Posts Tagged ‘Jerusalem’

Jimmy Carter Addresses Barak Obama’s Convention: How Appropriate

August 25, 2008

It is ironically appropriate that Jimmy Carter will be one of the first speakers to address the Democratic National Convention. The worst President in recent American history should be present to pass on the baton of naive incompetence to his successor.

A Newsmax article, appropriately titled, “Jimmy Carter’s Trail of Disaster,” underscores just how colossal a failure Jimmy Carter has been in foreign policy for years. But nowhere was that failure more costly or pathetic than his failure on Iran. Christopher Ruddy writes:

The media would have us forget Jimmy Carter’s presidential record.

But I won’t.

Remember Carter’s human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini?

No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah’s top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.

The Shah’s military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah’s first acts.

By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever.

Soon the new Iranian government was ransacking our embassy and held hostage its staff for over a year. Only President Reagan’s election gave Iran the impetus to release the hostages.

The man who will be addressing the Democratic National Convention personally presided over the abandonment of an Iranian government that had been America’s strongest ally in the Middle East under the Shah and actually enabled its transformation into America’s greatest enemy in the Middle East under the Ayatollah.

It’s not all Carter’s and Obama’s fault. Failure, weakness, and appeasement are in their blood as Democrats. Read the INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY piece titled, “97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can’t Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime“, for more on that. Jimmy Carter features prominently in those 97 reasons.

When Jimmy Carter speaks, don’t bother listening to any of his pseudo-humanitarian blather. Think rather of the similarities between the failure Jimmy Carter and the failure-waiting-to-happen Barack Obama.

Think of how Barack Obama has already demonstrated an astonishing failure of naiveté and ignorance when he said that “Iran does not pose a serious threat to us.” And that “If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.”

Iran is clearly determined to progress into a nuclear-armed state, and could even have the bomb within six months if it pulled out all the stops. With nuclear weapons, Iran would be impervious to attack – even if it masterminded the next 9/11 attack against us. To underestimate either their threat or their evil is the very worst kind of folly.

We have seen Barack Obama issue horrible double-minded statements that reveal both frightening weakness and indecisiveness. Obama said that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel to Jewish groups, and then said to Palestinians that the issue of Jerusalem would be subject to negotiation. Jerusalem is the hottest, most easily-ignitable flash point in the history of the world; you simply DO NOT commit such massive blunders with this piece of real estate. Obama’s indecision and pandering weakness on Jerusalem reveals exactly the sort of man who would ignorantly empower our worst enemies and then indecisively sit on his hands while they made us look like fools, as Carter did with Iran before and after the Ayatollah seized our embassy and held Americans as hostages.

The similarity between Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama does not end with naiveté and indecisiveness. It extends into their philosophy.

Both men have exhibited a degree of moral equivalence that prevents them from seeing the difference between the good and the evil.

Jimmy Carter has displayed a shocking inability to see the difference between democratic Israelis trying to protect themselves from terrorism, and nihilist terrorists out to kill as many Jewish women and children as possible:

I don’t consider… I wasn’t equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism. But when the Palestinians commit terrorist acts, and I mean when a person blows himself up within a bus full of civilians, or when the target of the operation is women and children – such acts create a rejection of the Palestinians among those who care about them. It turns the world away from sympathy and support for the Palestinian people. That’s why I said that acts of terrorism like I just described are suicidal for the popularity and support for the Palestinian cause. In my book, I talk about violence from both sides, and I describe very carefully and accurately the number of casualties among Palestinians and Israelis, including children. The number of Palestinian children who died because of the violence is five times greater than the number of Israeli children, and I condemn this kind of violence on both sides.

Carter was forced to apologize for what he claimed were misconstrued statements. But Alan Dershowitz has come to see two Carters – what he calls the “Brandeis Carter” who says the right things in democratic forums, and the “Al Jazeera Carter” who makes shocking statements about the state of Israel.

