Obama Delivers Killlllller Speech In Iowa Tonight (5/20) archived

For Sbenois - A Malkin greatest hit -

Vomit-inducing.

Posted By: dave23Obama was right about Iraq

Which part, speaking out against it prior to being in the US senate, or voting to fund it when in the US senate?

Here's a quote that shows Obama's steely resolve against the vote to give presidential authority to use force from Obama himself:

"I wasn’t in the Senate. I can’t say for certain what I would have done if I was there."

The whole opposition to the war is a complete fairy tale.

Hey, Bubba said his run for President is a fairy tale.
This is unfair to fairies.
The Rev. Wright church magazine, the Trumpet, has a delicious quote of Barrack Hussain Obama about the critical role his wife plays in his decisions, and, of course, he now says you can even discuss her opinions, because, well, because he said it.

It is quoted in today's American Thinker blog.

jd

americanthinker.com

Posted By: noo2woodWhich part, speaking out against it prior to being in the US senate, or voting to fund it when in the US senate?

He was against the war for all the right reasons. But once we were there, then of course we had to fund the troops. I was opposed to the war from day one, but there's no way in hell do I think that we should undercut the troops by not providing them with what they need.

Opposing the war and then voting to fund it is not contradictory. Supporting the war and then undercutting the troops by not providing the manpower and tools they needed was contradictory (and, indeed, the policy that was carried out).

Go ahead and disagree with Obama about whether the war was waged on just grounds whether it was a good idea to go in and whether it was properly waged, but stop posting that half-quote that Bill used as part of the "fairy tale" bs.

Posted By: dave23Go ahead and disagree with Obama about whether the war was waged on just grounds whether it was a good idea to go in and whether it was properly waged, but stop posting that half-quote that Bill used as part of the "fairy tale" bs.

Here's a full response from Obama regarding that "fairy tale" remark, in which he:

1. ADMITS that he fully understood the context of Bill's remark, that it wasn't about his run for the presidency, but rather about his own ambivalence and voting record on Iraq
2. ADMITS that he either LIED about his stance on the war for his party's political gain, or that he TRULY isn't sure what he would have done if he were in the US senate.
3. BUT CONTINUES to fuel the false controversy by continuing to accuse Bill of playing dirty for what is clearly a legitimate question about his voting record and his supposedly unwavering stance against the war.

"It is a little frustrating for the president to _ the former president _ to continually repeat this notion that somehow I didn’t know where I stood in 2004 about the war. He keeps on giving half the quote. I was always against the war. The quote he keeps on feeding back was an interview on Meet the Press at the National Convention when Tim was asking, `Given your firm opposition to the war, what do you make of the fact that your nominee for president and vice president didn’t have that same foresight.’ And obviously I didn’t want to criticize them on the eve of their nomination. So I said, `Well, I don’t know what _ you know, I wasn’t in the Senate. I can’t say for certain what I would have done if I was there. I know that from where I stood the case was not made.’ He always leaves that out. And you know, I understand why he’s frustrated. But at some point since we’ve corrected him repeatedly on this and he keeps on repeating it, you know it tells me that he’s just more interested in trying to muddy the waters than actually talk fairly about my record.”

Interesting how the press chose to ignore the original quote from Obama, and instead focused on misconstruing Bill's quote and calling the Clinton campaign racist. Something they continued to do by using their supreme psycho-analytical expertise to read between the lines of such innocuous Hillary quotes as "as far as I know."

Obama supporters may complain about the prospect of the Democratic Party leaders deciding who their nominee is, but should realize that the Press had already decided it for them long ago.

Posted By: noo2wood2. ADMITS that he either LIED about his stance on the war for his party's political gain, or that he TRULY isn't sure what he would have done if he were in the US senate.

Where do you see anywhere that he admits the above? He says that he isn't sure what he woul dhave done had he been in the Senate. Where do you get anything about possibly lying?

Posted By: noo2woodSomething they continued to do by using their supreme psycho-analytical expertise to read between the lines of such innocuous Hillary quotes as "as far as I know."

This had nothing to do with the press. There was simply no reason for her to add that. When I heard her say it I groaned, with no press involved. I was surprised she didn't wink into the camera.

Posted By: noo2woodobviously I didn’t want to criticize them on the eve of their nomination. So I said, `Well, I don’t know what _ you know, I wasn’t in the Senate. I can’t say for certain what I would have done if I was there. I know that from where I stood the case was not made.’

