Obama's Views On Iraq Have Changed
Posted March 27th, 2008 by Da King
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama's view of the Iraq war is unqualified. "I WILL END THE WAR IN IRAQ !" Obama bellows to thunderous applause. That is his promise, that is what his supporters want, and that's why they support him. When I heard Obama speak in person, his unqualified statement about ending the war in Iraq brought his largest applause of the day, by far. In Ohio, Obama's second most popular position was probably his opposition to NAFTA, but now we all know he was just kidding about that, as was Hillary. You got played, Ohio. Never forget that the Hopester and Clinton 2.0 are above all, politicians. They are masters at telling people what they want to hear.
So, the question to ask is:
Does Obama really intend to pull the US troops out of Iraq, or is that just red-meat campaign chum to get the voters to bite ?
Let's look at a little history to begin to answer the question. It is well known that Obama made a speech in 2002 against the Iraq war. Everybody knows, because Obama won't let us forget it. He brings it up every five minutes. Any time Obama is criticized for anything, he comes back with 'yes, but I was against the Iraq war, unlike Hillary and McCain, so my judgement is better'. It's really becoming quite irritating, especially since Obama didn't have to cast an actual vote on the war, since he wasn't in the Senate yet. We aren't supposed to remember that in 2004, Obama said he wasn't sure how he would have voted, since he wasn't privy to the intelligence that the rest of Congress saw.
There's more you aren't supposed to remember about 2004, like the following Obama statements about the war, according to a Boston Globe article:
In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.
"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."
The statements are consistent with others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US invasion. But they also represent perhaps his most forceful language in depicting withdrawal from crisis-ridden Iraq as a betrayal of the Iraqi people and a risk to national security.
These comments from Obama in 2004 sound a whole lot like comments the Republicans make. Just like them, as a matter of fact. It seems Obama did realize that abandoning Iraq would have dire consequences. So what changed ? Is abandoning Iraq to the radical Islamic influences of Iran and Al Qaeda now desirable ? No, it most certainly isn't.
In 2005, Obama's stance changed, and what changed was: politics. As public sentiment soured on the war, particularly Democratic sentiment, Obama soured too (just like a slew of other Dems). He began calling for an immediate troop withdrawal, the consequences to Iraqis be damned. After all, this was Obama's political career we were talking about. He wanted to be president, and couldn't afford to consider the consequences of an Iraq pullout any longer. Look what happened to Joe Lieberman when he opposed a troop withdrawal. The Democrats kicked Lieberman out of the party, and Lieberman was a former Democratic VP candidate ! The left would tolerate no dissent. In order to become president, Obama had to reject Bush's war in every way, as did Hillary, as did Edwards, as did all the Democratic contenders. Never mind that several of those Democratic contenders had voted to authorize Bush's war in the first place. That old history needed to be erased, and some new history created in it's place.
In Dem world, such position changes and conformity to the politically correct view is called 'leadership". Obama became a great 'leader', by, um, following. Others would call that 'taking the path of least resistance', but hey, those who don't hop on board the Obama Hope wagon are probably just racists anyway, right Dems ? Who cares what they think.
In conclusion, I would be very surprised if a president Barack Obama started pulling the troops out of Iraq immediately, unless the generals and Iraqi leaders also wanted it. To do so would be deeply irresponsible, and Obama knows it. He's a smart guy. He's also smart enough to keep telling the Democratic primary voters exactly what they want to hear, like any good salesman.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:08 am
You're exactly right here, King.
Obama will not pull U.S. troops out of Iraq if — God forbid — he becomes president. Neither will Comrade Hillary.
The best either of them would do would be to make token cuts in a desperate attempt to appease their loon base which will know they were sold out.
And you're correct, also, as to why the U.S. military cannot be pulled out of Iraq. It would be entirely irresponsible to do so and leave the region in chaos.
