Posts with the tag 'liberal lies'
From NRO’s The Campaign Spot:
From the Chicago Sun-Times article on grants distributed by then-state-legislator Barack Obama.
(Records from 1997 to 2000 weren’t available.)
There’s a shock.
His state legislative office records may have been thrown out, he told us.
He’s never released a specific list of law clients, instead giving a list of all of his firm’s clients, numbering several hundred each year. His campaign will only confirm representation when the media comes to them with a specific case.
He won’t release his application to the state bar. He’s never released any legal or billing records to verify that he only did a few hours of work for a nonprofit tied to Tony Rezko.
He’s never released any medical records, just a one-page letter from his doctor.
Does it bother anyone that a guy with political ambitions for his entire adult life has not left a paper trail?
It does bother me…what is Obama hiding? The “Un-Named Democrat” made flesh, that is what he is - the problem is that we don’t need an International Man of Mystery as President of the United States…especially one connected with racists, anti-Americans, corrupt wheeler-dealers and the odd terrorist or two.
Tags: Barack Obama, liberal lies
July 18th, 2008
Last month it was projected that Barack Obama would raise $100 million.
Well, he raised more like half of that
Yet, curiously enough, Obama’s campaign is misleading potential donors by misrepresenting the combined fundraising numbers of McCain and GOP vs. the Obama camp and the DNC.
This morning, the Obama campaign fired off an emotionally-tinged fundraising email to their supporters. The urgent message stated:
“The Obama campaign and the DNC ended June with a combined total of nearly $72 million in the bank. It’s a healthy number. But McCain and the RNC together still have a huge cash advantage, and we need your help to close the gap.
As I mentioned in my video message to you earlier in the week, we’re facing a Republican machine with unprecedented resources at its disposal. The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee finished June with nearly $100 million in the bank.”
(Emphasis theirs).
… But in an under-stated blog post, Politico’s Ben Smith informs us that the Obama campaign’s math was off by $20 million:
“In total, the Democrats have some $92 million on hand, to the combined Republican total of $95 million.”
(The Obama email said they only had $72 million — now we find out they have $92 million).
First the Obama campaign operates their own Orwellian Ministry of Truth, now they’re trying to tell us that 2 + 2 = 5.
But, why would Obama want to mislead his supporters like that?
Of course, the cynical observation is that Obama’s campaign wanted to fire-up their supporters by pretending as if they were losing the money game to the GOP. Remember, Hillary’s donors didn’t come to her rescue until they knew she really needed it (when she invested $5 million of her own money.) The point is that political donors are more likely to become emotionally involved if they believe they are needed — and that their candidate is in danger of being beaten — so there was an incentive for Obama to play-up the disparity.
But a less sinister — and more charitable — analysis is that their math was off by $20 million. Of couse, this would be a gross error for such a polished political operation to commit.
But, par for the course for someone like Barack Obama.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: And while $52 million might seem a hefty sum, it doesn’t work too well when you burned through $42 million at the same time…and you’ve eschewed public financing, which means that you’re money has to last all the way to November. Obama is said to be getting together 2,000 paid staffers…five times what President Bush had in 2004…the guy must already think that he’s President.
Tags: Barack Obama, fundraising, liberal lies
July 17th, 2008
Can’t say it any clearer than this:
Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy — a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.
Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America’s enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home. Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy…
…In wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander-in-chief doesn’t get a learning curve. If I have that privilege, I will bring to the job many years of military and political experience; experience that gave me the judgment necessary to make the right call in Iraq a year and half ago. I supported the surge because I believed it was our only realistic chance to reverse the disaster our previous strategy had caused, and the right thing to do for our country. And although events have proven me right, my position wasn’t popular at the time, and I risked my own political ambitions when I took it. When I tell you, I will put our country’s interests — your interests — before party; before any special interest; before my own interests, every hour of every day I’m in office, you can believe me. Because for my entire adult life, in war and peace, nothing has ever been more important to me than the se curity and well-being of the country I love. Thank you.
Obama was wrong about the surge - there is no way around that. More than his being wrong, however, there is now his rank dishonesty - his claims that he didn’t say the surge would fail, his Orwellian excising of his old Iraq position from his website, his attempts to spin himself into an architect of victory when he was singing the siren song of defeatism for the past 18 months. A dishonest man who can’t come up with the right solution - this is not the sort of man we want as President.
John McCain promises us that he’ll put country before everything - and we have the absolute proof that he’ll do that. He really did jump out in front of nearly everyone - including the President - in advocating one of the most unpopular acts our government has ever undertaken, and it worked…and our nation, and the world, is better off for it. All honor to those who saw the way clearly - and let us leave those who wanted to surrender in the dark recesses of our national memory, not elevated to the most powerful office in the world.
