31 Comments

• 1. Joe  |  April 7th, 2008 at 10:48 pm

  Matt… didn’t you already cover this here?

  Slow news day for ya?

  [Ed. note: no, the post linked in here is more extensive and current.]

• 2. Arctic Fox  |  April 7th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

  McCain keeps lying too. But that for some reason isn’t regarded as newsworthy.

  @Joe, with the quality - or rather lack thereof - of McCain’s speech today, it doesn’t surprise me Matt et al would rather try and complain about Obama lying. They’d rather not be drawn into a discussion about what McCain said - it would be too uncomfortable.

• 3. Joe  |  April 7th, 2008 at 11:00 pm

  you mean that McCain speech where he said this…

  McCain said U.S. forces should be given time for political reconciliation to take hold, saying the year-old “surge” overseen by Patraeus has led to dramatic reduction in violence and “opened the way for a return to something approaching normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi.”

  So the surge has lasted longer than what Rumsfeld said the whole war would last (6 days, 6 weeks, I don’t think 6 months).

  The American miltary won the war pretty quickly. How do you “win” an occupation? You can’t. We are being used as a crutch.

• 4. Arctic Fox  |  April 7th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

  Yup, that’s the one. Where he said

  “We are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat.”

  That’s quite true. With Bush at the helm we fell into the abyss long ago, and McCain wants to keep us there.

  But hey, let’s not let that stop the people here complaining about Obama…

• 5. SEW  |  April 7th, 2008 at 11:14 pm

  I don’t think Obama is lying. He is simply selling snakeoil.

  http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_bkXNfvGHvk

• 6. Diana Powe  |  April 7th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

  Wow. Even by Blogs For Victo(r)y standards, this is pretty thin gruel.

• 7. Arctic Fox  |  April 7th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

  So the video accuses Obama of wanting to sell out our freedoms? When ever since 9/11 (and before if some sources are to be believed) it’s the REPUBLICANS that have been selling out our freedoms.

  There’s nothing like a quick reversal of the facts.

• 8. Arctic Fox  |  April 7th, 2008 at 11:27 pm

  Oh, and those “State Concentration Camps” mentioned in the video - are those the ones being built by KBR?

• 9. Diana Powe  |  April 7th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

  Far better to get exercised over the fake concentration camps than to pay any attention to the United States becoming an endemic surveillance state at the behest of the Bush Administration.

• 10. Matt Margolis  |  April 7th, 2008 at 11:47 pm

  Diana, only Democrats violate wiretapping laws.

  If you have a problem with surveilling terrorists, then please explain why.

• 11. Diana Powe  |  April 7th, 2008 at 11:58 pm

  Matt, your dishonestly constructed question notwithstanding, I have every desire for the government of the United States to conduct surveillance on anyone who would do harm to any Americans whether those persons intended to use the tactic of terrorism or any other tactic. My demand, as is the demand of all genuinely patriotic Americans, is that the government do so in compliance with the laws of the United States. We know this has not been done during the last seven years because President Bush has admitted to such after he gratuitously lied in saying that such surveillance was being done with warrants. So, no, I don’t have a “problem with surveilling terrorists”, but I do have a problem with an Administration that violates federal law.

• 12. Matt Margolis  |  April 8th, 2008 at 12:17 am

  Diana, now you’re the one being dishonest. The Bush Administration has not violated any laws. You saying something, or wanting to believe something, doesn’t make it so. But, I can’t imagine you letting facts interfere with your Bush hatred.

• 13. Freedom1  |  April 8th, 2008 at 12:24 am

  Did Obama Hide His Father’s Communist Ideology?
  (Via Lgf), “Barack Obama has written in his autobiography that he organized his life around the ideals imparted by his Kenyan father, Barak H. Obama, a Harvard-trained economist. So what were those ideals?

  PrestoPundit has found a 1965 paper written by Obama’s father, in which he advocates:

  — 100% taxation

  — communal farms / the elimination of private farming

  — the nationalization of businesses owned by “Europeans” and “Asians”.

  — “active” measures to bring about a classless society

  “PrestoPundit is calling it the “Rosebud” of the Obama campaign: Barack Obama hid his father’s socialist and anti-Western convictions from his readers.

• 14. southerner  |  April 8th, 2008 at 12:26 am

  How come you’re posting about Obama on the McCain blog? Could it be that, erm, not much is going on over there? To say the least you guys seem less than energized about your candidate. Personally I am REALLY looking forward to seeing Obama debating him on the podiums later on this year. That will be a smack down of unprecidented proportions.