What the loons in the Dim Party refuse to understand is that it is one thing to argue that it was unwise to go into Iraq, but another thing entirely on what best to do now that we are there. These simpletons think they can reverse what they consider was a bad initial decision by merely cut and running now. Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way.
The only discussion worth having is what to do in Iraq given that we are already there.
But let's not go overboard on our praise of B. HUSSEIN Obama and Comrade Hillary. Neither of these two would actualy try and win the war. Oh no, that would be too pro-American for either of these two leftists to contimplate.
On the other hand, McCain will, if not actually win the war, then at least get the situation to a point where U.S. troops could be safely pulled out and the area secured.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Great job of pointing out how Obama has vacillated on the Iraq situation. The painful area for him and his followers is that he is making promises he knows he can't keep and the dupes are eating it up as it they believe him about getting out of Iraq. I think that most of them really believe the messiah's promises about this and won't even take a chance on seeing that he is making an undeliverable campaign promise to suck them in.
As Vince says," God forbid", that the man should be elected but if he is I wonder how long it will take for those he sucked in primarily with this promise realize they were taken by this promise.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Exactly. He tells them what they want to hear. But even he knows what a disaster a quick pullout would be.
Ghost of Vince Foster…you better watch it. You know we arent allowed to say his middle name.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Ben Keeler writes:
"Ghost of Vince foster … you better watch it. You know we arent allowed to say his [Obama's] middle name."
Thanks for the warning, Ben. And in that light, I have a question for you.
As you know, the mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, has just been charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance in office. The news reports say he could get 15-years of state time.
So, according to the rule of political correctness, is this like a B. "Hussein" Obama thing where we're instructed not to use the mayor's first name, "Kwame," because it might imply that he's something other than an Irishman?
I'm just askin'.
PS: Also, am I allowed to mention that Mayor Kwane Kilpatrick is a Dim ….. and a superdelegate at that!
March 27th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I wonder if the Al-Jazeera network affiliates, CNN & MSNBC, will pick up on his flip-flopping?
Common-sense would dictate that one shouldn't pull out the troops, without weighing the dire consequences. However, the lunacy from the far-left listens to no rhyme or reason and seems to follow the pulse of the Seattle cappucino crowd. They couldn't even bring themselves to trust the words of General Petraeus, a non-partisan military leader, without smearing him in the NY times first. If one couldn't bring themselves to recognize the words of an expert, who is the expert they'll entrust reporting the unbiased truth? Wolf Blitzer?
It's easy to say one was always against the war, when they never were in a position to influence it. But then again, Osama's sock puppet regime refuses to question their hero's wavering. At least, while in a hypnotic state.
I can already see Hillary pulling this "rabbit" out of her hat.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Straw men. Neither Hillary nor Obama have called for a quick or, somehow, reckless pullout. They have both said they would phase out troops from Iraq over time.
McCain and other such neos, refuse to even say that.
And genuises……where is the flip-flop? Obama spoke out very clearly against invading and occupying Iraq before W. pulled the trigger. For the political opportunist you make him out to be, what Einstein would take such an unpopular position, even among so-called liberals at the time?
And once W. went into the China shop and broke everything in sight……it was too late to turn back…..the crime had been committed. All that was left for Obama to consider was, What to do now? He has sought to diminish our presence in Iraq, obstructed by GOP'ers of course, while at the same time coming down on the side of protecting and assisting the troops.
Now that's what happened.
To those( that means Ben here), that would say Obama is just telling them what they want to hear……was that was he was doing in his 2002 speech? And if not….why did he give the speech? Is it even possible, in your mind, that he had strong convictions?
Finally….King….when did you start using the same talking points as Bill Clinton? Just wonderin'.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
obama is a flaming liberal left of ted kennedy—enough said
March 27th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Mr. King,
Your posting parallels that of Peter Wehner who wrote a comprehensive article on Obama’s up and down positions of the war in his “Obama’s War” (Commentary, April 2008).
To see Obama’s changing positions on the war, Wehner writes:
“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. Then, in 2004 when the war was still supported by most Americans, he associated himself with the Bush campaign 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 full-scale withdrawal.”
