also has another problem with regard to the war thing. He is running against a war hero and a man with a wealth of military experience. Obama has none, nada, zero, nil, experience in this arena. His rise to the top was all predicated on a meaningless opposition to the war and the left’s disgust at Hillary’s vote to authorize it. The left made her pay for voting for war and they love Obambi because he says he will end it and bring our troops home immediately. But that was then. He was running against a Democrat in a Democratic primary. He needed to persuade Democrats to vote for him and the best way to do that was to talk tough about bringing the troops home right away. The left ate that up and they loved him for it.
Now though, Obama will have to appeal to the other half of the country. He will have to appeal to those who do not believe in surrender and who understand that experience matters. Obama is moving toward the center to try and appeal to the moderate Republicans. He knows that most will not appreciate a strategy that means defeat because they remember all too well what happened in Vietnam. Obama also knows that he cannot look naive on this issue because national security is a very important one. By now saying that he might need to refine his plan he is trying to demonstrate that he has experience and good judgment. The problem is, he has made his positions clear a number of times and no matter how many times he says he has ALWAYS believed in his current plan, the fact is, he did not. This is a lie and he knows it is a lie he just hopes that YOU will not know it is a lie.
Consider this, if a candidate has always had the same position on an issue he would not have to keep saying that he has always had that position because people would know it. The very fact that people are pointing out the differences and the fact that he is defending against them shows that he has changed positions. If it was always the same there would be no validity to the attacks (if they would even occur) because people would know. Notice that he never has to say that he has always supported abortion. That is because he has and people know it. There are no other positions on which to compare and there are no other statements to the contrary. People know it, as opposed to his stances on gun control and the war in Iraq on which Obama has had more positions than the Kama Sutra.
Over the next few days Obama will claim he has always been consistent so that his code pinko friends on the left will be led to believe he has not abandoned them. He will also claim that the GOP is distorting his record. Regardless of what this guy says, he is lying.
And if anyone in the MSM had any integrity they would call him on it. Unfortunately, they go along with him. Keith Olberman (definitely not the MSM) is so in love with Obama that if Barry said tomorrow that the war in Iraq is righteous and that we need to go into Iran and have war for 100 years Keith would say how brave Obama is for saying things no one else will. Olberman blasted Bush and all his criminals for wanting to grant immunity to communications companies but when Barry voted for it Olberman said he was showing courage and fawned all over him.
Unfortunately, Olberman is not the only moron in the media that would stand in line to give Obama a Lewinsky. Chris Matthews would get in line several times with a tingle in his legs and there are others who will ignore everything just to help put a Democrat back in the White House.
It is obvious that Obama is trying to swing to the middle and will say anything in order to get elected. Muslims believe that it is perfectly OK to lie and deceive in order to advance Islam. Barry is deliberately lying and deceiving people in order to get elected (as did every Democrat who pretended to be conservative in the last election in order to get into office).
Wonder if it is a coincidence that both entities believe in the same things…
Related items:
US News and World Report
CNN
Stop the ACLU
Tags: deceit, experience, flip flop, lies, McCain, Obama, war plan
Obama Clubs His Seal to Death
Jun 24, 2008 Political
Barack O’Carter, Obama introduced a new seal this week. The seal was a knock off of the Presidential Seal (and might have violated the law) and Barry used it at an event. The reaction from the MSM, the right and the left was almost unanimous; the seal was ridiculous and it showed quite a bit of arrogance. It should not surprise anyone that Obama would be arrogant enough to display a seal to make him look presidential. He is arrogant and has demonstrated it in the past. This is the guy who thinks that to know him is to love him and that this is Obama country. I think he has delusions of grandeur and has bought into the idea that he is the next coming (or maybe he is the twelfth Imam). It is rather pathetic.
The seal went over like a pregnant pole vaulter and the Obama people have shelved it for now. They are probably wondering why people would be so derisive about the chosen one. While they ponder it we can add the seal to the growing list of items [David Limbaugh] he has flipped on (he was for the seal before he was against it or did he throw it under the bus). His people claim that the seal was for an event (as in a one time thing) but that is about as lame as claiming that not taking public financing is because the system is broken.
I think it is interesting to watch this guy as he moves forward. He becomes more enamored with himself as each day passes and as he does he begins to draw criticisms that were not present in the primary. The MSM has derided him on the financing issue and they went to town on the “Great Obambi Seal” which is amazing in and of itself. I think he will find that since he is the last one standing in the “Survivor Democratic Primary” game that he will no longer be able to hide his mistakes. When Hillary was there she always did something to take the attention away from him or, at least, the attention was divided. Now that he is alone at the top he will have the right wing looking at him through a microscope. If the MSM jumps in that is just a sauce for the goose.
I feel badly that Barry had to take his new toy home. I am sure he wanted to proudly display it so that he would look presidential even if he cannot act it. My good friend GM Roper has designed a new seal for Obambi and I think it is more appropriate and is worthy of being called a seal.
Source:
Newsmax
Tags: david limbaugh, flip flop, gm roper, Obama, seal
Obama Flip-Flops on Danger Posed by Iran
Jun 4, 2008 Political
While working to secure the Democratic nomination back in May B. Hussein Obama said that Iran was a tiny nation that did not pose a threat because it is smaller than the Soviet Union.
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose any serious threat to us.” WND
To B. Hussein (at that time), Iran was a small nation that did not pose a serious threat to us and therefore we should get them to the table and talk out a solution, without preconditions, of course.
Amazingly, B. Hussein has now taken a different approach to the tiny country that posed no serious threat:
“The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat,” Obama said in a speech to a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group. Newsmax
In May Obama took heat for his statements and John McCain used those words to point out Obama’s inexperience. This must have resonated with Obama because now he is talking more like a hawk than a dove. The question is, what changed in the last few weeks to move Iran from no serious threat to one that is grave?
