Obama’s campaign of change. It has such a nice ring to it, but what does it really mean. Well, he must have some new ideas that will help our country….right? Not exactly. If you paid attention to the primary fight between Obama and Clinton, you would know that the differences on the issues were minuscule. They believe the same things, which are the same things Democrats have been pushing for years. There is no change here. Only more big government, more socialist programs, and more industry regulation. In fact, Barack Obama voted along party lines more than any other Senator.
This change must then be how politicians do business. That is what Obama would like you to think, but he still uses politicians’ old tricks of manipulation and deception. He still sticks to party lines no matter what. To me this election, as with all others, is about the issues and substance; not appearance. But if Obama continues to push this European style of politics, I will continue to show you how he is just like every other politician.
I have two examples below. One showing the stubbornness of sticking to party lines despite the facts and a second showing him caught in a lie…..or a very subtle manipulation of the facts if you will.
Last month of ABC’s world news Terry Moran asked Barack Obama if in retrospect, knowing what we know now about the success the troop surge has brought to the war in Iraq in lowering the violence and stabilizing the country, would he have supported the surge. Obama answered no.
This was a very simple question where he could have shown that he was above party politics. It would have not only shown he would support ideas that would help our country, no matter what party they originated from, but also that he was not as stubborn as many accuse Bush of being, and could admit he was wrong. He failed this test. He stuck to party lines and chose an answer that essentially meant he would have left Iraq in disarray; for another generation to go back and fix.
The second example is a classic case of slowing changing your position and then lying about the original stance you took. I will let Obama speak for himself.
In January 2007
“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”
I might add a little caveat here. Obama made no effort to discuss this plan with any officers on the ground, especially Gen. Petreaus. I am pretty sure since he, along with his staff, came up with the plan; they thought it would be successful. To say that the military leaders developed and implemented a plan they themselves thought would not work is quite an insult. But I digress from my original point. Here are more statements.
Again in January 07
“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.”
July 2007
“At this point we have bad options and worse options. But we are facing a choice. My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.”
November 2007
“Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a search and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”
And then in January of this year Barack Obama made this statement at a Democratic Primary Debate.
“Now, I had no doubt, and I said at the time when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.”
So Obama knew all along that the surge would be successful. Some might say that this is just a slip up on Obama’s part and this instance alone could not support a deliberate attempt to mislead. That may be true, but this combined with the fact that the Obama campaign purged all his criticism of the Iraq troop surge from their website a couple of months ago makes my claim a little more credible. He wants the public to forget what he said.
This is not an isolated incidence either. He makes contradictory statements on other issues as well. Often it depends on who he is talking to at the time.
To his credit, Obama at least recently admitted that the troop surge did in fact work, but it is not something that he really likes to promote. At a town hall meeting a few months ago Obama said, “We don’t need more spin about how the surge is succeeding in doing what it was supposed to do…” That is correct Mr. Obama. You do not have to spin facts.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
I hope people are reading your website. There is so much hype about Obama that a lot of people are jumping on the bandwagon just because they aren’t paying attention.