On the surge, Wehner notes that:
“On January 10, 2007, Bush announced the administration’s change in strategy in Iraq, popularly dubbed the ‘surge.’ That very night Obama declared he saw nothing in the plan that would ‘make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.’”
Regarding Obama’s position on withdrawal, Wehner has this to say:
"In September (2007), a mere three months after the final elements of the 30,000-strong surge force had landed in Iraq, he declared that the moment had arrived to remove all our combat troops ‘immediately.’ ‘Not in six months or one year — now.’”
In summary, the article concludes that having hitched his fortunes to the proposition that the war is lost and it is time for the U.S. to exit, Obama is in a predicament having to either deny the clear evidence that sectarian violence is significantly down in Iraq (by 90% in Baghdad) or to rewrite and revise his position.
“Like the rest of the story rehearsed here, what all this suggests is that Barak Obama does not represent an authentic new ‘brand’ in American politics; rather he has shown himself to be an exceptionally adapt political animal who can adjust to the prevailing political winds with seamless ease.“
Given Obama’s “flexibility” on the matter, I agree with you, King (and The Ghost above), that if elected, President Obama will conveniently find a rational for not fulfilling his current campaign promise of withdrawal.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
King, I think Jacob just called you a plagirist……see, you are just like Obama! Dirty traitor! Godless lefty! Hitler! Sorry that my namecalling is so lame, but Vince won't fight with me anymore so I'm out of practice.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Maybe Obama will change his mind about taxing the rich, too.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Rev said: To those( that means Ben here), that would say Obama is just telling them what they want to hear……was that was he was doing in his 2002 speech?
As shown with his "carefully" scripted speech, in response to the pastor Wright dilemna, Obama has shown a talent for walking both sides of the fence. Attempt to salvage the "bread and butter" voters, without burning the bridge to the far-left radicals. If it sounds good to CodeStink and Loseon.org, it's gotta be good for business?
McCain has been for the war, since it's conception, and he's more than happy to hammer away at the Islamo-fascists. There has been no reading between the lines when it comes to his stance. Trying to figure out the other two is like solving a rubic's cube with 8 colors……..impossible. They only speak in generalizations which, appear to soothe the liberal mentality, but specifics are conveniently left out. Possibly Obama and Hillary can elaborate on their military expertise, one day, and give the public something to chew on. Obama says he would have voted opposite Hillary, regarding Iraq, but how will anyone ever know?
While GW has taken a beating from the friendly media, he has steadfastly refused to cave into their rhetoric. There are many things we conservatives hold against him, but his unwavering perserverence is unmatched and highly recognized. In the end, I guess he could have taken the popular escape route and blamed it all on the failed policies of Bill Clinton.
Before the geniuses even mention another soundbite pertaining to Iraq, should they not be extinguishing the flames within their own party? The riots of Denver shall be a convention not soon forgotten. Hopefully, the price of gas will hold steady as we have many swiftboats to fuel and I can only imagine what sort of a tingle that will put in Chris Mathew's pants.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
why do you all try to overanalyze these things? its laughable–obama is a flaming lib and hilary will tax your sorry arses into jimmy carter type days. whats the argument in here? liberals have such little sense on the economy and national security i find it breathtakingly, astonishingly, absurd that any repub even bother to talk about it. as a good RNC member i don't even concern myself with the liberal nominee.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Rusty, you said:
"liberals have such little sense on the economy and national security i find it breathtakingly, astonishingly, absurd that any repub even bother to talk about it. as a good RNC member i don't even concern myself with the liberal nominee."
Just a couple of questions, bro. How much did you pay for gas this week and how much has your house decreased in value in the last 8 years? And explain to me what year it was when 9/11 occurred? Thanks. And, as a good RNC member, how's it going to feel voting for a D in November, since your party nominated one?
March 28th, 2008 at 6:08 am
da truth said: Thanks. And, as a good RNC member, how's it going to feel voting for a D in November, since your party nominated one?
