Posts Tagged ‘reversal’

Barack Obama Even Cuts and Runs From His Own Positions

July 20, 2008

In a HIGHLY favorable piece from a far-left liberal newspaper (just consider the title: “Obama stance on Iraq Shows Evolving View“!!!), Barack Obama is nevertheless revealed to have simply been all over the place regarding Iraq. A much tougher – and much more substantial – piece shows just how way, way, WAAAAY all over the place Obama has been regarding Iraq:

But perhaps a different kind of consistency is to be discerned in this maze. When Obama opposed the war in 2002, it was clearly in his political interest to do so; according to Dan Shomon, his campaign manager at the time, the key to Obama’s chances in the Democratic race for the Senate nomination lay in his ability to rally the Left to his side.4 Then, in 2004, when the war was still supported by most Americans, he associated himself with the Bush occupation strategy. In 2005, as Iraq was becoming increasingly unpopular, he temporized by joining those saying we had to reduce but not withdraw our troop presence. By 2006, with the war’s unpopularity deepening, he embraced a policy of full-scale withdrawal.

Is that what a president does? Does he waffle this way, then that, depending on the frequent shifts of the political breezes? Or is a president – and anyone who wants to become president – forced to carefully decide what needs to be done, and then commit himself (just as he commits his troops)?

Oh, things are going well, so I’m committed. Oh, we’re having a few setbacks, so I demand a withdrawal. Oh, things are better now, so I’ll “refine” my policy. Oh, my left-wing base is turning on me, so I’ll recommit myself to my previous withdrawal policy.”

Could a president send troops, change his mind and withdraw them, change his mind again and increase their number form when he withdrew them before, and then decide that he shouldn’t have sent them after all and withdrawn them again – all within the span of about 2 1/2 years?

Conservative critics have pounced all over Obama:

“There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. “Obama’s Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician.”

Mr. Obama said such criticism was misguided, saying: “My position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I’ve always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground.”

Well, if that’s true (and you’re not a rank, hypocritical liar without shame who plays politics even when men’s lives hang in the balance), then why did you announce your rigid commitment to a 16-month timetable for withdrawal BEFORE you went to Iraq and actually listened to those commanders?  The reality is, you’re not going to listen to them at all – just as you’ve NEVER listened to them.

The Clinton campaign pointed out that Obama would renege on his Iraq policy – which is exactly what he tried to do until his liberal base erupted in outrage over the reversal.

The man is a veritable bastion of courage and integrity.

Barack Obama has been in favor of a timetable for withdraw since late 2005. What would have happened to Iraq had Barack Obama been our president? If we had pulled out of the country when Obama said we should (depending, of course, on how Obama felt about the war that day), a too-weak and too-unstable Iraq would have almost certainly descended into chaos, become a terrorist stronghold, and forced us to invade for yet a third time.

In January of 2007, John McCain proposed a troop surge in Iraq, and Barack Obama opposed it:

(CBS) Sen. John McCain supports President George Bush’s planned troop surge in Iraq, while his fellow Senator, and likely opponent in the 2008 race for the White House, Barack Obama would rather see a “surge in diplomacy.”

A showdown between Congress and the president looms after President Bush said he would send 21,000 more American troops to Iraq. Meanwhile, a new poll indicates that the public is overwhelmingly against the plan.

Obama pursued a plan of action that would have done NOTHING as Iraq began to stumble into chaos. John McCain – as the article acknowledges – took an “overwhelmingly” unpopular stance and supported a policy that WORKED. [And note the pessimistic stance liberal CBS took on the idea of the troop surge].

American military commanders are close to declaring complete victory in Iraq.

Even Al Qaeda has openly admitted that they have lost in Iraq.

The result of this success is that Obama scrubbed his earlier positions regarding the surge from his website. That’s “change” for you: no major political candidate in American history has ever been so completely disingenuous regarding his positions.

As an Associate Press article by Nedra Pickler put it:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama’s aides have removed criticism of President Bush’s increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat’s written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

Debate over the impact of President Bush’s troop “surge” has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.

A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions.

After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

By the time Obama staffers got through editing Obama’s previous positions:

Only one of his plan’s subheads remains unchanged, the first one — “Judgment You Can Trust.” That’s a message the campaign wants Americans to embrace.

That’s right: “judgment you can trust.” You can trust a man who takes every position under the sun depending on his political expediency, plays politics when soldiers’ lives are on the line, scrubs his own website of his previous erroneous positions, and then blithely pretends he’s had the same position all along.

As Barack Obama launches his foreign visit accompanied by the in-the-tank anchors from the in-the-tank networks and all the media fanfare they can produce, the narrative will be that Obama is right about the timetable for withdrawal.

But the only reason we can reasonably talk about a timetable for an American withdrawal from Iraq is because better and more courageous men were in charge – and Barack Obama was not.

As you listen to the in-the-tank media hype for Obama, don’t forget that.