• 15. Freedom1  |  April 8th, 2008 at 12:56 am

  Obama’s Pastor Jeremiah Wright Is A Former Muslim, Nation of Islam style.

  (April 07th 2008) - Infidels Are Cool,
  “A reader from Free Republic has dug up an old article last year (March 07) From TNR about Obama. It was written by Ryan Lizza, Senior editor at The New Republic. It’s a biographical piece, but in the article, it explicitly states that Jeremiah Wright is a former Muslim.

  TNR: 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.’”

  The crosscurrents appealed to Obama. He came to believe that the church could not only compensate for the limitations of Alinsky-style organizing but could help answer the nagging identity problem he had come to Chicago to solve. “It was a powerful program, this cultural community,” he wrote, “one more pliant than simple nationalism, more sustaining than my own brand of organizing.”

• 16. Diana Powe  |  April 8th, 2008 at 1:00 am

  Matt,

  The fact that you wish to credulously and uncritically accept as fact statements made by the government shows the way in which real conservatives differ from that which you claim as conservatism. Unfortunately for you, the President of the United States has specifically admitted to violating Title 50 of the U. S. Code:
  

  § 1809. Criminal sanctions

  (a) Prohibited activities
  A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
  (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
  (2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

  The Administration has claimed, much like President Nixon did, “that when the President does it, it’s not illegal”, however, the mere assertion of such an extra-legal authority does not make it so. The fact that the Administration is so anxious to have retroactive immunity from lawsuits for the telecoms shows their desire to quash any court learning any of the true scope of the Executive Branch’s activities.

• 17. Dennis  |  April 8th, 2008 at 1:15 am

  Matt, you say, “The Bush Administration has not violated any laws. You saying something, or wanting to believe something, doesn’t make it so. But, I can’t imagine you letting facts interfere with your Bush hatred.”

  Here’s a fact for you: “In a remarkable repudiation of the Bush administration’s exercise of power in the war on terror, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the military commissions established to try Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detainees violate both U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.” http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1151571924985

  Essentially the Bush admin violated the law for two years prior to the ruling, but acquiesced to it afterward, so the violation kinda sorta became moot, considering the weasely Congress and its unwillingness to apply justice to this contemptuous administration. Exactly the same holds true with warrantless wiretapping.

  It has nothing to do with Bush hatred - unless you’re referring to Bush’s hatred of laws being applied to him.

  Of course there are plenty more examples, such as Bush lying to Congress about the cost of the Medicare program - a legal no-no - the administration’s hijinks concerning the political firings of US attorneys about which nothing has been proven yet but enough is known to infer guilt. Then there’s Scooter Libby’s conviction for lying to a grand jury (a conviction, mind you).

  I won’t be more tedious, but you are dead in the water, li’l fella.

• 18. SEW  |  April 8th, 2008 at 4:44 am

  “”As president and commander in chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article II of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it. And after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against Al Qaeda,” he said.

  Decisions on what conversations to monitor are made at the Fort Meade, Md., headquarters, approved by an NSA shift supervisor and carefully recorded, said Gen. Michael Hayden, the principal deputy director of intelligence.

  “The reason I emphasize that this is done at the operational level is to remove any question in your mind that this is in any way politically influenced,” said Hayden, who was NSA director when the program began.

  One national security lawyer said Bush does have solid constitutional authority to act.

  “The highest court that’s looked at these questions has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority. That’s a pretty good argument,” said Bryan Cunningham, a former legal adviser to the National Security Council.”

  Maybe the talking point parrots should simply arrest evil BushHitler.

• 19. Joe  |  April 8th, 2008 at 9:17 am

  Matt/Mark,
  Why do some posts get deleted for being off-topic, yet you allow Freedom to post some crap about Obama’s pastor being a former Muslim (some people are so gulible)? Wouldn’t that be rather off topic… not to mention most likely a lie?

  southerner, they may not be too energized about their candidate, but they sure are energized of spreading crap on the Dems. That is the GOP way.

• 20. SEW  |  April 8th, 2008 at 9:59 am

  Uh, Joe, the topic is Obama keeps lying. Could it be the Big O has lied about who he says Wright is?

  Watch this Joe at 1:24.
  http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lP0wkySJbDI&feature=related

• 21. Joe  |  April 8th, 2008 at 10:07 am

  Uh, SEW… the topic is Obama talking about McCain and the 100 yrs comment.