Wasn't our intention, but he is the closest thing to the R. I'd like you to come clean, for a change.
Had Osama not entered this race……………you know damn well you'd be cozying up with Hillary. Any liberal that states otherwise, is in complete denial! I'm sure you voted for Kerry and Gore too. Were they you're absolute 1st choice? The D's and R's don't really matter……………….it's all about who's closest to your ideologies. McCain gives me 50%, while I see myself giving the others 50%…………..of my paycheck, that is.
Why would I vote for a socialist then? To punish myself?
March 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Liar, liar, pants on fire alert !
The Reverend says, "Neither Hillary nor Obama have called for a quick or, somehow, reckless pullout. They have both said they would phase out troops from Iraq over time."
False. Obama voted against funding the troops in Iraq in May 2007. We can't keep the troops in Iraq for 10 minutes without funding them. Obama even went against the majority Dem opinion on that vote, catering to the anti-war left instead.
Obama also voted for the bill that Bush vetoed prior to that in April 2007, which had troop withdrawal deadlines, which would have started pulling them out by October 1, 2007, with all troops out 180 days later (they'd all be out by about now).
Obama's congressional votes were the poster boys for 'reckless'. He shared Harry Reid's cynical view that the war was lost, his withdrawal votes cared nothing for the fate of the Iraqi people, and he dismissed the surge just like Hillary did, though to Obama's credit, I don't believe he called general Petraeus an outright liar like Hillary did.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Da King Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Liar, liar, pants on fire alert !
Nice work King! I hope the Rev can face up to these clear inconsistencies and acknowledge Obama may be a waffle too. Besides, you didn't leave enough room to "spin".
March 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Dear Da Truth(except when I am lying)
The Emperor's Club. "Unlike the scumbag R party that……"
Shall I assume you were misquoted or taken out of context?
March 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
AC, a couple quickly:
"Scumbag party" and calling you a scumbag are not the same. As Vince said to me when I railed that he called Ds names, he said he was talking about the nitwits that run the party, not the many Americans who make up the party. So, I fall on my liberal sword and offer that as my excuse. The Devil (Vince) made me do it.
AL, Thank you for admitting that you will be voting for a D this fall. You are not the first courageous R on this blog to so admit, so you are in good company. I would clarify something for you, since I think you are new here, but you can go back and check every post I have ever posted on here, and you will never hear any support for Mrs. Clinton. I voted for Mr. Obama in the primary because much like you, I see him as the lesser of the evils in my party. But unlike you, I have no problem admitting it. My first choice, on either side, has never even gotten this far, so that might tell you why I have sat out as many presidential elections as I have voted in. I think the last person I voted for who actually won was Mr. Reagan, it's been that long. If Mrs. Clinton wins, I will have an extremely difficult choice to make versus two candidates I cannot stand (but by then it won't matter she can't beat McCain in a general election, as we have discussed before).
March 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
So it was taken out of context? Perhaps you should run for office since you have that acute ability to parse and continue on your way.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
da truth: But unlike you, I have no problem admitting it. My first choice, on either side, has never even gotten this far, so that might tell you why I have sat out as many presidential elections as I have voted in.
Unlike me? I've admitted it on several occasions. My choices of Fred and Mitt were both eliminated. With what is boiling down in this GE, I'm more than happy to vote for McCain. I'm not one of the disgruntled conservatives that will sit out and hand another vote to the opponents. I still have an obligation to prevent their success.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:30 am
AL, I absolutely admit I will be voting for a D this fall. I have no problem saying it. Thank you for admitting it. Anyone who is "more than happy" to vote for any of the remaining candidates is not nearly as informed as they should be. You should absolutely be furious at what we are left with as choices in the general election, just as you should have been in (at least) the past four elections.
