Email This to a Friend
Obama Tries Rewriting History
The senator uses a creative method to get away with changing his position on Iraq.
It would appear that Ms. Morigi is not only including “changes in current events” as criteria for wiping away history but also “changes of mind” by the candidate as a reason to scrub the website.
We all know that politicians are slippery critters and pinning them down on any issue is likely to make one wish they were wrestling with an electric eel than a candidate for president. But Obama’s extraordinary gumption is what separates him from ordinary politicians and elevates him to flip-flop superstardom. For the last fortnight, the candidate has issued a dizzying series of statements on his Iraq policy that have served to confuse the press, his supporters, his opponents, and hopefully our enemies in Iraq.
In his speech on national security delivered today in Washington, Obama finally tried to stop the merry-go-round and clarify a few things:
At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al-Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave — General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy.
In fact, true success in Iraq — victory in Iraq — will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future — a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis to stand up.
I would like to point out a few uncomfortable facts for Mr. Obama. As he speaks of “success” and even “victory” in Iraq, his own party has already given in to defeat as both the speaker of the House and Senate majority leader pronounced the war “lost” months ago. The overwhelming majority of Democrats see this war as lost and a failure. Obama himself saw the war as “a complete failure” last summer at the exact same time he was calling the surge a “failure” and agitating for an “immediate withdrawal” from Iraq. He made no mention of consulting with our generals, or the Iraqi government, or anyone else:
“Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was,” Obama said in excerpts of the speech provided to the Associated Press.
“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now,” the Illinois senator says.
Sounds pretty clear to me. But then, I guess I don’t quite have the knack of this counterfactual stuff because this is what he said on Tuesday:
To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we’ll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of Al-Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.
We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy — that is what any responsible commander-in-chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq’s future — one that includes all of Iraq’s neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union — because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq.
What if Obama had talked of “victory” and “tactical adjustments” and “consulting generals” during the primary campaign? Sure is a far cry from “immediate withdrawal,” although perhaps he meant he would withdraw the troops immediately after we felt we had achieved victory? I daresay if he had breathed the word “victory” during his contest with Hillary Clinton, he would have been hooted off the stage.
As for the rest, in his plan there is precious little daylight between his policy and that of John McCain or the administration’s current policy. They too will follow the recommendations of the military for drawing down troops in Iraq and do it in consultation with the Iraqi government. They also would allow for tactical adjustments to any plan and keep a residual force in Iraq for training purposes. The issue of a “permanent base” will rest on where are you going to keep this “residual force” of Americans? Would Obama stick them out in the middle of the desert and have them roam around like Bedouins? Obviously, some kind of base or bases will be established where our troops will be for several years, if not longer.
Then what’s the difference between the two plans? Ben Smith of Politico notices that the debate is not really about Iraq at all:
There’s a strikingly backward-looking element to the politics of this: Obama is attacking McCain for his judgment in supporting the war, McCain is attacking Obama for his judgment in opposing the surge.
But while [they] differ on how fast, and how many, American troops will depart, the heart of their argument seems to be retrospective, turning Iraq into a debate over character and judgment as much as policy.
“Character and judgment?” Both candidates have demonstrated a singular inability to stay constant on many of their policy positions. But for Obama, coming from as far left as any candidate for president since George McGovern in 1972 and now lurching toward the center, it is perhaps just a bit more obvious that his stated positions during the primary, when he felt it necessary to pander to his far-left base, have undergone a radical change.