  I heard Obama once took a cab where the driver was Muslim and that driver had a cousin who had a friend who knew a guy that was a suicide bomber in Bahgdad. So that obviously means Obama supports suicide bombers too. If he denies that he is clearly a liar.

• 22. kimberly4victory  |  April 8th, 2008 at 10:14 am

  Joe … your fellow liberals change the topic of the thread ALL OF THE TIME. Dennis, in fact, changes every single thread topic to the war in Iraq.

• 23. Joe  |  April 8th, 2008 at 10:24 am

  k4v, and we get our comments deleted for being “off topic”.

  Regarding this topic……. no matter how you parse what McCain said… he DID say he would be ok with us there for 100 yrs.
  This is different than being in Germany or South Korea or any of the other examples you throw out there.

  This is a “war on terror”. Since there is no possible way to defeat ALL terrorists and there is no leader that will surrender, this war would have no end. 100 yrs in Iraq means having permanent bases. Permenent bases means there are factions that will not like that and will continue the fight.

  We need to force Iraq to start to stand up for themselves and stop using our military as a crutch.

• 24. SEW  |  April 8th, 2008 at 10:25 am

  Uh, Joe, my screen has “Obama Keeps Lying.”

  Could it be tin foil interference with your screen?

• 25. Joe  |  April 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am

  uh SEW,
  do you just read the headline or do you actually read the body of the post? Do yourself the favor and read the body.

  It says details over at McCain blog. That means you actually have to click on the link to read the point of the thread.

  Perhaps the worst of Obama’s lies, and something we have covered repeatedly on this blog, is his insistence that John McCain wants a one hundred year war in Iraq. McCain supporters have been crying foul for months now, but the fact checkers and mainstream press have finally started calling him out on it.

  Read from that paragraph on.

• 26. SEW  |  April 8th, 2008 at 10:38 am

  Uh, Joe, that would be the text. The topic is Obama Keeps Lying.

  Could it be SEVERE tin foil interference?

• 27. Some Assembly Required  |  April 8th, 2008 at 10:42 am

  I’d have to agree with the conservatives here. Not that Obama is lying but that saying McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years is a bit of a distortion. Though I think the comparison McCain is making is a ridiculous one aside from maybe South Korean (which the US did withdraw from). I do not think this justifies the shtick that McCain wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years.

  I do find it ridiculous making this a big issue for yourselves though. You are guilty of the exact same thing you are now blaming Obama for. The Rezko claims, a week on his pastor and claiming Obama and his wife are Anti-American are prime examples. The sad part is you will try to defend these as ‘truths’ while still claiming Obama is lying here. Sure he is the ‘change’ candidate. But lets be realistic, he’s not perfect and he’s talking about changing politics, not purifying it.

• 28. Joe  |  April 8th, 2008 at 10:44 am

  I got it SEW. Just like most everything else… it doesn’t matter what the facts are.

  Ok hey… talk about him lying. Knock yourself out. That is what you are going to do anyway.

  Next.

• 29. Meanwhile on another plan&hellip  |  April 8th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

  […] the ball rolling with links to that McCain speech no right winger wanted to talk about. Then “Diana Powe” made a comment - and the Margolis lies […]

• 30. FmrMarine  |  April 8th, 2008 at 8:15 pm

  joe;
  >>>>>This is a “war on terror”. Since there is no possible way to defeat ALL terrorists and there is no leader that will surrender, this war would have no end. 100 yrs in Iraq means having permanent bases.<<<

  Actually this is on a fifth grade level for you to understand.
  We are at war against radical ISLAM….hear that …I-S-L-A-M.
  “Until the muslem clergy, and people, learn to love their children more than they hate ours” the war will continue.
  It has already gone on for hundreds of years. Except now they are flush with OUR oil money and chose to use it to suppress their own people, and incite them against “the great satan” for their cults political and religious aspirations = world domination.

• 31. Joe  |  April 8th, 2008 at 9:27 pm

  Wow FmrMarine… then there are a LOT more countries we are going to have to invade and occupy.

  How are we going to tell which Muslim is for “radical Islam” and which is for “peaceful Islam”? Oh that’s right……. there is no such thing as peaceful Islam. I forgot.

  I guess McCain was right on two accounts…. It will be 100 yrs in Iraq and there WILL be other wars.

Matt Margolis on Twitter