AC, I did not say it was taken out of context. You take it however you want. Put whatever words you like into my mouth, the scumbag R party is good at that. What exactly does a conservative have to be angry about anyway, since we live in a conservative country in which your party had unfettered power to do whatever it wanted from 2000 to 2006 without any checks or balances? Those years must have been utopia for you, right?
March 29th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Da "Truth"
Thank you for proving my point
1. You used the word scumbag now you are accusing me of putting words in your mouth. At least Carville stands by what he says
2. In your simplistic view there are only two schools those that believe as you do and the evil R's. I have nothing but contempt for an administration that engages in out of control spending , open borders, ignores those laws it disagrees with and puts profit ahead of principle and the lives of our military people. Engaging you in a converstaion is how a physicist must feel when trying to have a converstation with me about the string theroy. not matter what he says I just dont get it.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
King: One man's recklessness is another man's patriotism. Funny how that works.
Bush has been the most reckless president in my lifetime. Yet neos still hold on to the guy as a resolute patriot. I sure as hell can't figure that out.
But this is crap….
"The Reverend says, "Neither Hillary nor Obama have called for a quick or, somehow, reckless pullout. They have both said they would phase out troops from Iraq over time."
False. Obama voted against funding the troops in Iraq in May 2007. We can't keep the troops in Iraq for 10 minutes without funding them. Obama even went against the majority Dem opinion on that vote, catering to the anti-war left instead."
Ending the funding, which would have been the brave, patriotic and smart thing to do, would not have meant a removal in 10 minutes of the troops. You are being silly here. Ending funding or setting timelines to get out would have only given our military leaders the direction our civilian leaders wanted to go with Iraq. Which would have resulted, just as I stated, in a "phase out over time".
It's ignorant and misleading to suggest some frantic clustermess of removing our troops has been endorsed by either of the Dem candidates.
We are not at war in Iraq. Iraqis are fighting each other. The surge is and always has been a political hoax. Predictably, it has worked on the neos. AND…the neos couldn't have cared less about the Iraqi people when they were dropping all those bombs on Iraqi women and children in 2003, so spare me the concerns for them now.
End it now.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
King,
Check it out.
Another Hollywood anti-Iraq War movie is tanking at the box office. This one is called "Stop Loss."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/another_antiwar_movie_tanks_at.html
It's joining the six or so others anti-American films on Iraq that are swimming in red ink.
But wait! These propaganda movies might recover their cost when they're released in the Lands of Islam, not to mention Euroabia, too.
Ah, that Hollywood trash; they know how to make a buck whether they are corrupting the culture & America's youth or stabbing America in the back. Masters, they are.
Gee, it's no wonder the Dims get such big contributions from Hollywood. The two are soul-mates. I bet the Dims even get more in donations from Hollywood than from the abortion mills. What do you think?
But getting back to the political aspects of the Iraq War:
B. Hussein Obama better start hedging his bets sooner rather than later. As the surge takes effect and produces results, there is declining support for Obama's quick pull 'strategy.'
Yes, yes, the loon left will always hope for an Americasn defeat, but the not the average voter.
Poor BO — wrong on the economy, wrong on race, and now wrong on Iraq. That's three strikes. He's out.
March 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Rev,
Interesting rebuttal you had there. You denied the plain facts of Obama's votes, and called me ignorant for presenting the plain facts, which cannot be disputed by you or anyone else. His votes were his votes.
Do you actually think you are fooling anybody ? The folks here are nowhere near that stupid. You better go back home if you want to float such tripe.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Vince,
A couple days ago, I heard the actor John Cusack talking about why all the Hollywood anti-war movies have tanked (Cusack has already been in 2 or 3), and then he said he was making a new anti-war movie that was more comedic and positive. Whatever it takes to push the leftist view for them. Hollywood will never stop.
Did you notice in Obama's speech about the economy that he stole every idea from someone else ? On the few occasions when he wasn't talking in broad generalities, that is.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:24 am
King,
Yes, B. Hussein Obama is an empty suit.
Many who votes for him in the earlier primaries are sobering up and asking themselves, "What the hell was I thinking."