McGovern did not move much toward the center in his bid for the presidency and was slaughtered. It is evident from the evolving nature of Obama’s Iraq policy, and his embrace of alternate history to obscure his original position, that the candidate is bound and determined to avoid a similar fate.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Rick Moran is PJM Chicago editor; his own blog is Right Wing Nut House.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
30 Comments
1. John:Obama and the far left based policy on virtual history of what happened as the war started and what the administration and democratic party did at that time. Who really lied and caused people to die anyway? Why when it is convenient would anyone believe the far left and Obama would not continue to evolve their policy and the history leading up to it to pursue power? The process is now to have many different voices orchastrated by the leadership say with a straight face that what we remember happening regarding Obama and the left war rhetoric did not in fact happen, and remove the evidence and replace it with doctored evidence. Orwell documented the process, the Soviets perfected it and the left studied by Obama et al teaches the techniques, and the post modern media long ago abandoned objectivity and will repeat the lie until we start to believe it. Welcome to post Christian America, where truth is relative. Thank God Bush had the courage to stick with his convictions in the face of a relentless assault of misinformation and shall we say virtual treason. I would hate to consider the alternative history in Iraq and the war on terror without him. Thank you for documenting the truth and for Pajama media for doing your best to provide a forum to keep us honest. Let us not give this slippery fellow Obama the chance to show us what the alterantive history of the Iraq policy might look like.
John
Jul 17, 2008 - 5:06 am 2. Bob:Good luck getting the American electorate to notice BHO’s policy flip-flops. Only a candidate as stupid as John “I voted for the war before I voted against it” Kerry will ever be called on his change of position. The majority of Obama’s primary supporters are of the “Bush Lied, People Died” variety, who want a President who will surrender and leave Iraq a/s/a/p. The danger to Obama is that his new policy (the real fight against terrorism is in Afghanistan) is likely to have very limited appeal to the anti-war crowd. They will go along with him through November but will then want us to withdraw from both Iraq and Afghanistan. To them, freedom and our way of life is worth anything except fighting for. McCain is too liberal on too many issues and over-ripe, but he will not surrender in Iraq and has a 50% chance of appointing conservative judges (as opposed to a 0% chance that B. Hussein Obama will do so). Not a great choice but still a clear choice for conservatives.
Jul 17, 2008 - 6:36 am 3. Kejda:Obama is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get.
Jul 17, 2008 - 6:39 am 4. The Wizard:I think this sums up Obama:
A pilots perspective on Obama
,,,,,,,,,,DO I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT?………
HIS FATHER WAS A BLACK AFRICAN MUSLIM FROM KENYA .
WE HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF HIS AFRICAN FAMILY.
HIS MOTHER WAS A WHITE AMERICAN ATHEIST FROM KANSAS.
WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF HIS AMERICAN FAMILY?
HIS FATHER DESERTED HIS MOTHER WHEN HE WAS ONLY TWO YEARS OLD AND WENT BACK TO AFRICA BY WAY OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY. HOW, WAS HIS FATHER WEALTHY?
HIS MOTHER MARRIED AN INDONESIAN MUSLIM AND THEN MOVED TO JAKARTA WHERE HE WAS ENROLLED IN A MUSLIM SCHOOL.
WHEN HE REACHED FIFTH GRADE HIS MOTHER SENT HIM TO HAWAII TO BE WITH HIS WHITE GRANDPARENTS AND HE WAS PLACED IN PUNAHOU, AN EXPENSIVE PRIVATE SCHOOL WHICH HE ATTENDED FROM FIFTH GRADE THROUGH HIGH SHCOOL. HE LATER WENT TO HARVARD UNIVERSITY . HOW? WERE HIS GRANDPARENTS RICH?
HE LIVES IN A $1.4 MILLION HOUSE OBTAINED THROUGH A DEAL WITH A WEALTHY FUNDRAISER/FRIEND WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF FRAUD, MONEY LAUNDRING, BRIBERY AND KICK BACKS FOR COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. HOW?
HE ‘WORKED’ AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN CHICAGO . HE HAS NEVER HELD A PRODUCTIVE JOB OR RECEIVED A PAY CHECK THAT WAS NOT GOVERNMENT-FUNDED AND/OR TAYPAYER SUPPORTED.
THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS POSITION, NOR IS IT SUBJECT TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SET ASIDES; ON-THE-JOB TRAINING WON’T CUT IT.
HE ENTERED POLITICS AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THEN THE NATIONAL LEVEL WHERE HE HAS MINIMAL EXPERIENCE.
HE IS PROUD OF HIS ‘AFRICAN HERITAGE’ (A FATHER WHO GOT A WHITE GIRL PREGNANT AND DESERTED HER).