He didn't want to criticize them on the eve of their nomination so he either:

1. Concealed (or lied about) his actual unwavering opposition
or
2. Honestly didn't know what he would have done

If "the case was not made" for him at the time, wouldn't he have voted "no." Isn't it that simple? Or is he conceding that there may have been other factors were he in the actual US senate that might have caused him to vote yes even though the case was not made for him. Factors such as being loyal to the Democratic party and not wanting it to be perceived as weak when voters were demanding strength. Or factors such as his constituents overwhelmingly supporting the war. Factors such as faith that the president would handle the situation intelligently. Factors that may have led Hillary to vote the way she did.

Posted By: rastro

Posted By: noo2woodSomething they continued to do by using their supreme psycho-analytical expertise to read between the lines of such innocuous Hillary quotes as "as far as I know."

This had nothing to do with the press. There was simply no reason for her to add that. When I heard her say it I groaned, with no press involved. I was surprised she didn't wink into the camera.

I just don't agree with a gut feeling being reported as fact, as in this case, as in South Carolina, and as with the "fairy tale" comment, and many other instances where the press said, "This is what they said, but we know in our gut that this is what they really mean."

If someone were to ask me if I thought Obama were Christian, I might say "Yes he is as far as I know" perhaps trying to dismiss what a stupid question it is to ask me in the first place.

Posted By: noo2woodIf "the case was not made" for him at the time, wouldn't he have voted "no." Isn't it that simple?

No, it's not that simple. He was not a Senator, and therefore did not have access to the intelligence that the Senators had. So while he did not think the case had been made o the public, he cannot guess how he might have voted, had he seen what the Senate saw.

It's ridiculous to ask hypothetical questions like that. How WOULD you have voted? Who knows? Several people who voted for the war have realized that it was a mistake. Of course, Obama had the benefit of not havint to vote, so he could be as rhetorical as he wanted.

Posted By: noo2woodIf someone were to ask me if I thought Obama were Christian, I might say "Yes he is as far as I know" perhaps trying to dismiss what a stupid question to ask me in the first place.

How does adding "as far as I know" dismiss it as a stupid question? Saying "That's a stupid question to ask me. Why don't you ask him?" is dismissing it.

Adding "as far as I know" is an opening for doubt.

Posted By: rastroNo, it's not that simple. He was not a Senator, and therefore did not have access to the intelligence that the Senators had. So while he did not think the case had been made o the public, he cannot guess how he might have voted, had he seen what the Senate saw.

So again he admits that had he seen the evidence that the senate had seen he might have voted for the war.

Posted By: rastroIt's ridiculous to ask hypothetical questions like that. How WOULD you have voted? Who knows? Several people who voted for the war have realized that it was a mistake. Of course, Obama had the benefit of not havint to vote, so he could be as rhetorical as he wanted.

I agree, and it is ridiculous to chastise one's opponent's actions based on the hypothetical notion that you would have done differently if you were in her position. And it's even more ridiculous to base a large part of your campaign around the idea that your overall judgement is better than your opponent, and that you would hypothetically make a better president all due to this hypothetical comparison.

With a campaign based on all this hypothetical conjecture floating around, it's no wonder Bill called Obama's so-called unwavering opposition to the war a "fairy tale," and his qualifications to be president "a roll of the dice."

Posted By: noo2wood

Posted By: rastroNo, it's not that simple. He was not a Senator, and therefore did not have access to the intelligence that the Senators had. So while he did not think the case had been made o the public, he cannot guess how he might have voted, had he seen what the Senate saw.

So again he admits that had he seen the evidence that the senate had seen he might have voted for the war.

I cannot say what he admits or does not admit. That would be my interpretation of what he said.

Posted By: noo2woodI agree, and it is ridiculous to chastise one's opponent's actions based on the hypothetical notion that you would have done differently if you were in her position.

I don't disagree. I have never been one of those who jumped on Clinton for her vote.

Good talk rastro.

Posted By: noo2wood1. ADMITS that he fully understood the context of Bill's remark, that it wasn't about his run for the presidency, but rather about his own ambivalence and voting record on Iraq

When did Obama say that Clinton's remark was about his run for the presidency?

Posted By: noo2wood
Obama supporters may complain about the prospect of the Democratic Party leaders deciding who their nominee is, but should realize that the Press had already decided it for them long ago.

Right, back when Hillary was considered the shoo-in, before Obama won Iowa.

How quickly they forget.