March 30th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I once read a Cusack guest column on the Huffington Post. It was as non-sensical as the Reverend's stuff, but more mean-spirited and not as well written.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
AC, not sure what I admitted, but you're welcome. If I called you a scumbag (which I didn't), I think I should be allowed that transgression after all the names that I have been called in this blog.
You still didn't answer my question. Instead, as is typical of the scumbag R party, you instead told me what I think. Thanks for proving my point; that you really have no reason to be angry.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Sadly, Power Mongers, Obama and Hillary both suffer from the disease of Egomania. This real ( look it up on Web MD ) dangerous disease requires them to satisfy their constant cravings for Ego Inflation by speaking to their friends The Media and telling them what they believe is required to Buy Votes, This will be at taxpayers expense of course. Neither are fit to serve. It is proven that Egomaniacs of the past have risen to power, Causing tragic consequences. These include Hitler and Stalin. Surely we can with little effort identify a great many Egomaniacs in all levels of government here and worldwide. The Egomaniac will and does say and do anything to further their need for Ego inflation and the need for power that can never be satisfyed. The will never be able to be effective hard working public servants because they are incapable of sincerely listening to the needs and ideas of others, The expert advise that is required to run a effective government. They believe they are the only experts at everything. Obama is a classic clinical example of Egomania. He has called the inspirational words of real patriotic leaders of our past "Just Words" as if only his words matter. Sadly, To the Egomaniac it is only their own words that qualify to inflate their Ego's. Like a drug addict craves drugs, The Egomaniac constantally craves Ego inflation. They will pretend to listen, Pretend to care, They will carefully choose their words to get the results they need to rise to power, To Buy Votes. They disguise their true agendas as Hope and Change when reality it's only Hype.
We must enlighten ourselves, Be wise and cautious voters, This country is in trouble, We must not settle for anything less than truely experienced, patriotic, humble public servants, Void of Egomania and Egocentric agenda.
Beyond that, Obama's Kenya passport needs to be made public, Where has he been that he has chosen to Not Be An American or Could Not Be An American. We all need to be aware of the workings of the South Chicago political machine, Where the politicians and their chosen few become very rich and the poor remain poor. The Cintom Mchine has been more exposed, Yet the democrats are in denial of what's real and Real Scary.
Everyone should read Lee Iacocca's book Where Have All The Leaders Gone.
Everyone must BEWARE THE EGOMANIACS & EGOCENTRICS !!!
March 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Mr. Enlightened,
While you are right to question politician's egomania (or meglomania), I would point out that all politicians suffer from this disease. How does one trust someone seeking that much power?
But while we are at it, why don't we discuss GWB's Oedipus complex?
March 30th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Frank,
GWB is done, We must now concentrate on electing a leader that can steer us through the dyer straits we are in and effect survival. Obama and hillary are corrupt and unfit to serve. I believe that when all is revealed there will be a movement to deport them rather than elect them. For ages Egomaniacs have become leaders, Often with very tragic consequences. We need to stop this, We need to find real truth and leadership. No more corrupt Clinton or South Chicago Political Machines. No more graft and corruption, No more politicians throwing taxpayer dollars at problems only to have it caught by corrupt politicians for their own gain and that of their chosen few. Doesn't it bother you that a preacher from a ghetto church has a $10 million home now. Doesn't it bother you that Obama's American Hating Wife has a job as a hospital administrator and is being paid twice the national average for that position. Does she have the job because she is most qualified and is exibiting superior performance, Not ! Americans need to become enlightened and not tolerate corruption and egomania, Americans need to demant truth and honor, Demand experience and performance. This is not a political situation, It is very much a survival situation. It is not a racial situation, No group has been more devistated by egomaniac and corrupt politicians than the blacks in this world. This election must be about truth, experience, proven performance, honor, humility, and void of egocentric agenda. We must help ourselves to elect a leader that will help us. We must be wise and cautious, We must demand information, Information delieverd without the typical egocentric media agenda and spin. If we do not we surely will suffer consequences that will beyond unpleasant. All choices have consequences, This election hopefully will prove that good choices have good consequences. Bad choices surely will have bad consequences. It is sad we are offered so few choices. Obama and Hillary cannot be allowed to win, This leaves only McCain and he is a democrat in disguise, Lacking economic strength, He will require a VP like Rommney to help him with that. Beware Hype disguised as Hope and Change. Beware The Egomaniacs and Egocentrics. Beware Denial and Blind Faith, Be Enlightened !!!