WHERE IS THE PRIDE IN HIS ‘WHITE HERITAGE’ AND THE PEOPLE WHO STOOD BY HIM AND SAW TO IT THAT HE RECEIVED THE FINEST PRIVATE EDUCATION MOST OF US WISH WE COULD HAVE RECEIVED?
HE HAS BELONGED FOR OVER 20 YEARS, TO AN ‘AFRO-CENTRIC’ CHURCH IN CHICAGO THAT HATES WHITES, HATES JEWS, AND BLAMES AMERICA FOR ALL THE WORLD’S PERCEIVED FAULTS. (INCLUDING CREATING THE AIDs VIRUS IN ORDER TO INFLICT IT ON AFRICANS).
HE REPEATEDLY WHITEWASHES THE PASTOR, HIS CHURCH AND THE MEMBERS WHO CHEERED AFTER HEARING VITRIOLIC TIRADES AGAINST AMERICA .
HE COULD NOT CONFRONT HIS PASTOR BUT HE WANTS US TO BELIEVE HE CAN CONFRONT NORTH KOREA AND IRAN ?
YEAH RIGHT ! !
DURING HIS VERY BRIEF TIME IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE HE HAS MANAGED TO AMASS THE NUMBER ONE ULTRA LIBERAL VOTING RECORD OUT OF THE ONE HUNDRED MEMBERS.
HE HAS VOTED CONSISTENTLY FOR BIGGER GOVERNMENT AND HIGHER TAXES. HE HAS VOTED FOR BIG ENTITLEMENTS AND LEGISLATION THAT WOULD SEVERELY CURTAIL AMERICA ‘S ABILITY TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND TO PROTECT OUR BORDERS AND OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS AROUND THE WORLD.
BUT. . . . . . HE IS A GOOD ORATOR. ISN’T THAT A COMFORT?
YEAH, I THINK I SEE HOW WELL HE COULD UNITE THE COUNTRY.
I THINK THE TRUTH IS THAT HE HOPES NO ONE WILL PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LET ME INTRODUCE YOU TO OUR NEW CHIEF PILOT. HE HAS NEVER FLOWN AN AIRPLANE, IN FACT HE HAS NEVER EVEN SAT IN THE COCKPIT, BUT HE SAYS HE HAS RIDDEN ON PLANES BEFORE. WE ARE SURE HE WILL GUIDE US SAFELY THROUGH THE STORMS WE MAY ENCOUNTER ON THIS FLIGHT. WOULD YOU WANT TO FLY ON THIS PLANE WITH AN UNTESTED PILOT?
WHAT ARE PEOPLE THINKING? HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD THE STORY ABOUT THE WOLF HIDING IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING? THE HAND WRITING IS ON THE WALL, DO YOU NOT HAVE EYES TO SEE IT ?
Jul 17, 2008 - 7:01 am 5. misanthropicus:The regained honor of Samantha Powers – preemptive strike or imprudent leak?
Jul 17, 2008 - 7:44 am 6. Nahanni:The interesting thing about Glibama’s “refining” lately his strategic views is the indignant firing of Samantha Powers back in March for describing at that time Obama’s privilege of changing views and strategies. Whether her statement in March was a preemptive attempt at establishing Glibama’s lock on holography in strategical matters or an imprudent leak, we don’t know – either way, we need her around mister Obama – Samantha, come back, everything is forgotten, forgiven!
Always remember that most people read “1984″ as a warning.
Obama, his Obamamaniac supporters and the owners of the Democratic party read it as an instruction manual.
Jul 17, 2008 - 7:48 am 7. pistol packin pappy:what happened to the outrage from the last election? everything’s going sky high and no one’s raisin hell. the democraps are worried about sending money to every third world country they can think of with no oversight. the news said there are 195 mexican drug cartels already operating in this country, and all the gangs everywhere,and not one politician with a plan to deal with them when they decide to start wreaking havoc here.it’s just a matter of time, look how people are getting killed in towns right across the border. fools have become enamoured with a empty suit reading out of king flipper kerry’s playbook, bush blaming lockstepping jackass who thinks he can B.S. his way inyo office. god save the U.S.A.