The very title of Jimmy Carter’s book – Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid – reveals not only an incipient antisemitism, with Israel depicted as an apartheid (and therefore racist and illegitimate) state, but also a shocking degree of moral equivalence.

American Thinker has an article titled, “Obama’s Moral Equivalence Problem,” that discusses this very same tendency on the part of Barack Obama. Obama not only demonstrated this in his initial patronizing statement for both Georgia and Russia to stop fighting (lumping the invaded democracy in the same category as the attacking autocracy), but he then proceeded to go even further by comparing Russia’s actions to the United States’ action in its invasion of Iraq.

If that is not bad enough, Joe Biden – Obama’s pick for running mate – also has a significant history of failure to understand Iran or deal with the threat that this terrorist state presents to the United States.

As Jimmy Carter speaks, and throughout this convention, we should seriously consider the Carter years, and the return to unmitigated disaster the Obama years would bring.

Obama Foreign Policy: The ‘Grave Threat’ Of Naive Pretension

August 13, 2008

Several years ago, my young nephew believed that he was the most magnificent thing that ever happened.

He was Superman.

His family went from encouraging his self-esteem to trying to take him down a notch.

But for a while, there was no taking him down a notch. His sense of himself was so full that no failure or defeat could reach him. It didn’t matter if you caught him a thousand times, he still genuinely believed that he was faster than you.

That’s kind of where Barack Obama is, methinks.

He says that – unlike George Bush and the other candidates for president, he would pursue unconditional talks with leaders of rogue regimes. As time passed, Obama proceeded to tack on so many stipulations to his “precondition-free” talks that his policy was no different than anyone else’s.

But he still claimed his policy was better.

Obama said that Iran wasn’t a serious threat to the United States, but was forced as the sheer ridiculousness of his position was revealed to acknowledge that it was in fact “a grave threat.”

But he still maintained his position never changed, and he had been right along.

Obama said that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel to Jewish groups, and then said to Palestinians that the issue of Jerusalem would be subject to negotiation.

But he maintained that his position was “no shift in policy.”

Obama opposed the surge strategy in Iraq, arguing it would lead to more sectarian violence and result in more American deaths. In the face of overwhelming evidence that he was wrong – with even al Qaeda acknowledging its defeatObama had his campaign scrub his worst criticisms from his website and began to “evolve” his position on Iraq without ever acknowledging that he had changed.

Barack Obama maintains that he “never has doubts about his foreign policy experience.” Never.

That’s why he can ignore the advice of General David Petraeus and other military experts. Just try convincing a pretentious child that you know better than he.

Nope. Obama is still the fastest, strongest, bestest boy in the whole wide world. And nothing – no matter how many times events prove him wrong – can shake that naive childish confidence.

My nephew got through this period, and is a terrific kid to be around. Obama has a very long way to go.

John Edwards – in the face of his caught-red handed act of adultery – said, “In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic.” I would submit that Barack Obama is FAR more egocentric and narcissistic than Edwards at this point.

The pattern continues merrily along: when Russia invaded Georgia, Barack Obama offered a neutral, insipid statement calling for both sides to restrain themselves. John McCain immediately issued a sharply-worded message that condemned the Russian invasion of a democratic government and ally. As the days, the war, and the death and destruction, dragged on, Obama began to issue increasing criticism of Russia (you know, like McCain had immediately done).  McCain appeared prescient; Obama appeared ignorant.

Barack Obama was taken to school in foreign policy yet again. But like a pretentious child, he can’t see it or admit it. Hence his campaign came up with this beauty via a senior adviser:

Obama adviser Susan Rice, appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” Tuesday night, accused McCain of responding irresponsibly. “Barack Obama, the administration and the NATO allies took a measured, reasoned approach,” she said. “We were dealing with the facts as we knew them. John McCain shot from the hip, very aggressive, belligerent statement. He may or may not have complicated the situation.”