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iraq, John McCain, liberal lies, Troop Surge
July 16th, 2008
You get Barack Obama’s policies:
Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult
U.S. Commanders in Iraq Warn of Security Dangers, See Logistical Nightmare
Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party’s nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.
Military personnel in Iraq are following the presidential race closely, especially when it comes to Iraq.
The soldiers and commanders we spoke to will not engage in political conversation or talk about any particular candidate, but they had some strong opinions about the military mission which they are trying to accomplish, and the dramatic security gains they have made in the past few months.
We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.
“We still have a ways to go. Number one, we’re working on security and it’s very encouraging, that’s true, but what we’re really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let’s look at the conditions.”…
…On the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber had struck just days before, Capt. Josh West told us he wants to finish the mission, and that any further drawdown has to be based on conditions on the ground.
“If we pull out of here too early, it’s going to establish a vacuum of power that violent criminal groups will be able to fill once we leave,” West said.
Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, “The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that’s what we want. I don’t want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this.”
But Ussery added, “You can’t put a timetable on it — it’s events-based.”
The report further notes that while we may be able to get the troops out in 16 months, the logistics of getting all the equipment out makes a time table like that unrealistic. As a for-instance, moving out two combat bridages in a month means, among many other things, moving out 1,200 humvees. The fundamental problem with the left - other than the fact that leftwing thought is based on a lie - is that life doesn’t match leftwing conceptions. I doubt much that Obama has ever considered military logistics in formulating his policies - and not in the sense of he knew they were a factor but dismissed them, but that he didn’t know they were a factor. Most liberals aren’t concerned with such things - and this is the result of their over-concentration on purity of intentions as opposed to paying attention to results of actions.
Obama and his Democrats will pull us out of Iraq in 16 months…and they will “end” the war, which is another indication that Obama hasn’t actually thought about what he believes. Wars don’t “end” - they are won, or they are lost. Vietnam didn’t “end” - it was lost. People who have bothered to instruct themselves in matters of foreign and military policy understand that regardless of what one thinks of President Bush and the reasons for liberating Iraq, the fact that we are there now imposes upon us the choice to win, or to lose. Additionally, people who have bothered instructing themselves understand that losing a war is always worse than winning. No matter what high minded goal one has in life, it is better met with victory than with defeat. But in Obama’s fantasy world, intent trumps results and if he wins we’ll be given at least four years of leftwing fantasy clashing with life’s realities.
Thanks, but I prefer John McCain - warts and all - because he lives in the real world…
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iraq, John McCain, liberal lies, Troop Surge
July 11th, 2008
From Firedoglake:
He sure talks the talk. Too bad his health care plan isn’t universal. Hilary’s was. Edwards’ was. Obama’s isn’t. But don’t worry, Obama believes.
Mmm, those sweet hot whispers. Like Obama’s belief in abortion rights. You can have that abortion. ‘Ceptin’ all those women having late term abortions for kicks (anyone ever known even one?), so we need to make some rules so government can go all Schiavo on them at eight months. Let’s start having court cases over what counts as enough emotional distress to justify late term abortions. Obama’s for abortion rights, just not for women who don’t deserve them. Just like he’s for universal health care. Except not for everyone.
His sweet talk is the same as every other empty suit’s to a pretty woman - he just wants her to say “yes”, just one time, in this case - just one time in November.
But when they listen real close, they hear that his health care plan isn’t actually universal, and his support of Roe vs. Wade is only if mental illness isn’t involved.
Sweet but empty.
Obama. Obama. Obama.
Please, please, no more sweet and empty. It’s not Diet Obama we’re looking for.
Be for the 4th amendment. Be for abortion rights. And be for universal health are. Don’t just say you’re progressive one day, then the next day say “except…”
No more sweet nothings.
Real commitment will get you eight years, not just one day.
The left really does believe that America turned left in 2006 - that, in fact, America has always been left and the fact of conservative Congresses and Presidents is a result of stolen election and/or bamboozled populations…but everyone has “woken up”, now, and the left is on the march…so, Obama is (or, at least, was) the man..the ardent leftist who will change America into a hopeful, leftist nation where the whole, long national nightmare of President Bush will be put forever to rest and no more conservatives will ever arise to disturb the liberal orthodoxy.
And then Obama had to go and drop dime on them - and they’re all shocked, as if they didn’t go through 8 years of Clinton hanging the left out to dry because the left is only a tiny minority in America and can’t win elections on its own. Clinton knew this and, apparently, Obama has figured it out…and so Obama tries to shift right for the fall campaign and hopes and hopes that McCain will not be successful as reminding the voters that Obama has always been a far left extremist in thought and action. One might think that the left would be ok with this - confident that Obama will govern left once in office and so don’t rock the boat until November is in the bag…but this ignores something the left believes very strongly: Only an avowedly leftist candidate can defeat the GOP because the American people are yearning for leftism and only a leftwing clarion call will get them motivated enough to beat back the Republican noise machine and Diebold vote stealing. Obama’s triangulation, far from helping him for November, is seen by the left as not just a betrayal, but a formula for certain defeat.