Jul 17, 2008 - 8:04 am 8. optyman:This comment assumes that the troop surge was directly and solely responsible for the reduced incidences of violence. Although, it played a part, there is no mention of the military’s policy of paying militants to “be on our side”. Also, the Iraqi sentiments regarding these insurgents has changed over the months as more and more innocent Iraqi civilians are murdered and targeted for killing by these insurgents. One fact is true…most Iraqies do not want us there and view our military as an occupying force…which is absolutely true. Even their leader is calling for a time-table for our exit. He to has changed his stance and is playing on the sentiments of his people. Politicians can and do change their views, according to the environment currently at hand. But I can tell you one thing. You would never hear future President Obama state that we’ll be in Iraq for a “100 years”. Obama’s “relaxed” views make him more attractive to others. McCain’s hard stance views make him scary for many. Comments regarding Obama being an extreme “flip-flopper” can be only countered with a more domestic view that McCain has had on a bill that he wriginally wrote on Immigration, but could not vote for not because of any drastic changes in the language of the bill, but because of the political sentiments of his party. If that is not considered an extreme political flip-flop, I don’t know what is.
Jul 17, 2008 - 8:05 am 9. Bob:The Wikipedia tells us: “The Peter Principle is the principle that ‘In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence.’” The basis of this principle is that a person is good at one job (e.g., politician, Senator), he will then be mistakenly assumed to be qualified for the next higher position (e.g., President). If ObamaMessiah is elected President, perhaps the Wikipedia can add his picture to its entry.
Jul 17, 2008 - 8:32 am 10. Michael Volpe:Dick Morris has said on many occasions that McCain has an opportunity to bury Obama if he goes on an aggressive ad campaign that uses Obama’s multiple conflicting statements against him. Rick, you have just essentially created the ad campaign, if he is going to make it strictly on Iraq. Of course, Morris believes that McCain should be more broad.
That said, I am of the opinion that Obama’s main problem is not his conflicting statements as compared to his current statemements.
Mainly, his problem is that he was wrong. From that, come all sorts of new problems. His generating future problems from a false premise. He didn’t think the surge would work. He still believes the surge isn’t working and thus his policies reflect a false premise.
What he won’t get around is this simple fact. McCain backed the surge when no one else would. He did when it was popular to do so. McCain was right and he was wrong. Period. Here is how I summarized it…
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/07/stuck-between-iraq-petraeus-left.html
Jul 17, 2008 - 8:47 am 11. rvastar:If that is not considered an extreme political flip-flop, I don’t know what is.
That’s a good list, optyman! Here’s mine:
Flip : Obama promised to filibuster the FISA bill to make sure it would not pass.
Flop: Obama has now voted for the FISA bill.
Flip: Obama promised to repeal the Patriot Act.
Flop: Obama has now voted for the Patriot Act.
Flip: On Iraq, Obama’s website has stated “”Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
Flop: Obama now says he will “continue to refine” his Iraq policy as events dictate.
Flip: Obama said he supported the DC handgun ban.
Flop: Obama now says he supports the Supreme Court decision striking down the DC handgun ban.
Flip: In Sept. 2007, Obama pledged to use public financing for his presidential election, even signing a promise to do so in a photo-op campaign stunt.
Flop: Obama has now reneged on his signed pledge.
Flip: Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he “strongly disagreed” with the ruling because it “dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.”
Flop: Now, in opposition to pro-choice groups and “precedent”, Obama says, “Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother.”
Flip: In Jan. 2004, Obama said it was time “to end the embargo with Cuba” because it had “utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro.”
Flop: Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in Aug. 2007, he said he would not “take off the embargo” as president because it is “an important inducement for change.”
Flip: During the primary, Obama was against naming Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Flop: Obama now says that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard should be labeled a terrorist organization.
Flip: Obama badmouthed those that wear an American flag lapel pin, saying “[lapel pins] became a substitute for – I think – true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”
Flop: Obama now wears a flag pin daily.