Hillary is half of the most powerful couple in Democratic politics, the former first lady, the candidate who had a huge financial advantage going in, the candidate with the benefit of being married to a very popular ex-prez who worked tirelessly on her behalf.

Sorry, Hillary had major, major advantages. And she lost. Let's not rewrite history.

sbenois, you've spoken admirably of McCain and mentioned that you plan to vote for him. I assume you still do. So how is it that your choice hasn't clouded your view and you are willing to give credit to Obama where it's due him? What allows you to stay open-minded?

HH is Hugh Hewitt, BO is Barack Hussain Obama and MS is Mark Steyn.
BO is quoted directly. This is taken from marksteyn's site today.


BO: Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what…that’s what…that’s…that’s what Kennedy did with Kruschev, that’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev, that’s what Nixon did with Mao. 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…

HH: Okay, now let’s go to today, Barack Obama in Florida giving a speech at a synagogue in Boca Raton, cut number seven.

BO: The gravest threat to Israel today, obviously, comes from Iran. They’re a radical regime, continues to pursue the ability to build a nuclear weapon, and continues to support terrorism across the region. President Ahmadinejad continues his offensive denials of the Holocaust in his disturbing denunciations of Israel.

HH: So Mark Steyn, do we believe Sunday night Obama or Thursday afternoon Obama?

MS: I would reckon that Sunday night Obama is the one to bet on. I don’t think he…I think the synagogue thing was just a little bit of identity group pandering. He really does believe that he can launch a personal charm offensive with Ahmadinejad, and that Iran is a pipsqueak country of no consequence. I tend to think that Alan Dershowitz’ piece today, Alan Dershowitz is a big Democrat, but he talks about Iran as a potential suicide nation. When you’ve got essentially a millennarial cult that’s going nuclear, that’s a serious threat. But Obama has got absolutely no stick to bring to bear, only the carrot of his photo opportunity with Ahmadinejad.

HH: Here’s Barack Obama in the synagogue today again. Cut number five, talking about Hamas and Hezbollah, cut number five.

BO: I want to just repeat this, because I know that there’s a lot of rumormongering going around. People have been getting e-mails non-stop. I have said throughout this campaign that we should not negotiate with Hamas or Hezbollah, and that’s why I reject the attempts by some of my opponents in this campaign to distort my position. They are counting on fear, because they know they haven’t told the truth. As president, I will do everything in my power to help Israel protect itself from these and other threats. I will make sure that Israel can defend itself from any attack, whether it comes from as close as Gaza, or as far as Tehran.

HH: All right, let’s go, then, to cut number two. He mentioned Tehran. This is from the YouTube debate last summer.

Q: 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, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Anderson Cooper: Senator Obama?

BO: I would.

HH: Mark Steyn, he appears to believe there’s a difference between meeting with Ahmadinejad and other mullahs in Tehran, and meeting with Nasrallah and Hezbollah. There might be on paper, but there isn’t in reality.

MS: No, these are Iranian proxies. It’s like saying you’re not going to meet with General Electric, but then meeting with the Norwegian subsidiary of General Electric. Essentially, these are proxies, controlled, financed, and supplied by Iran, and his apparent inability to distinguish that gets to the heart of this. He keeps citing this Kennedy-Kruschev Vienna summit as a great success. By all agreed historical accounts, it wasn’t. Kruschev thought he won, and it emboldened him, and it led in part to the situation we’re still dealing with in Cuba forty years later. And Obama seems…is bandying historical analogies he hasn’t even taken the trouble to look at.

HH: So does it matter, Mark Steyn? Have you sensed that we can begin to use the L word, as in lightweight with regards to Barack Obama?

MS: Yes, I think we can. I think he is someone who is out of his depth. You wouldn’t be surprised about this when you look at the resume he’s running on. He’s running as a kind of man who is untainted by all the complications of Washington. But the fact is he’s a community organizer, he was a state elected official. There is a sense that he’s wading in on issues in a sort of glib way that does not withstand much scrutiny. And that’s…it’s compounded by the fact that he’s personally chippy, that you mention, you attack him on these things, and he gets all defensive. I think he’s actually a very vulnerable opponent for John McCain.

HH: I agree with that, untainted by experience or reading. Mark Steyn, always a pleasure, www.steynonline.com, America.

End of interview.
Vote on this Article

"Clinton's "lapses in judgment" gave him two terms and a very high approval rating leaving office. Gore made the mistake of keeping Clinton off the campaign and paid for it."