What will the result of this be? Time will tell - certainly Obama will still overwhelmingly win the leftwing voters in November…but how many of them will show up? That is the real question…
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, Leftwing Alternate Universe, liberal lies
July 10th, 2008
Even though Barack Obama has pledged to not run negative ads, he’s now running a negative ad.. This ad attacks McCain for supporting the Bush-Cheney energy plan… which Obama himself voted for!
This make Obama’s recent ad campaigns 0-3 on accuracy.
Having been raked over the coals for half-truths in his first two ads, Obama tries to avoid too many specifics in his third. But he still runs afoul of those inconvenient truths, hitting McCain for supporting a bill that Obama voted for. For those keeping score, Obama has now touted his support of a bill he didn’t vote for, and denounced a bill he did vote for.
Sad
Tags: Barack Obama, flip flops, liberal lies
July 8th, 2008
Which was totally harmless and, naturally, Saddam and his peaceful, secularist country would never, ever have dreamed of using the stuff for a WMD:
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
What’s now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
“Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq,” said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called “dirty bomb” — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.
Prior to the left deciding that the whole WMD argument was a lie (and part of the larger BUSH LIED!!! meme), there was this 2003 news report:
In the suburbs about 18 miles south of the capital’s suburbs, this city comprises nearly 100 buildings — workshops, laboratories, cooling towers, nuclear reactors, libraries and barracks — that belong to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission.
Investigators Tuesday discovered that Al-Tuwaitha hides another city. This underground nexus of labs, warehouses, and bomb-proof offices was hidden from the public and, perhaps, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who combed the site just two months ago, until the U.S. Marine Corps Combat Engineers discovered it three days ago…
…Yesterday, Hamza expressed great surprise that the underground site could even exist. The ground there is muddy and composed of clay, he said. The water table is barely a foot and a half below the surface of the ground. During construction of one of the former nuclear reactors there, French engineers spent a fortune pumping water from the foundation area, only to see buildings crumble when the water was removed.
Hamza said the French built a reactor at Al-Tuwaitha that Israel destroyed in 1981. The Russians built a reactor that was destroyed during the Gulf War. Both had the muddy ground to contend with.
So the Marine’s discovery makes the former atomic inspector wonder if the Iraqis went to the colossal expense of pumping enough water to build the underground city because no reasonable inspector would think anything might be built underground there.
Nobody would expect it,” Hamza said. “Nobody would think twice about going back there.”
Despite being destroyed twice by bombings, Al-Tuwaitha nevertheless grew to become headquarters of the Iraqi nuclear program, with several research reactors, plutonium processors and uranium enrichment facilities bustling, according to the Federation of American Scientists.
“The plutonium processing was dispersed on-site by the bombing in 1991,” said Michael Levi, the Federation’s director. “But the Iraqis started to rebuild it. And they continued building there after 1998, when the Iraqis ended the inspections.
Lots of people have lied about Iraq. Saddam lied. The French, German, Russian and UN bureaucrats who were bribed by Saddam lied. Plame lied. Wilson lied. The anti-war movement lied. President Bush, though, didn’t lie - not even once, and not even slightly. Remember: Saddam wasn’t supposed to have anything which could be used as part of a WMD program…but, amongst other banned things, he had 550 tons of yellowcake and post-Gulf War nuclear facilities undetected by the agencies charged with keeping tabs on him. Unless you want to assert - against all evidence - that Saddam was hiding entirely innocent and peaceful programs, the only logical conclusion is that he was, indeed, violating the 1991 cease fire vis a vis WMDs. Added to all the other justifications for liberating Iraq what we have here is that back in 2003 the only logical course of events for us once Saddam had re-thumbed his nose at the UN inspectors was to remove him from power.
The anti-Bush effort vis a vis Iraq has been a sick combination of stupidity, deception and cowardice…all of it done for purely political reasons by people on the left (joined by a few on the right) who wish to harm the United States in general and President Bush in particular. That millions of people have fallen for it just shows that Lincoln’s adage is correct - you can fool some of the people all of the time. There is, unfortunately, no way for us to immediately repair the damage - President Bush will leave office with millions of people having the conviction that he lied about Iraq and Saddam’s WMD programs. Only as this generation dies away and those personally identified with creating the lies are gone will an entirely unbiased treatment of this issue be possible.