Flip: In a speech to AIPAC, Obama stated that Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the policy conference. Flop : The very next day, Obama then clarified that he believes “Jerusalem is a final status issue”, as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.”
Flip: On 60 Minutes, Obama said “I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us, the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
Flop: A few months later, Obama says “Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust.”
Flip: In a Mar. 2004 questionnaire, Obama was opposed to government crack downs on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
Flop: In Jan. 2008, he said that “we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.”
Flip: In Jan. 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use.
Flop: In Oct. 2007, Obama said he opposes the decriminalization of marijuana.
The guy is a leftist LIAR, who throughout his public career, has shamelessly triangulated his every word and action in pursuit of a singular goal…MORE POWER. The question is: to what end?
When he arrived in Chicago to begin his political career, our half-white Hawaian joins a church espousing black liberation theology, attending for 20 years: a theology he’s recently stated – with oh-so forceful indignation and mighty seriousness (hrrrmph!!!) – that he doesn’t agree with. Why? His sole goal in attending that church was to establish “street cred” amongst the city’s grievance-minded black population and powerbrokers. To what end? To get elected to office – i.e. POWER.
During the Dem primary, he demonstrated the perfect template for winning a Dem nomination: 1) espouse Leftist principles (wealth redistribution, nanny statism, etc.) to win over the nuts, 2) wrap it up in mild and flowery Populist tones (”We are the change we’ve been waiting for!”) to fool the rest of the suckers, and don’t – under any circumstances – have a Deaniac-type freakout that your MSM cadre can’t bail you out of. What’s the result? Obambi locks up the Dem nomination – i.e. POWER.
And now, with the Presidency of the United States within his grasp, he is again triangulating his words and actions in a shameless effort to fool the American people into voting him into office. And why does he have the “audacity of hope” to get away with it? His MSM media handlers. Grand prize if they pull it off? He becomes the President of the United States – the MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD.
Again, the central question: to what end?
Obama, as is evidenced by his vote ranking in the Senate as the most liberal Senator, is 1) a hard-left idealogue who 2) has spent his entire adult life in pursuit of govt office. And why do Leftists pursue govt office?
TO ENACT LEFTIST POLICIES.
And as we all know, our political views are shaped by our relationships with those around us and our life experiences. Now of course everyone here will already know about Obama’s relationships with such hard Leftists as Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, etc. But for a more complete view of the course that Obama’s “shaping” took – a view that should scare the sh!t out of anyone this side of Chomsky and Zinn – check out this excellent essay from “American Thinker”:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/what_barack_obama_learned_from.html
An excerpt:
The leading candidate to become the President of the United States – a country founded on the idea that human beings would be free to pursue their own dreams and aspiration FREE OF OVERLY ACTIVELY GOVT INTRUSION – didn’t possess a faith “that rational, thoughtful people could shape their own destiny”?!?!?
What in the hell is happening in this country?!?!?!
WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:09 am 12. David Thomson:Rick Moran is coming to his senses. In the recent past, he was naively going out of his way to prove that he is not a racist. Moran essentially gave Barack “Barry” Obama a free ride. Well, this stuff can only go so far. The reality is that Obama is a poorly read and shallow human being. He earned a law degree at Harvard University, but this only means that such an individual can pass a bar exam. It means nothing more than that! Obama is not close to being ready to handle the responsibilities of the highest elected office in our nation. He is the quintessential affirmative action candidate. it is now time to judge Obama on the content of his character—and not the color of his skin.
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:13 am 13. John Samford:I’m confused and need help. Why do slimy politicians think that only they can flip flop?
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:22 am 14. Sally White:Aren’t they smart enough to figure out that when they flip flop on a position, the voters who based their decision and gave support because of that position will flip flop also?
Flip flopping ( or is it flipping flopping? I can’t recall my English teacher covering this subject) is not just an affliction of the self proclaimed elite. Anybody and everybody can flip flop. Including super delegates.
So why do they do it? Are they catching ‘deer in the headlights’ syndrome? Or do the Klieg lights affect them the same way a bug light affects a moth? Klieg lights do extend a little ways into the UV to help make shadows look more ‘natural’ on the boob tube. And UV does interfere with low order nervous systems such as found is inscets.
