Rewriting History, Good Thing Palin Is Around
Sep 2, 2010 Political
Barack Obama and his handlers are having a few issues because the surge he and Joe Biden opposed is responsible for the victory we achieved (and a victory Obama has not acknowledged). The so called smartest guys in the country got it wrong and if they had gotten their way we would be discussing a defeat (and Obama would be blaming it on Bush).
Here is an interesting point of view on the surge given to us by Robert Gibbs:
”What is certainly not up for question is that President Obama, then-candidate Obama, said that adding those 20,000 troops into Iraq would, indeed, improve the security situation, and it did.”
This is interesting indeed. First of all, when anyone in this regime says that something is not up for question it means that it is and that they are likely lying. This is a variation of Obama saying “let me be clear” or “I have always said” which are preludes to a lie that follows. It is Obama trying to play Jedi mind tricks on people. It works on the Kool Aid drinkers who lap it up and ask for more. The rest of us can see the lie a mile away.
Or as I like to put it, Stevie Wonder could see it.
While Gibbs thinks it is certainly not up for question the record is different:
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Obama was clearly not in favor of the surge and he clearly indicated that he was not persuaded that the additional troops would make things better (like improve security) and he clearly stated that he believes it will do the opposite, and create more sectarian violance (and therefore, less security).
Gibbs is playing the game because he has to tell the lies for the Socialist in the White House but the rest of us, those not under the influence of the Force, can see it.
Thanks to Sarah Palin we can all see it in writing. She jumped all over it because she knows Obama is a liar and that he will say or do anything to advance his agenda and to keep from admitting that he backed the wrong horse.
Maybe a trip to Iowa is in order.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: history, lies, Obama, robert gibbs, sarah palin, surge, troops
We Are Back To A War On Terror
Aug 31, 2009 Political
It was not that long ago that Barack Obama decided we were not in a war on terror. He decided that this phrase as well as a few words/phrases like Jihadists and global war were no loner acceptable and did not reflect what was taking place.
“The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,'” said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism. Washington Times
It seems that we are now back to a war on terror and this might have something to do with Obama’s war in Afghanistan. He has sent more troops as part of an increase that started under President Bush’s surge (a strategy Obama said would not work when implemented in Iraq) and now he will likely have to send more if he wants to achieve victory. This has to drive his base nuts because he promised them when he was candidate Obama that he would bring the troops home. It might have looked as if he was heading that way when he softened the terminology but the return to “war on terror” leaves a quick end unlikely.
The term is more threatening than the watered down versions that came out of the White House early on and this might be because Obama wants support for his actions. To be clear, I support any movements that increase troop strength and include tactics aimed at victory but the right is not who needs to be convinced (though we will certainly deride him for his naivete during the campaign). His base is the gaggle that took him at his word when he said he would bring the troops home and they are the ones who need to be convinced.
Obama has not read the assessment of Afghanistan yet (it was sent to the Pentagon today) but it is believed to include the need for more troops. If he decides to send more troops, and it looks like he will, the left will go bonkers. Cindy Sheehan is already ginning up her band of merry mischief makers and it will not be long before the entire left is fed up with Obama and his war.
I want to see an end to war but the only way for it to end is with victory defined on our terms. Obama desperately wants to bring the troops home to fulfill his campaign pledge but now that he is no longer a candidate reality is setting in and he is beginning to see that the decisions are tough and one cannot just make statements or snap fingers and expect results even if the one is the messiah of the left.
It will be interesting to see how the left reacts if this all takes place. The right supports the troops and their efforts and knows that the only exit strategy is victory. Obama won’t have to convince us of the need to support the troops. His task is to reel in his base.
This is a tough position because if they do not side with him he will have hell to pay and if they do it will show once and for all that they are hypocrites.
I think Olbermann will be the first moonbat to jump on board along with tingle leg Matthews. It would not be the first time these guys changed positions based upon the party of the White House occupant.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Can We Get Iraq To Keep Him?
Jan 12, 2009 Political
Senator Joe Biden is in Iraq on a tour of the country that the US brought from dictatorship to a fragile democracy. It is unclear as to what Biden actually is doing there when he is only one week away from taking office as the Vice President but I suspect he is there on Obama business.
I referred to Biden as Senator Biden for a reason. He was elected with Obama to run the country but insisted on swearing in as a Senator, so for now he is a Senator and I believe that he is in Iraq ostensibly, as one.
Obama is big on saying there is only one president at a time and he needs to look like he is not stepping on toes so Biden swears in as a Senator and goes on a trip in that capacity and it will look like Senate business.
Maybe that is the skeptic in me but I don’t trust any of them. It could be that Joe wanted to visit his son (who is serving there) on the taxpayer dime. It would save him on airfare and he could personally deliver his message that daddy’s Senate seat will be held for him for two years until he can make it home safely (which I certainly hope he does).
What I want to know is, can we get Iraq to keep him? They need someone to replace Baghdad Bob. You remember him? He was the guy who kept saying the infidels were not near Baghdad and were dying in the streets as American tanks were rolling by. Well, Biden is perfect for a gig like that. He knows how to tell a lie with the best of them and he is a propaganda guru.
They can even call him the Grand Wizard of Ministry Propaganda and name him Obama bin Biden (PBUH).
It would not last long. They would ship him home before too long. Even the yarn spinning Muslims could only tolerate him for so long. Besides, they are still ticked at him for the plan to divide the country.
Then again, maybe Biden is there to confirm for Obama that the surge really did not work, just as the sainted one has maintained despite information to the contrary.