Nice revisionist history. Clinton's approval ratings as he left office were low. Not Bush low but low. In addition, he never earned more a majority of the popular vote in either election. he was the plurality president put in office by ross perot. gore lost because of clinton fatigue, period. thats why gore hates clinton now.

And now, for something completely different:

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The Internal Contradictions of the PC Utopia [Mark Steyn]

From The Sheffield Telegraph:

A SEX swap instructor at an all-female driving school was left devastated when the Sheffield husband of one of her pupils threatened to sue her firm - for sending a man to teach his Muslim wife.

Emma Sherdley - formerly a married dad of two called Andrew but now legally a woman - has the full support of her boss Joanne Dixon who says she is a popular and respected instructor with 32 female pupils on her books who have no problem with her past.

Emma, aged 42, has a birth certificate and a "gender recognition certificate" to prove her legal status as a woman although she is still waiting for final surgery to make her transition from male to female physically complete...
"The husband rang me and said he was going to sue us.

"He was saying, 'You have sent me a man, send me a proper female, how dare you send a man with a deep voice'. Then he claimed we had deliberately sent a man disguised as a woman because he was a Muslim.

Islamophobia vs trannyphobia. There'll be lots more of this in the future. By the way, if this guy is such an observant Muslim, how come he's letting his wife drive the car? In Saudi Arabia, a gal has to get a sex-change in order to get a driver's license.

[img]http://www.e-firstaidsupplies.com/image500/922-11677lw.jpg[/img]

Posted By: maplehoodClinton's approval ratings as he left office were low.

Define "low." His approval rating when he left office was 65%. Higher than Reagan's when he left office (64%), higher than Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bush I, Ford, Carter, Johnson. In fact, can you name a President that had a higher approval rating when he left office?

Joel, how is that related to ANYTHING? I mean, it doesn't even belong in Soapbox, let along Political Soapbox.

Posted By: maplehood
Nice revisionist history. Clinton's approval ratings as he left office were low.

Thanks rastro. I'm not the one engaging in revisionist history here.

Posted By: maplehoodIn addition, [Bill Clinton] never earned more a majority of the popular vote in either election.

Really? That goes against my memory and other sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996


Oh, wait, I guess you mean he didn't win over 50% of the vote, huh? Well, that's true, but I think he was the clear winner in both cases.

BO: Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what…that’s what…that’s…that’s what Kennedy did with Kruschev, that’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev, that’s what Nixon did with Mao. 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…

HH: Okay, now let’s go to today, Barack Obama in Florida giving a speech at a synagogue in Boca Raton, cut number seven.

BO: THE GRAVEST THREAT TO ISRAEL TODAY, obviously, comes from Iran. They’re a radical regime, continues to pursue the ability to build a nuclear weapon, and continues to support terrorism across the region. President Ahmadinejad continues his offensive denials of the Holocaust in his disturbing denunciations of Israel.

See the difference? I tried to make it bold for easier identification, but that didn't work so now its CAPS.

As for not talking with our enemies the following are JFK quotes I pulled out of an interesting piece at Salon:

"We need a leader who recognizes "that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient, that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem." A president who understands that "equating negotiations with appeasement and substituting rigidity for firmness" is "the pathway to war."

We must realize that foreign policy in the modern world does not lend itself to easy, simple black and white solutions. If we were to have diplomatic relations only with those countries whose principles we approve of, we would have relations with very few countries in a very short time ... If we were to treat foreign policy merely as a medium for delivering self-righteous sermons to supposedly inferior people, we would give up all thought of world influence or world leadership."

Article here

and now there are italics...whatever

Damn commie.

Iran is a very clear threat to Israel's existence. Possibly the biggest direct threat there is (although I believe the ongoing non-resolution of the Palestinian issue is a much more realistic threat).

Iran, and Venezuela and Cuba do not begin to pose the threat to the United States that the USSR once did.

Joel D - How do you think these two statements contradict each other?

BTW - I was at the huge Obama rally in Florida yesterday...second row...I shook his hand and he talked to me for a second.

He's the whole package...brilliant, well-spoken, literate, diplomatic. I really believe he can undo some of the damage of the last 8 years.

I was at Hillary's humble rally at Sunrise Phase IV. It wasn't an eloborate orchestration but she got her message across to us. She's in it to the end. I'd say 98% of the audience was Jewish. Oye Vey!

I could say the same about Hillary except for the one thing. I truly believe SHE can undo ALL of the damage of the last 8 years. She too is brilliant, well spoken, very literate and diplomatic.