There has to be some scientific explanation.
Obama is a great candidate. He’s the best one we’ve got. Please visit WHYOBAMA08.ORG!!! Help us get Obama elected!
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:48 am 15. Believer:This, along with Moran’s “Obama’s Double Somersault with a Twist Flip-Flop,” has me convinced BO’s headed in the wrong direction for that little trip he’s planned.
There’s another venue more suited to his particular talent. He should be going to Beijing instead. He’d capture the Gold in gymnastics for sure.
Jul 17, 2008 - 11:48 am 16. mjk:No thanks, Sally White. I prefer Presidential Candidates with Balls.
Jul 17, 2008 - 11:50 am 17. Obama Tries Rewriting History…The senator uses a creative method to get away with changing his position on Iraq. « Tizona’s Weblog:[...] Pajamas Media [...]
Jul 17, 2008 - 1:12 pm 18. mouse:Truth is narrative. The truth about Iraq –what happened, Obama’s positions, the reality on the ground, the future– all this will be definitively written in the next few days during Barack’s over-seas trip. Barack will state it, the press will report it, and that will be History and that will be Truth. With ten megatons of exposure everyone in America will then have the facts and that little six watt candle of a blog you’ve got won’t even be noticed, –and even if it is everyone will know you’re just making things up.
This anyway is what I think is the intent of Obama’s Chicago handlers: simply create reality through a lot of press, a reality favorable to Obama, and the only one most politically indifferent Americans will ever know.
I have speculated though that this may not happen. I think I note East Coast media becoming a little peeved that Chicago is so totally controlling what they see as the next Democrat presidency. It is possible they might give Obama a few bumps. Not because they don’t love the Messiah, but because they don’t like Chicago. –As it were, a bit of ego conflict might produce a bit more free market coverage.
Jul 17, 2008 - 2:47 pm 19. Washington_Free:But even the wife of Americas killer will not be immune to effective counter measures from American sources. Obamas lies and hatred of America and all women are merely the tip of the empire of hate and destruction he brings to our American shores, as is his job to do so. His hatred of women is the daily breath that he takes to fuel and pump his invading regime, for Americas future of evil and despair and oblivion under his benefactors guiding hands.
Jul 17, 2008 - 3:04 pm 20. Dave II:Want to read something funny???
From Sally’s WHYOBAMA08.ORG site:
“Please comment on why you think he is the chosen one.”
Well…they DID get that right! He WAS selected by the DNC over Hillary…
“Those who support Barack Obama support him because he is a true leader.”
Sally a TRUE LEADER…LEADS! He doesn’t waffle and go flippity-flop everytime he needs to for political purposes!
This new video is just a DEVASTATING account of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM
Even (former) Obama are now seeing that:
http://formerobamasupporters.com/
Jul 17, 2008 - 3:13 pm 21. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:Why is it no one is paying attention to Obama calling for a civilian security militia armed and funded equal to the U.S. military? Confederate Yankee wrote a small piece about it. Hot Air has the video of the speech. Uniforms are Us has the brown shirts. Let’s see, an acceptance speech at Nuremburg, oops I mean Mile High (on crack) Stadium and a private army. Remind you of anyone?
Jul 17, 2008 - 3:19 pm 22. tanstaafl:We are not going to kill every al-Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave — General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April.
I watched the testimony. Barack was tentative and almost abashed (perhaps an explanation for his reluctance to meet with military personnel one on one) in his questioning of General Petraeus and Ryan Crocker. The only thing of substance acknowledged in those Senate exchanges in April was a certain embarrassing lameness of Barack Obama.
In any event, the fact that Iraq won’t be “perfect” before, during or after withdrawal of American forces is hardly rocket science.
Obama seized on the opportunity to “switch back” to his original position of withdrawal after al-Maliki uttered his remarks a couple of weeks ago about wanting a timetable. Barack’s far left supporters and financiers were getting agitated since they (likely) feel they own him.
These are very bad reasons for shifts in “policy positions”.