In other words, McCain should have taken “the nuanced” and “measured” initial position Obama did and call on Georgia to “restrain” itself as Russian tanks started rolling through its streets.

John McCain “shot from the hip” with a “very aggressive, belligerent statement” that “may (or may not) have complicated the situation”? When McCain’s assessment was right-on target and Obama’s was pathetically weak?

It’s really no different than that little arrogant punk kid who can’t admit he got beat claiming that his opponent somehow cheated.

America needs to take a long, hard look at Barack Obama and conclude that it needs an experienced adult to make good decisions – not a pretentious child who is pathologically incapable of dealing with his limitations and inadequacies.

Obama Forced To Reveal Mutually Contradictory Positions

July 23, 2008

A July 20 Associated Press story asked the question which answer is obvious: “Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?” The article begins:

NEW YORK – Television news’ royalty will fly in to meet Barack Obama during this week’s overseas trip: CBS chief anchor Katie Couric in Jordan on Tuesday, ABC’s Charles Gibson in Israel on Wednesday and NBC’s Brian Williams in Germany on Thursday.

The anchor blessing defines the trip as a Major Event and — much like a “Saturday Night Live” skit in February that depicted a press corps fawning over Obama — raises anew the issue of fairness in campaign coverage.

The news media have devoted significantly more attention to the Democrat since Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her campaign and left a two-person contest for the presidency between Obama and Republican John McCain, according to research conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The reality is, “Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?” is a rhetorical question (a question with such a patently obvious answer there is no point in answering) to any but the most deluded.

But what we are seeing is that there is some evidence that the media – and particularly the three elite network anchors who had been described as “Obama’s three press secretaries” – don’t like being so obviously “in the tank” for Obama. They want to show their viewers that they really aren’t as biased as everyone thinks they are. And that means finally asking Obama a few tough questions instead of merely basking in his magnificence the way they usually do.

Katie CouricSURPRISE! – attempted to pin Obama down on some of his inherent contradictions regarding Iraq.

Obama stuck to the same position he gave at a press conference. Allow me to emphasize certain statements in boldface:

Sens. Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, and Jack Reed just released a statement about their day in Iraq. The three are overnighting in Baghdad and will arrive in Amman tomorrow for their first and only press conference of their trip to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The statement notes the security progress in Iraq but gives the new military tactics a fraction of the credit for the reduction in violence. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, and Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, all opposed the troop surge.

Obama in an interview with ABC News that’s posted at the bottom of this story in which he says if he had it to do all over again he would still oppose the troop surge. He told ABC what he did not expect or anticipate in Iraq was the Sunni uprising against Al Qaeda and among the Shi’ites decision to play ball politically via cease fires rather than continue their campaign of violence. How the surge affected the calculations in either case is left unsaid by Obama, according to ABC.

The surge is and has been the central story in Iraq since it began in January 2007. Obama, who told CBS on Sunday, that he “never” has doubts about his foreign policy, is in no way re-evaluating the surge or what he did or did not anticipate would arise from it. This may give fodder to John McCain’s camp and other skeptics of Obama’s approach to military tactics, strategic thinking and the ability to adapt his own views to unexpected events.

So our military gets only “a fraction of the credit for the reduction in violence“? And so who gets the real credit for Obama? The Sunni sheiks and the Iraqi government for disarming Shiite militias such as Sadrs!

Does that jive with history? Is it just a coincidence that things were going poorly that Democrats were claiming defeat left and right, and then we had the surge, and then things started going well even as Democrats claimed they weren’t? And our soldiers were just window dressing while Iraq fixed all of its own problems?

I hope you’re not actually as stupid as Barack Obama thinks you are.

President Bush announced the surge strategy on January 7, 2007. 20,000 additional U.S. troops were committed, with the majority – 5 brigades – heading into Baghdad. Within slightly over a month, there were enough American troops to substantially back an Iraqi-led effort to secure the city of Baghdad.