March 30th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
We cannot even think of deporting Hillary or Obama. They are minorities. It would be discrimination. Also, I have heard that Hillary and Obama because of their bad friends will be required to submit to FBI, CIA, Pentagon, And Homeland Security background checks. This is discrimination too. The republicans are trying to find out bad stuff about them. I worry that because of their bad friends they won't pass. Then McCain will win automatically. We all need to write to Oprah because she can get the media to put a stop to this discrimination. She hated republicans and has the power to be sure they don't win the election. We don't need to do any more than what she tells us to do. Democrats will win for sure if we all listen to her.
March 30th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Enlightened,
Regarding your analysis of Egomania.
Below I present another way of perhaps saying the same thing while showing the problem of what you call "Egomania" is especially troublesome for those who call themselves, liberals, or leftists or progressives.
Take B. Hussein Obama and Comrade Hillary, for example. They both have a chronic case of narcissism and are afflicted with a strong a loathing for America and the country's traditions & history.
These two, like all Leftists, try to coat this combination of hate and belief in their self-importance with a feigned concern for the “poor” and the "downtrodden," knowing full well that there will be an amply supply of useful idiots out there who’ll buy this hogwash. [You see many of such idiots all over the Internet, even posting here.]
And because they are both so narcissistic, HC and BO have a psychological need to look at themselves as saviors, redeemers. [Good Lord; can you imagine needing the help of either of these two useless twits in your life? Dollars to donuts, B. Hussein Obama could even change a flat tire if his life depended on it.]
Yes, the Comrade and the Obama-man feel they are anointed; they are among the elect, the chosen few, the enlighten which is the most satisfying [and self-delusional] form of narcissism of all.
What does it all mean? It's that people of this ilk, those of the Left, the Progressives, are the last ones that ever should be let near the levers of power in any rational thinking society.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
King, you gotta get some filters on this thing…..
March 30th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Of course we all know why and how our local evangalist has secured the money to buy a Boeing 747 and it should sicken us. Where did a preacher in a poor South Chicago community get the money to buy a multi million dollar mansion?
March 30th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Truth must be demanded. Sinister and Corrupt Politicians and their Chosen Few must be rooted out and exposed. This election must be about race to the extent that the most affected by crooked politicians have been the poor blacks. We need to be very cautious and find whats True & Honorable before we make our choice for leadership. All choices have consequences. For generations we have made bad choices and have suffered for it. Good choices will generate good consequences. Isn't it worth a try?
March 30th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
As an Emergency Measure, Due to devistating negative information becoming public knowledge about both Hillary Clinton and Osama Obama, Will nominate Al Gore and he will accept. His choice of VP should be Joe Biden.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Gore / Biden would be a wonderful team and would Win
March 30th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
There is ample evidence to call for an immediate investigation of Obama.
Where has he been using his kenya passport.
What is his relationship to Kenya and other governments.
Does he have money, income, assets in Kenya.
Is he diverting money to Kenya.
Where has the millions in campaign contributions come from.
What has his involvement been in the crooked politics in South Chicago.
How did he become rich so quickly.
Why is his Anti-American wife employed as a hospital administrator and making twice what hospital administrators make elsewhere.
Was Obama somehow involved in getting millions to the preacher Wright for his mansion.
Too many really scary questions which should produce even scarier answers.
Make this issue a daily media event.
Write letters to the editor.