…his own party has already given in to defeat as both the speaker of the House and Senate majority leader pronounced the war “lost” months ago. The overwhelming majority of Democrats see this war as lost and a failure.
There is a psychological tendency among all the prominent democrats, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Obama etc. to stick to an original narrative. The original narrative was that the Iraq war was lost and a flop. IF they begrudgingly acknowledge “success on the ground”, it isn’t really because they’ve changed their original assessment but because even they occasionally recognize when they might appear to be complete nincompoops.
People who evince extreme partisanship in their psychological makeup, however, really never change the base position. If they’re not overtly obstructionist, they become subtly obstructionist, viz. the stonewalling on doing anything for energy independence in the Democrat Congress.
It’s a shame that so many partisan, psychologically intransigent and ignorant individuals hold the power to make decisions so profound to the country.
Jul 18, 2008 - 6:31 am 23. Believer:Z. Ragshaft III brings up the “civilian security militia” — it’s no surprise BO might propose something like this.
Chicago’s violence is so out of control right now they’re talking about bringing in the National Guard to get a handle on it. CNN’s reporting on it as I type this.
No, this is no surprise. BO and his pals have been working for decades to see that dissatisfaction, resentment and even hatred grow in the hearts of men. It’s what’s behind the Alinsky method – something BO was so good at, they had him teaching it. And BO thought it a good idea the church join in on the fun. Of course the crooked buddies had to get their money out of the misery – and run – leaving another mess behind them.
BO now offers his “solutions” to ALL of America. This man of character and judgment.
I think we ought to put that disaster in Chicago right in his face every time he opens his mouth and tell him we MIGHT consider voting for him when he and his buddies have cleaned up the mess in their own backyard. The one they had a hand in creating.
He’s got one heck of a long way to go to prove to me he’s a man of peace and unity – or solutions. All I’ve seen is trouble in his wake.
Jul 18, 2008 - 10:51 am 24. kabud:OBAMA IS VERY DANGEROUS: WIKI ENTRY ON OBAMA
Obama made several statements in a campaign video released in October 2007 related to defense spending and nuclear weapons. Obama stated that he will enact budget cuts in the range of tens of billions of dollars. He stated that he will stop investing in missile defense systems, that he will not weaponize space, that he will “slow development of future combat systems,” To achieve this goal, Obama wishes to end development of new nuclear weapons, to reduce the current U.S. nuclear stockpile
Jul 18, 2008 - 11:51 am 25. tanstaafl:It’s what’s behind the Alinsky method – something BO was so good at, they had him teaching it.
With Barry O parsing every syllable McCain utters and looking under every rock for any verbal faux pas (while he avoids the joint town hall meetings/debates) … it could tactics right out of Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
And how ’bout that Chicago violence ?
One might wonder how much Windy City good has come out of a couple decades of JWright’s rants, Ayers’ complaining about the oppressive establishment, slumlord Rezko’s wheeling and dealing and Barack’s “present” votes in the Illinois legislature.
Jul 18, 2008 - 2:10 pm 26. conservativeGal:Liberals have been rewriting history for years. Its nothing new.
Jul 18, 2008 - 4:31 pm 27. jeannette:You know how Bill Clinton talked about how “we all know that those that have been through torture, etc., how it can come back to affect us later” (Not a quote, just a memory). Well, how about how messed up Obama’s life has been. We all know childhood memories come up in adulthood and make a diference.
Thank you for your article. Jeannette
Jul 19, 2008 - 1:26 pm 28. Michael T:Where are the Washingtons, Jeffersons,Lincolns and Roosevelts during this time of America’s and the Free world’s greatest need? Why is all you get is Bush, the Clintons and now Obama? Good luck America.
Jul 19, 2008 - 9:26 pm 29. kabud:Michael T:
>Where are the Washingtons, Jeffersons,Lincolns and >Roosevelts
you are , we are, we just have to get from the asses and start acting
Jul 21, 2008 - 9:06 am 30. Prog Gold » Blog Archive » Don’t Count Your Chickens:[...] the text quoted in the article it may well have been this piece of crap , which has spammed just about every comment site out [...]
Oct 24, 2008 - 2:38 am