Tags: Defeaticrats, Iraq, liberal lies, WMD
July 6th, 2008
Bob Beckel, taking a page right out of Barack Obama’s strategy book (the chapter on playing the victim card at every turn) whines about angry readers who wrote to him in response to a poorly written post at The Fox Forum about the “arrogance” of George Bush. He opined,
Is it my imagination, or are many of you angry? If I were a Republican and facing the rejection of conservatism on an unprecedented scale this coming November, I suppose I’d be angry as well. Perhaps I can help you understand why your political philosophy is about to be rejected by the American people.
Yeah, we heard the same “you’re going to lose big time in November” line before back in 2004. But, Beckel’s wishful thinking is combined with a lack of understanding of what is really going on. Conservatism is not being rejected. Far from it. The truth is conservatives are frustrated when Republicans they elected stray from conservative principles. If conservatism was being rejected, as Beckel wants to believe, then Barack Obama wouldn’t be trying to win votes shifting his positions towards the center, and taking more conservative positions on the Second Amendment, tax cuts, even abortion.
1. Conservatives are supposed to be fiscally responsible yet when your crowd inherited a trillion-dollar surplus from Bill Clinton, Bush/Cheney and a Republican Congress turned it into a $3-trillion-dollar deficit.
You certainly won’t find fiscal conservatives justifying the increases in spending, but Beckel is absolutely ignoring the impact of the 2000-2001 Recession and 9/11. It is also worth noting that two key economic achievements of the 1990s, welfare reform and the balanced budget, while signed by Bill Clinton, came to be because of the efforts of the Republican Congress.
2. Conservatives strongly support the war in Iraq but won’t help pay for it. Never has our country been at war without asking and getting our citizens to help bear the financial burden…until this war. Conservatives don’t want to give up Bush’s tax cuts for the top 5% of wage earners to help pay for this war. Why?
I guess I must be in the top 5% of wage earners, because how else can I explain the tax cut that I received? But, I’m not in the top 5%, so, enough with that argument. Also, Beckel is either choosing to ignore the record economic growth that resulted from Bush’s tax cuts. And of course, Beckel’s argument loses all credibility when you consider government tax receipts went up as a result of those tax cuts.
3. The American people got tired of being lectured on “family values” by conservative clergy and Republican members of Congress, e.g. Larry Craig, who didn’t practice what they preached.
I’m sure the American people are tired of being lecture about the rich paying “their fair share” of taxes by rich Democrats in Congression who keep large chunks of their personal wealth in off-shore tax shelters to avoid paying taxes on it. I also can’t help mentioning Democrat governor Eliot Spitzer, who built his career on breaking up prostitution rings, only to be involved in one himself. Though, it may be true that conservatives are more likely to punish the hypocrites in their party than liberals are to punish the hypocrites in their party.
4. Or maybe the voters got tired of Republicans controlling the US House of Representatives for 12 years during which they handed out more wasteful pork projects than all the pork handed out by Democrats in the 42 years preceding the GOP takeover.
And what have Democrats done to control spending and cut pork since returning to the majority? Oh yeah, nothing.
5. Or maybe voters got angry when they learned the Vice President of the United States manipulated intelligence and misled the American people on why war with Iraq was in our national security interests.
Despite several investigations by various bipartisan and independent commissions and committees, all concluded that there was no manipulation of intelligence, and that statements made by the administration were supported by the intelligence available at the time.
6. Or maybe the public didn’t like George Bush vetoing legislation to provide health insurance for millions of kids.
Another ridiculous point predicated on the belief that health insurance should be funded by the government regardless of whether federal assistance is necessary. The Democrats’ proposed expansion of SCHIP would have provided taxpayer funded health insurance to children in families who didn’t need such government assistance - but also would have left many who needed it, with no such assistence.
7. Or maybe the public got embarrassed by Republicans in the Bush Administration who refused, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to accept the reality of global warming, aka “The Flat Earth Society”.
No, what’s more embarrassing are Democrats who think global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, and who are afraid to debate skeptics of global warming.
Beckel then concludes his poorly written list with a self-righteous rant filled with feigned resignation about his alleged experience with conservatives. If the situation were reversed, and a conservative pundit attempted to generalize liberals based on experiences with a select few, Beckel might have written something about how you can’t judge an entire party or ideology, based on an angry, vocal minority.
I expect Beckel to look at things through a partisan lens, but now I think he’s just blind. As a liberal, he certainly finds it in his best interest to talk about elections with an attitude of inevitability of the eventual positive for his party, but doing so really destroy’s his credibility as a political strategist and pundit.
Tags: Bob Beckel, Conservatism, debate, hypocrisy, liberal lies
July 5th, 2008
Older Posts
