Obama already is contradicting himself

It had to happen sooner or later.
The 2008 election has been upon us since the close of the 2004 election. I had been able to let disregard all previous rhetoric previous to now as pure pontification. Only today was something observed which I thought should be called out as a bit hypocritical.

I don’t yet want to summarize where I feel on any particular candidate as I’m still trying to keep myself firmly planted in the middle without prejudice. While this submission will single out Barack Obama, it isn’t with the intent to discredit his candidacy, but rather to keep him honest in what he says.

In his speech, Obama, D-Illinois, said things would look different in an Obama administration: “When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
– CNN.com

Isn’t this what GWB initially set out to do? The intelligence the U.S. used (albeit inaccurate in hind-sight) was actionable and was baked up by data from multiple other countries, notably all those within the U.N. Security Council. For Obama to say that his tack greatly differs from that which GWB used, is misleading at best, hypocritical in truth and fear-provoking at worst. Obama has used his “innocence” as a Senator to discredit those who voted in support of the initial invasion of Iraq, but then uses the same justification which was used to justify that invasion for one of his own.

Obama will say. “He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq — which didn’t exist before our invasion — and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training recruits in Pakistan.”
–CNN.com

For Obama to assume that al Qaeda didn’t exist in Iraq before the U.S. invaded seems a bit naive.

I’m pleased to see such a large panel of candidates on both sides. Although I don’t much care for the nicey-nice tactic which both sides seem to be enacting with this go ‘round. I’m sure it won’t last long the sooner we get to the primaries.

Good Luck to Obama as he finds a way to correct this. Yes; I’m assuming there will be a “clarification”. I think he makes a viable candidate that both sides will have to be mindful of in this election if not the next.

Prove It — Part 2

Listening to the knee-jerk comments from all sides of the isle of last weeks elections, there are plenty more tidbits to call out.
I found it funny listening to comments from both winners and losers from the races.

“We ran a good race” — said:

– the challenger for the Republican Wisconsin congressional seat of Paul R. Nelson throughing morality accusations
– the new Democratic House Representative Chris Carney after running ads slamming the “family values” of Rep. Don Sherwood

What planet were these people on during the campaign? Didn’t those guys “approve” of those messages? This was a disgusting campaign year.

As soon as the election is won, everyone likes to pretend they took the high road from the beginning and will continue on that road by saying:

“We need to come together and unite” — said the DNC chairman (Dean) who also said “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for“

Prove It!

Adding to the mix is the free press. Free press is great and one of the greatest gifts any nation has to offer. Though it can be abused. If nobody else is going to call out the media for being The Media, it will have to happen here. Calling the media suckers for a good smear campaign to lead the next day with seems appropriate enough. But the following quote would be more “PC”.

“When the news is bad, the ads tend to be negative,” said Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford professor who studies political advertising. “And the more negative the ad, the more likely it is to get free media coverage. So there’s a big incentive to go to the extremes.”

Prove it

The 2006 campaign season was full of the same promise… change will bring improvement. While no one bothered to mention WHAT changes will bring improvement or HOW things will be improved… none of that matters now because things have changed. Democrats now have the control desired. The promises were said, they are documented nowhere, but every tax paying American is watching, waiting, and saying “prove it.”

Will it be too much to hope that U.S. Congress will be able to put aside differences and work together for the common good of the country rather than the exclusive benefit of partisanship?

Democrats have been able to pull a proverbial “fast one” over the Republicans in taking control over both houses. Without any experience in the Senate, I wonder just how much impact a one person majority has outside realigning committee leadership.

I’m leery of the “tit-for-tat” virus which seems to have infected Congress over the last 3 decades.

You said this about me… well you did this to him… well he blocked our vote on… well he didn’t really win the election… and on and on.

As for one lowly tax payer, I’d like to see the score set to zero, and everyone start to play nice.

I would love to through my support around someone who publicly sticks it to the lobbyists and doesn’t play puppet, who doesn’t vote except for what his constituents want.

I’m a tax payer, and I approve this message. I think I just threw up a little bit.