Perhaps it is that Obama was speaking to an Israeli group. Obama has been losing support among the Jews because of his indifference toward Israel so he took the opportunity to talk about the grave threat and how he will stop it. He did not make this claim a few weeks ago. Back then he made light of the threat. He claims to be a different kind of politician but he panders like the rest of them. He talks of change but the only thing that has changed here is his message based upon his audience.
The other reason might just be that we are moving into the general election phase and there is no way Obama can match McCain on national defense. McCain spent more time as a POW than Obama has as a Senator and McCain understands the threat and what we face. Obama simply lacks any experience in this area and his inability to see the Iranian threat early on is proof of that.
I also wonder what he means by “eliminate this threat.” Does this mean that the military option is on the table? Does it mean he will talk to Iran and see if he can negotiate with them to get them to stop building nuclear weapons? If negotiations fail will he use force?
All of these questions need to be answered but the first one that he must address is why he changed positions on the threat posed by Iran. This is a guy who voted against a Senate Resolution designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization but in his speech he said that very organization had been rightly labeled as a terrorist organization. Which is it Mr. Obama? Were you against terrorist labeling before you were for it? [NPR]
Obama claims to be about Hope and Change but hoping that Iran will change direction on nuclear weapons will not make it so.
* Obama said that Iran was not a serious threat but then said the danger is grave. One fo the definitions of grave (and the one he intended) is significantly serious. I guess he was against serious before he was for it.
Related item:
Wake up America
Hillary Rodham, Arrogant Con Woman
Sep 27, 2007 Uncategorized
I have written on a number of occasions about Hillary Clinton and her insatiable appetite for power. She has lusted for power from the early days of her husband’s political career and to this day she thinks of nothing else. Of course she tells people lots of things and she verbalizes all the things that people want to hear but her goal is to get more power. Hillary Clinton will say whatever she thinks needs to be said and she will do whatever she thinks needs to be done in order to get elected. Hillary Rodham is much like politicians of a century ago who, unencumbered by the electronic age, said what people wanted to hear and often delivering different versions or opposite opinions depending upon where they were. They could always attribute any reporting of it as a misquote. It worked well in a time when people in differing states often knew little about what was going on across the country.
The age of instant communication changed all that because claims that would have passed unnoticed years ago are scrutinized and compared to other things that candidates said. This is also true for the legacy media. Dam Rather would have gotten away with his biased reporting a few decades ago. Instead, he ran into a wall of people who could instantly debunk his efforts.
Hillary continues to be a politician who will say whatever is needed regardless of what her position was at any other time. Either she has not fully grasped the power of the electronic age or she is so arrogant that she believes that she can say what she wants and get away with it. I am banking on the latter. She, and her husband for that matter, has gotten away with so much that she believes that nothing she says or does has consequences. In the event she is caught in a problem there is always the Vast Right Wing conspiracy upon which to place the blame. It looks to me like Hillary Rodham starts each day as if no one had ever heard anything she has said. She starts as if whatever she says will be fresh and accepted without question. Last night’s debate was yet another shining example.
During the debate, Tim Russert asked if it would be OK to torture a terrorist if there was an imminent threat to Americans (they always use the nuclear bomb is about to go off and this guys knows where it is). Rodham contradicted the opinion of her husband by saying that this cannot be done under any circumstances; “It cannot be American policy, period.” That is pretty clear. We cannot, according to her, torture the guy who knows where the bomb that is about to explode is located. She even indicated that she would have to talk to Bill about it, since his opinion differs (and therefore must be wrong).
She received applause for her answer and true to form there was no follow up to challenge her on her change of heart. You see, not very long ago Hillary Rodham said that it would be OK to torture under that circumstance.
Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: “If we’re going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law.”
She said then the “ticking time bomb” scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.
“In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable,” she said. NY Daily News
In a year’s time (and before she announced her candidacy) Hillary Rodham went from the we need to do it tough girl to the absolutely not panderer. Last October, she was preparing for her reelection to the Senate which was really just a prelude to her run for the White House. I indicated that she had those plans for a long time even though she denied such silly things. When she needed to begin convincing Americans that she can hold the office (and before an election) she was tough and would do anything to save American lives. Last night she was before a national audience and only a portion of that audience can vote for her. Hillary made sure she said what needed to be said to the liberals who will be voting in the primary. Should she succeed in winning that nomination she will be tougher on these things and, no doubt, take a number of positions. She will take whatever position she thinks will make the most people vote for her.
She voted for the war and her talk at the time was how she could support the President and how Hussein had WMD and had to go. When the going in Iraq got tough, Hillary was lied to about the WMD and George Bush messed up the war. He got us into it and it will be up to super Hill to get us out. She would not take Bill’s last name when she lived in Arkansas but when she found out that the conservative base down there did not appreciate women who did that, she miraculously changed her last name. I guess they figured if she was too ashamed of him to have his name he was not worth their vote. She traded her principle for votes. Rodham stated that if Bush would not bring the troops home she would do it when she was elected. Last night she (and most of the others) could not commit to a time when the troops would be brought home. They might be there past the next president’s watch. There are many, many examples of Hillary Rodham saying one thing one place and another thing at a different place.
Hillary Rodham is Satan in the flesh and she will say whatever it takes to get elected and then she will run this country in to the ground (and blame it on George Bush). Hillary has begun to act more like Kerry with the Flip-Flops. Though I would have thought she would have learned from his problems, it is obvious that her arrogance allows her to do what she wants and to believe Americans are stupid enough to fall for her con game.
The problem is, about half of them are…
Tags: con job, flip flop, Hillary, Iraq, Kerry, liar, Political Commentary, torture, war