Obama has repeatedly cut and run from his own positions: from dismissing the wearing of flag pins to wearing them constantly; from publicly vowing that he could never denounce Rev. Jeremiah Wright any more than he could denounce his own grandmother to publicly denouncing Jeremiah Wright; from filling out questionnaires to denying that he filled out the answers on the questionnaires; from being an opponent of free trade to being a supporter of free trade; from telling a Jewish audience that he supported Jerusalem as the eternal capital of a Jewish state to telling a group of Palestinians that he was open to negotiating the status of Jerusalem; from claiming that Iran was not a serious threat to claiming that Iran represents a serious threat; from vowing to accept public financing to refusing to accept public financing; from supporting the Washington D.C. ban on handguns to supporting the Supreme Court decision overturning the Washington D.C. ban on handguns; from swearing he would filibuster any FISA bill that did not allow lawsuits against telecoms to voting for a FISA bill that didn’t include any provisions to punish telecoms; from vowing to end the Iraq war in 2009 to saying he would refine his position to listen to military commanders to saying he would end the war in Iraq irregardless of the commanders.

The liberal editorial board of the New York Times has recognized that Barack Obama seemed to lack a functioning moral compass. Last week New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pointed out that Barack Obama has no moral compass whatsoever. He ended his piece by saying:

There’s even concern that he’s doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq. But the senator denied that any significant change should be inferred from his comment that he would “continue to refine” his policy on the war.

Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.

He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.

Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.

Don’t forget that Barack Obama is a pandering, waffling, flip flopping liberal who doesn’t have the courage of his own convictions.

Increasingly even liberals are recognizing that Barack Obama is simply not fit to lead.

Obama’s Vile Claims that Republicans, McCain Are Anti-black, Anti-women Justify ANY Counterattack

June 28, 2008

After John McCain announced that he supported ending the federal ban on offshore drilling and allowing states to make their own determination, Barack Obama said:

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), Illinois: This is yet another reversal by John McCain, in terms of his earlier positions. And I think we could set up an interesting debate between John McCain 2000 and John McCain 2008.

This was only one day before Barack Obama on June 19, 2008 announced his decision to go back on his earlier promise to support campaign reform by accepting – and publicly calling upon other candidates to accept – public financing.

Barack Obama has been all over the place on a whole host of isses: his all-over-the-place stance on gun control; his staffers telling Canada his official NAFTA position was merely “populist positioning”; his position on talking to rogue leaders such as Iran’s Ahmadinejab without preconditions which he has since hedged beyond recognition; his position on the status of Jerusalem which changes based on whether he’s talking to Jews or Arabs; his previous demand that telecommunications companies be unprotected from lawsuits for cooperating with the US government; his initial call for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq; his reversal over the Cuba embargo; and on and on. John McCain has been the rock of consistency compared to Barack Obama – even in spite of the fact that Obama hasn’t had much of a career to actually have time to reverse positions. Most of McCain’s flips – in direct contrast to Obama’s – were announced prior to the primary elections so voters could consider the ramifications and vote accordingly. And his recent change of position over allowing states to decide whether to pursue offshore drilling is perfectly understandable given the new situation of $4.50/gallon gas. And yet here Barack Obama is, talking smack just like the self-righteous, self-aggrandizing hypocrite he is.

And consider Obama’s reasoning for breaking his promise to accept public funding:

“We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election,” Obama says in the video, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying “we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

Liberal and Democratic 527s have ten freaking times the cash conservative and Republican causes have. Liberal money is all over the place. Obama is expected to raise shocking loads of money – $500 million dollars in just the final 2 months of the campaign alone – at a time when Democrats are out hysterically proclaiming that we’re in the second coming of the Great Depression. And liberals constantly talk about “swiftboating” (they’ve turned the noun into a verb), disregarding the fact that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth was made up of over 200 fellow members of John Kerry’s riverine unit in Vietnam – including a Rear Admiral and Kerry’s own direct superior – as well as most of Kerry’s former fellow boat skippers. They also conveniently forget the fact that the Swiftboat Veterans caught a number of Kerry “misstatements.” And let’s not also forget those forged documents allegedly proving President Bush sought and received preferential treatment as a National Guard flight officer that showed up on Dan Rather’s CBS newscast.

A recent Democratic attack ad campaign engaged in a clearly racist attack against a Republican candidate of Italian ancestry named Dino Rossi, playing the theme music from The Supranos as it attempted to unfarily tie him to the mob. Even a number of Democrats characterized the ad as “racist and beyond offensive.” Democrats are every bit as good at “gaming the broken system” as Republicans have ever been.

You remember the MoveOn.org ad that ran at a substantially discounted rate in the New York Times that proclaimed, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” Try reading MoveOn or the DailyKos for a little sampling of some of the nastiest bile ever vomited out of the mouth of the sleaziest creature that ever crawled.

Please don’t try to argue that Barack Obama somehow has to go to extraordinary lengths to clear his pure-as-the-driven-snow reputation from those dirty Republicans.

Having said all the above, allow me to introduce a particularly pathetic recent example of Obama launching despicable cheap-shot character attacks against John McCain:

“John McCain, if he’s elected, is going to pick a Supreme Court that will roll back every gain women have made in the last 50 years.”