Do you remember Demacrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, “The war is lost“? in April of 2007?

Who doesn’t realize that it was General David Petraeus and the surge that John McCain had been advocating all along that turned things around?

Who doesn’t realize that if we hadn’t listened to great men like Petraeus – and ignored trivial fools like Obama – we would have cut and run in abject disgrace from an emboldened terrorist enemy?

According to the New York Times:

When the Anbar tribes first began cooperating, they told the Americans where the extremists were hiding weapons caches, burying bombs, and running safe houses. Then they set up checkpoints and began engaging in gunfights with Qaeda cells in the Ramadi area.

With attacks decreasing against both Americans and Iraqis in Anbar, and large numbers of tribesmen lining up to join local security forces, the American military has begun to try to replicate its success.

A story by the Times clearly shows the bulk of the Sunni fighters signing on to fight the terrorists and insurgents beginning sometime in May 2007, directly coinciding with the surge. 4,000 Marines deployed to Anbar province.

It is simply a lie to claim that the Sunnis began fighting on their own, or that the surge did not massively influence their willingness to fight. To the extent that the Anbar resistance preceded the surge, it was small, it relied greatly upon American soldiers, and it didn’t explode until after the surge.

The same applies with the Shiite efforts. The effort to disarm Shiite militias such as Moktada al Sadrs Mahdi army. A New York Times story appearing on October 11, 2007 begins (again, boldface mine):

BAGHDAD, Oct. 11 — In a number of Shiite neighborhoods across Baghdad, residents are beginning to turn away from the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia they once saw as their only protector against Sunni militants. Now they resent it as a band of street thugs without ideology.

It wasn’t until the surge took effect – and Shiites began to recognize that they were protecting them – that the Shiite people began to renounce the militias and the Shiite-backed Iraq government had the backing to demand the disarmament of the troublesome militias.

Barack Obama is thus revealed as a demonstrated liar without shame who gives our heroic soldiers – who have been absolutely magnificent – a “fraction of the credit.” I GIVE THEM ALL THE CREDIT!!!

Our soldiers succeeded when cowardly and craven men like Harry Reid and Barack Obama predicted that they would fail, and very likely even rooted for them to fail (You might recall House Majority Whip James Clyburn acknowledging that good news from Iraq was bad news for Democrats; or you might recall Rep. Jack Murtha presuming that Marines were guilty of war crimes and convicting them before the trial which exonerated them).

The soldiers succeeded. It was Obama and his fellow Democrats who failed.

Barack Obama gives our soldiers no credit because this man who “never has doubts about his foreign policy” cannot acknowledge he was wrong – no matter how obviously and completely wrong he was.

Liberals claim that Bush was inflexible and would not admit his mistakes? Obama is rigid to about the trillionth power.

Obama’s rigid ability to deny reality emerged again as he went to Israel and Gaza.

He had previosly said:

“Let me be clear,” Senator Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized, and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Then as a result of Palestinian anger he said:

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

As a direct result of Obama’s complete abandonment of his earlier position, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said of Obama’s reversal:

“This statement is totally rejected,” Abbas told reporters in Ramallah. “The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”

Way to go, Barack. You sure contributed to Mideast peace. Any other issues you want to resolve with your courage, your integrity, your resolve, and your strength of character?

Now, any normal human being would acknowledge that they had changed their position. But not Barack Obama. He is so personally arrogant, so unyielding, so deceitful, and so intellectually dishonest even with himself, that he simply does not have that capacity within him.

“I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. I have said it before and will say it again…but I’ve also said that it is a final status issue” that must be decided by negotiation, he said in the southern Israeli town of Sderot.

No. You continue to lie. You continue to say things that are the logical contradiction of what you said earlier, and then you continue to deceitfully and disingenuously misrepresent yourself having been consistent all along.

We can also go back to his incredibly foolish campaign promise from last July:

In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?…..”