Source:
Breitbart
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Tags: biden, Iraq, senator, surge, vice president
Obama Deceives About His Position on the Surge
Jul 25, 2008 Military, Political
It has been my position that when Obama says things like “I have always said”, “let me be clear about that”, or “what I said at the time”, what he is really saying is that he changed his position but does not want others to know that he has done so. He has been contradicting himself at every turn and when he does so he starts off by stating that his current position has always been his only position.
Obama has now nuanced his position on the surge in Iraq. He is telling people that he always said that the additional troops would have an impact:
What I said was even at the time of the debate of the surge, was if you put 30,000 troops in, of course it’s going to have an impact. There’s no doubt about that. The question is, does it solve our larger strategic questions and do the costs involved, uh, do they outweigh the benefits.”
It is not an outright lie to say the additional troops would have an impact but to claim that this was his position is remarkably untrue. Barack Obama made it clear that he did not believe that the additional troops would solve any problems with regard to violence and he specifically stated that he believed it would do just the opposite (increase violence).
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there in fact I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president’s proposal… I think he is wrong.”
Now that the violence has gone way down and the surge is a huge success (even the surrender monkeys are silent) Barry is altering his original position. He was 100% wrong about the surge and he now claims that he always said that our troops would have an impact. I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that but in so doing I will say that the impact he said they would have was a negative one and the reality is they have had a positive impact. Barry was completely wrong about the kind of impact the troops would have.
So, suffice it to say, Obama was wrong about the kind of impact the additional troops would have. He said the surge would not work, he later claimed the surge did not work and now he is acting as if he called the right shots all along.
When Obama tells you what his position has “always been” look it up because it is usually not the case.
The man lacks the experience and leadership skills required to run this country or serve as Commander in Chief.
Source:
Gateway Pundit (with video)
The Times UK has a great piece mocking the great one. It is hilarious.
Tags: changing positions, lies, Obama, surge
Obama; Wrong Then and Befuddled Now
Jul 23, 2008 Political
Barack Hussein Obama absolutely opposed the surge of troops into Iraq. This is an undeniable truth and his own words on the subject depict not only a man who opposed the surge but told us that he believed it would have the opposite effect. He said it would cause more violence, not less. Doug Ross documents Obama’s position on the surge:
- Barack Obama, Jan. 2007: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraqis going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
- Democrat Barack Obama, Jan 2007: “I don’t think the president’s [surge] strategy is going to work.”
- Democrat Barack Obama, Jul. 2007: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked.”
- Democrat Barack Obama, Oct. 2007: “[The surge is a] complete failure… Iraq’s leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks.”
There is no doubt that Obama opposed the surge, thought it would not work and declared it a failure. So what does the presumptive Democratic nominee do when confronted with the fact that the surge has been a success despite the defeatist attitude of him and his fellow Democrats? He refuses to admit he was wrong and then says that, knowing what he knows now, he still would not have supported it. Then, just to show how really out of touch he is, he advocates for a surge in Afghanistan. In other words, he wants us to do in Afghanistan what worked in Iraq but which he opposed and would still oppose were it presented today. Or would he since he is supporting it now but in another country? Confused yet?
We should have seen this coming since Obama told us six months ago that success was based on Democrats being elected to the majority:
What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. Now, it will — we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi’as. We should start negotiating now. That’s how you change behavior.
And that’s why I will send a clear signal to the Iraqi government. They will have ample time to get their act together, to actually pass an oil law, which has been — they’ve been talking about now for years. [emphasis added] Flopping Aces
So, which is it Senator? Were the troops the reason for the decreased violence or was this brought about because Democrats were elected to the majority? Why do you want to put more troops in Afghanistan (to emulate the strategy in Iraq) if you opposed it as wrong then and still would not support it today?
Obama is busy trying to appease everyone in order to get elected. He needs to appeal to the left wing moonbats who oppose any military action and want an immediate withdraw. He needs to appeal to people who want victory as the exit strategy so he can pick up those votes and he needs to appear as if he knew what he was talking about all along so that people will not think he is inexperienced or a flip-flopper.
If he admits he was wrong about the surge then his base will think he abandoned them. He will suffer a reverse of Hillary’s fate. She refused to admit her vote for the war was wrong and she lost support. If he admits that the surge was the right thing to do he will lose support as well.
The problem is, he was wrong. He was wrong about it all and now he is being called on it. The Gateway Pundit has video of an interview with Katie Couric of CBS and Obama comes off as smug and uninformed. Obama’s position is that the surge worked but it was bad strategy. In the interview, he makes a weak attempt at deflecting to how money could have been used to do other things. It is quite pathetic.
Here is an idea. Pick a position and stick with it. If you are wrong then have the testicular fortitude to say that your initial assessment was wrong and move on from there.
The problem is, Obama is trying to be everything to everyone and in the end it will be his undoing. As the next 15 weeks move on more Americans will see that Obama really lacks the experience to lead us in these perilous times.
Obama had better get it right because if he is elected and then takes actions that cause us to lose the war it will alienate a lot of this country. Americans, all real Americans, can’t stand the thought of losing. Obama’s plan is to lose and if we had followed his desires we would be doing just that.
I just wish that the Democrats had as much desire for our country to win the war as they do to win elections.
Others:
Stop the ACLU | Hot Air | Marc Ambinder | Jake Trapper | Commentary Magazine | Brutally Honest
Tags: defeat, inexperience, katie couric, McCain, Obama, surge, triumph, war