Now, you see, I hear that kind of crap, and I have to ask: why NOT label “Barack Hussein Obama” as a covert Muslim who will introduce sharia law into the United States? All it would take would be one Supreme Court Justice appointment to do precisely that.

Let me tell you something: there’s a far better case that Barack Hussein Obama is a Manchurian-type Muslim candidate than there is that John McCain will roll back every gain that women have made in the last 50 years.” A FAR better case.

John McCain is somewhat against abortion, it is true. The anti-abortion position has been a significant plank on the Republican platform for a generation. Is this news to you? I have written at length that “a woman’s right to choose” is in fact the denial of any kind of right for men, who are forced to either sit by while women murder their children, or who are forced to provide nearly two decades of child support for a child they may not want to “choose.” And I have argued that nothingnothing – has been more destructive to fatherhood than 1) defining a child in the womb as a thing that deserves absolutely no dignity, status, or protection; and 2) taking away any element of right or privilege that ought to be accorded to fathers.

Why should fathers stick around? They did nothing more than contribute half the genetic materials that abortionists call “products of conception” when they burn a baby to death with acid or chop it into pieces and vacuum it out of the womb. Why shouldn’t fathers be resentful that they are forcibly required to pay support for the very same children that women could have legally butchered in their wombs?

That isn’t a right of women; it’s an abject denial of rights of children and fathers.

And “roll back every gain women have made in the last 50 years“? Is Obama serious, or simply slanderous? This kind of language is just as loaded as saying that John McCain will roll back every gain blacks have made in the last 50 years.” It is absolutely vicious.

Oh, wait, Obama has already used that vicious, hateful, cheap-shot too:

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (Reuters) – Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him…

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

If this isn’t “playing the race card,” then there is simply no such thing as “playing the race card.” Obama doesn’t have a single piece of evidence to cite that Republicans have done any such thing. But a truly dishonorable man simply doesn’t need any evidence to slander his opponents.

No. There’s a much better case that secretly Muslim Barack Hussein Obama will seek to impose sharia law on the United States.

British journalist Melanie Phillips has quite a story in the Israel Insider titled, “Obama takes on the Great Global Blogosphere Conspiracy Against His Holiness.” She links to Obama’s official website, which carries a denial titled, “Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim.” It contains the statement, “Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.” And Phillips points out that Obama has said, “I’ve always been a Christian,” and “I’ve never practiced Islam.”

However, as Phillips points out:

But none of this is true. As is explored in detail on Daniel Pipes‘s website, Obama was enrolled at his primary schools in Indonesia as a Muslim; he attended the mosque during that period; his friends from that time testify that he was a devout Muslim boy. A former teacher at one of these schools, Tine Hahiyary, remembers a young Obama who was quite religious and actively took part in “mengaji” classes which teach how to read the Koran in Arabic. The blogger from Indonesia who reported this commented:

“Mengagi” is a word and a term that is accorded the highest value and status in the mindset of fundamentalist societies here in Southeast Asia. To put it quite simply, “mengaji classes” are not something that a non practicing or so-called moderate Muslim family would ever send their child to… The fact that Obama had attended mengaji classes is well known in Indonesia and has left many there wondering just when Obama is going to come out of the closet.

His father was a Muslim, as was his stepfather. His grandfather was a Muslim convert. His wider family appear to have been largely devout Muslims. Yes, we only know about Obama?s early years as a Muslim; and yes, twenty years ago he became a Christian. The issue, however, is why he has been less than candid about his early background and his family. Indeed, he appears to have actively deceived the public about it. That is why the blogosphere is so exercised about it.

There’s actually a whopping load of documentation proving that Barack Hussein Obama has been disengenuous to the extreme about his background – which is exactly what we would expect a Manchurian-style candidate to do.

Phillips also points out:

Now here’s another curious thing. Much has been made of his membership of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago whose former pastor and his long-standing mentor, Jeremiah Wright, Obama was forced finally to renounce on account of his obnoxious views (although he has signally failed unequivocally to denounce those views themselves and the no less obnoxious philosophy of the Trinity United black power church). But according to a passing reference in a profile in The New Republic last year, Pastor Wright was himself a Muslim convert to Christianity. He seems to have moved from being a Muslim black power fanatic to a Christian black power fanatic — which might go some way to explaining his close affinity to the Muslim black power ideologue Louis Farrakhan.

I went to the article she cited and – sure enough:

After many lectures like this, Obama decided to take a second look at Wright’s church. Older pastors warned him that Trinity was for “Buppies”–black urban professionals–and didn’t have enough street cred. But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”–included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness.'”

And just Google “black liberation theology” and “Marxist” and see that the one is virtually identical to the other.

Now, I’ve written over 70 articles – many directed at Barack Obama – and never once used his “full” name until now. Nor have I ever attempted to link him to Islam until now.

I want to make it clear: I am directly responding to incredibly cheap shots by Barack Obama against an honorable man.

Barack Obama: don’t you dare whine and cry foul every time someone criticizes you, and then go out and unload these kinds of hateful and unsubstantiated charges on your opponent.