“I would,” Obama answered.  “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.”

And his website USED to say:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions

Now he says:

A year ago, Obama was asked whether he would meet personally, without preconditions, with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations during the first year of his administration to resolve differences with the United States. Obama said he would.

On Wednesday Obama said, “I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. And that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity. But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation.”

The point is to say, “No. You didn’t say that at all, you lying weasel. Are you such a completely dishonest man that you can so blatantly lie even to yourself? In grammatical terms, those “if…then” constructions are called “conditionals.” The fact is, you have by now applied so many DIFFERENT PRECONDITIONS to your “without preconditions” policy that your original statement is revealed to have been a) foolish beyond belief; and b) a complete lie.

This man is dangerous, and it is nowhere revealed more than in his foreign policy. He is completely incompetent; he is completely untrustworthy; he is completely wrong; and he is completely unable to recognize obvious contradictions.

Returning to the issue of Iraq, let me make a point: Obama claims the surge was wrong because we’ve diverted resources we should have used in Afghanistan to Iraq. And Obama’s alternative to the surge in Iraq was to instead exert diplomatic pressure by setting a timetable for withdrawal. Obama believes that by setting a date for retreating from Iraq in stone the Iraqi government would be pressured into getting their act together.

Now, if Obama really thought that idea that would have worked in Iraq, why then is he now proposing what clearly amounts to the exact same surge strategy for Afghanistan instead of demanding a withdrawal date that would pressure the Afghani government into getting their act together?

Do you see the inherent contradiction?

Obama’s position on the surge has essentially been: “The surge will fail.” Then he said, “It kind of worked, but we still shouldn’t have done it.” And now he says, “The same strategy that I vehemently opposed in Iraq will work in Afghanistan but it was my idea all along.”

I wrote an article titled, “U.S. vs. Nuclear Iran: Russia, China Block Any Resolution – Again,” that establishes the virtually identical similarities between trying to check a possibly weaponized Iraq with the current environment of trying to check a possibly weaponized Iran. By Obama’s philosophy, we can not move to use military power to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons until: 1) We are absolutely certain they have them (a belief based on the known intelligence is not enough); 2) United Nations resolutions justifying war; and 3) a military alliance similar in size to that of the Gulf War in 1991. Since NONE of those three conditions are likely to be met, we cannot possibly attack Iran to prevent their development of nuclear weapons. And then we would be dealing with a nuclear-armed terrorist belligerent state that is immune to attack (unless you want World War III) and free to attack our interests again and again with impunity.

What would a President Obama do? This is a man who can’t even stand up to his own rhetoric, much less terrorist murders.

Barack Obama is a complete disaster waiting to happen. If we are foolish enough to elect him president, rogue tyrants and totalitarian leaders will recognize Barack Obama’s insipid pandering weakness and immediately begin to exploit him, and the world will be shocked to discover just how empty he truly is.

Obama’s Breaking Promise On Campaign Finance Just One More Lie

June 23, 2008

A few news articles frame the story better than I could:

Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.

By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.

In a video e-mail sent to supporters, Obama said he was opting out of public financing because the system “is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.”

The nastiest liars have always have that extra little bit of sheer chutzpah that allows them to blame the other guy for why they break their promises. “Ignore the fact that I am openly going back on my promise. Somehow it’s my opponent’s fault. You really should understand that I am the victim here.”

Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

When Obama was the guy who wasn’t raising all the campaign contribution dough, he was high-and-mighty hoity-toity self-righteous in trying to get everyone to agree to limit their fund raising so he could compete with the big boys.

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause [and to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network] when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

Obama wrote: “In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Not so “aggressively,” according to the McCain campaign, which argues that Obama did not discuss this or try to negotiate at all with the McCain campaign, despite writing that he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Michael Dobbs, the Washington Post‘s esteemed Fact Checker, wrote, “Obama’s affirmative answer to the Midwest Democracy Network seems unequivocal,” Dobbs writes. “Now that Obama is raising $1 million a day, his enthusiasm for public financing appears to have waned.”