Demand disclosure.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:33 am
Obama is a minority, It would be discrimination to make him disclose anything. Oprah and the Media will be very upset about this. They know that if the republicans find out stuff about Obama they will be able to beat him. Write to Oprah, She will put a stop to all this.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:23 am
To follow along with Enlightened's comment about Mrs. Obama making three times the national average salary for her position:
Mrs. Obama's hospital salary nearly tripled right after Barack was elected to the Senate. One of the hospital administrators said at the time that Mrs. Obama was "worth her weight in gold". That statement was proven true shortly afterward, as Barack Obama steered a $1 million earmark to his wifey's hospital.
And we are supposed to somehow believe that Barack Obama is some kind of NEW politician, due of his flowery rhetoric with 'hope' and 'change' sprinkled in ? Give me a break.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:00 am
National Security asks, "Why is his [BO] Anti-American wife employed as a hospital administrator and making twice what hospital administrators make elsewhere?"
For the same reason the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock hired Comrade Hillary.
It wasn't for Hillary's legal expertise for goodness sake. It was for the influence she could bring due, not to any skill or talent on her part, but rather to the sole fact that she was married to the governor of the state. Fact.
Ditto for the America-hating Michelle Obama — as King pointed out above.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Please every Patriot, Every Scared and Concerned about out country person. Write letters to the Editor, Again & Again to every publication you can think of. Obama must be exposed. It is only a grass roots effort that will save us from sure corruption and security risks. This is as important as voting itself. We can't depend on the egocentric media or egomaniacs like Limbaugh to save us from the egomaniac Obama and his secret egocentric agenda. Please Help us all.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Oprah will make sure Obama is elected. She is for sure the most powerful person in the world. Don't bother fighting this, He's in and the republicans will all be thrown out. The rich will pay. Corporations will pay. Oil companies will pay. There is no way to stop this, Oprah wants Obama to be our leader.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Hey Urgent Request,
Check out this web site for ammo on exposing B. Hussein Obama.
http://miraclesdaily.blogspot.com/
March 31st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Urgent is Right On. We must all participate in a grass roots effort to research, root out, expose, and publish information about corruption, hidden agenda's, secrets, and lies. Oprah, lol and the media will not provide us what we need to be responsible voters. Our future, Our childerns future, And our country's future are at stake. We cannot afford or should we endure any more mistakes, Any more corruption, And any more Egomaniacs. We matter not them. The elected official must be a public servant. No more Power Mongers. We need and must settle for no less than hard working ( for us ) and experienced public servants. If we don't generate truth in this election, There will be none. The media seems to believe that Bush Bashing is all thats needed to win, Thats not what we need, It shouldn't be a party or candidates platform or their strategy to win. Please people, research, report, be wise, be enlightened and help others be as well. Truth is Us!
April 1st, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Check it out!
In speaking about abortion the other day, B. Hussein Obama said that if his daughters ever made a 'mistake,' he would not want to "punish" them with a baby.
No mention of the baby. It's obviously OK with BO that he/she gets ripped apart in the abortion mill. Oh well, that's life, I guess.
Now politically speaking, we can thank Hussein Obama for crass comment. It can only help motivate the pro-life movement to more actively support & work, if not for MCCain, than at least for the defeat of Obama.
And for the record: Comrade Hillary is as pro-abortion as BO but she is not as apt to make such a stupid statement as he did.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Vince,
I read your link, and there's only one problem with Hillary exposing Obama's character…
Hillary doesn't have any character either. It's a wash.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:39 am
It's 3 am, The phone rings in the whitehouse bedroom. It's a National Emergency from one of the many threats we face from many fronts…
Hillary awnsers the phone… Damn It Monika, I don't know or care where Bill is, I thought he was with you !!!
or
Obama awnsers the phone… I Vote Present !!!
Wake Up America !!!
April 8th, 2008 at 12:25 am
LOL.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Obama… " I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction "
The Winds Have Shifted !!!
Please Obama… Go stand with the Muslims !!!