Barack Obama isn’t just a hypocritical liar; he’s a self-righteous hypocritical liar, which is the very worst kind. It’s bad enough when someone breaks his promises, but when he does it with a smarmy “holier-than-thou” attitude, that’s when you know you’ve got the rarest breed of demagogue on your hands.

This isn’t the first time Barack Obama has promised one thing, and then done the complete opposite. The man began his presidential run by breaking his promise, as a transcript from Meet the Press reveals:

MR. RUSSERT: Well, nine months ago, you were on this program and I asked you about running for president. And let’s watch and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, January 22, 2006):

MR. RUSSERT: When we talked back in November of ‘04, after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as a United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: You will not.

Every politician does some flip flopping and reconsideration of formerly-held positions. Believe me, in his short political career, Barack Obama has accumulated a whopping load more than his fair share. But it’s one thing to change your position in the proverbial “flip flop,” and quite another thing to flat-out break your word. Doing the former shows you are responding to the changing nature of the political climate; doing the latter shows you are a bald-faced liar.

For example, had John McCain said of his earlier position not to allow offshore drilling, “I will never change my position on this. Count on it.” That would have been tantamount to a lie.

Barack Obama is a demonstrated, documented liar. The guy who began his career undermining a clearly more popular candidate by using every cheap tactic to get the signatures of voters thrown out is now cynically, deceitfully, and despicably presenting himself as the candidate of “hope” and “change.”

Let’s take a moment to look at some of Obama’s more famous recent flip flops.

We can remember Obama pledging that he would meet with leaders of the very worst regimes on earth without preconditions, and then subsequently “clarifying” his remarks with so many caveats and qualifications that his position became identical to the Bush-position which he had originally demonized in the first place.

We can remember Obama claiming that Iran didn’t pose a serious threat to the United States, to (when confronted with the stupidity of his view) saying “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…”

Glenn Kessler wrote a story titled, “Obama Clarifies Remarks on Jerusalem“:

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem “must remain undivided.”

Obama, during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-israel lobbying group, had called for Jerusalem to become the site of the U.S. embassy, a frequent pledge for U.S. presidential candidates. (It is now in Tel Aviv.) But his statement that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

If “clarifying your remarks” means saying the exact opposite thing to what one had said before, then I suppose we can say Obama “clarified.” But given the fact that he told a Jewish audience exactly what it wanted to hear, and then almost immediately afterward told an Arab audience exactly what it wanted to hear, I would use a different verb such as “pandered” and “lied.”

Considering the fact that there is a real probability that World War III will be fought over the status of Jerusalem, and considering that our next armed conflict will likely be with Iran, I dare say that these “flip flips” are NOT trivial issues. He has repeatedly trivialized the most important issues of our time with his back-tracking and pandering nonsense.

Doing a google search, I quickly found other flip-flops, some big, some little:

1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as “special interest” money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of “working people” and says he is “thrilled” by their support.

2. Public financing Obama replied “yes” in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time “to end the embargo with Cuba” because it had “utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro.” Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not “take off the embargo” as president because it is “an important inducement for change.”

4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should “crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.” He replied “Oppose.” In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that “we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.”

5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

Believe me, this is a short list.  One site I came across provides a long litany of lies, flip-flops, and disingenuous use of language. The author is clearly partisan, but he backed up his smack-talk with plenty of sourced research.

Apart from the sheer, vile, despicable nature of Barack Obama’s 23-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church – which offended me enough to get involved in politics – the thing that most bothers me about Barack Obama is that he has taken this above-it-all, lofty, holier-than-thou approach as the “new politician” when he is every bit the scheming, manipulating, lying, lowdown, snake-in-the-grass politician from the shadiest tradition of rotten Chicago politics.