Who's lying now? Joe Cannon begins a series of articles about Obama's lies.

[Perry Logan]

(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)

Here's an article from a blog called Cannonfire, by Joe Cannon. An excellent researcher, Joe is disgusted with the Obama campaign and has set out to expose what he sees as their many lies. Go to the original page to see links to sources:

Obama Lie Numero Uno -- IRAQ
by Joe Cannon

A week ago, I promised a series on the many prevarications of Barack Obama and his surrogates.

Obama Lie Numero Uno: The Iraq war.

In speech after speech, Barack Obama has said that he has been a consistent and vehement opponent of the war from the beginning. His website labels him "a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq."

I loudly and vigorously opposed the war in Iraq.

You can find the above Obama quote all over the net. Less easily found is the context: He went on to speak favor of continued war funding, because "Now that we are there, all of us want to see the mission succeed."

When MSNBC's David Shuster said that Obama and Hillary Clinton had exactly similar voting records on Iraq, Obama spokesperson Susan Rice falsely replied: "The records are quite, quite different." In fact, if you look at every single Iraq-related vote since he achieved the Senate, Obama has cast a vote differing from Clinton's only once -- the confirmation of General George Casey -- and Obama took the more conservative position on that occasion.

"I was in the middle of a high stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why." So said Barack Obama, lying through his teeth during a debate. The moment is caught in the video above, starting at the 1:50 mark.

In a September 26, 2007, debate at Dartmouth College, Obama congratulated himself for "telling the truth to the American people even when it's tough, which I did in 2002, standing up against this war at a time where it was very unpopular. And I was risking my political career, because I was in the middle of a U.S. Senate race."

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-lie-numero-uno-iraq.html

[JoFerret]

1. Well researched

And you know - not much of it matters really. Par for the political course. No big deal etc.

IF IT WERE NOT FOR for the virulent hostility and hypocrisy and all the vile name calling and demonizing of Hillary. Barack waits for Hillary's lead over and over again. he's a good learner though.

<<Not once has Obama taken a risky, principled stand on Iraq. He has opposed the war only when protected by a political safety net. He portrays his record as consistent, despite his Mystique-like ability to shape-shift. And when Bill Clinton accurately denounced Obama's "opposition" to the war as a "fairy tale," Obama's big-media supporters pretended that Clinton's words were somehow racist.

Barack Obama is both an intellectual coward and a shameless revisionist of his own history. Like the banker who will lend you money only when you don't need it, he opposed Bush's war only when doing so carried no political cost.

[Honeycombe8]

20. Wow, you're desperate, aren't you? First...is Joe Cannon somebody, anybody? 2nd...I agree w/what

Obama has said re his position on the IW. There is no "lie" there. One can be against the war, but in favor of funding the troops, once we are knee deep in a situation unable to get out quickly. I was/am. And I have been against the war (vehemently and loudly!) since the beginning. Since BEFORE the beginning of it.

So I still wonder...if I, an ordinary citizen, knew this war was a bad idea and just plain wrong, if not criminal....why didn't the person who NOW wants to be President: Hillary Clinton? Answer: She did, but she decided to vote for it, anyway, since she thought she needed to for political reasons.

Is that the sort of person we want as President? Of course not. That is why Obama is winning.

[Mezzo]

23. are YOU somebody, anybody? what a crass thing to say. nt

[roguevalley]

46. what's crass about asking. I never heard of him either, either in

person or by 'professional recording'. Perhaps if he's such a liar, there are vids of this on youtube or some such that you can point us to to back up this stuff. No?

[Mezzo]

131. Whether you've heard of him or not, you're trying to attack the messenger.

Perhaps you could search YouTube yourself?

[rodeodance]

161. I get it---everyone is Lier--should they dare to be critical of your savior.

[JoFerret]

28. Your response is just silly

Calm down already. If, as you say, "Obama is winning." why all the sturm und drang?

Enjoy. You have a point of view. I disagree with it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

39. No. Obama is winning because the media is protraying him dishonestly

He lies and gets a free pass. The lies are ignored by those who support him. Which makes me wonder: when Clinton does the same thing as Obama she is vilified by the same people who are supporting Obama and ignoring his lies.

And when the truth is pointed out they say: so? What then, is the basis for the support? Take apart Obama's lies and he is nothing but an empty suit.

[JCMach1]

76. Exactly...

[Mezzo]

132. yep.

[Mezzo]

133. yep.

[rodeodance]

90. Did you catch Amy Goodman--Looks like BO will keep Blackwater in Iraq--march 28 interview

[walldude]

143. There was a thread on this earlier.. first lie, not even a lie

the second and third are bullshit, the writer claims that the Obama campaign made a fake video of a speech on number 2 and lie number 3 was apparently deleted from all websites so the writer can't back up those claims. After three bullshit claims I gave up.

[Radical Activist]

78. LOL A half assed google search is not "well researched" beyond high school.

There is plenty of evidence that Obama spoke out against the war during his Senate campaign but Cannon is either too lazy, too stupid, or too dishonest to do a real search to find it.

[BeyondGeography]

2. The part where he claims he was being shot at is what bothers me

(Your girl will always lose this discussion. Carry on.)

[Perry Logan]

18. "Former Secretary of the Army Togo West confirms Hillary Clinton's Bosnia account"

If we must change the subject:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/03/former-secretary-of-army-togo-west.html

[BeyondGeography]

19. He agrees with her that she "misspoke"?

[rodeodance]

32. Thanks for the post

[sansatman]

109. So much BS...

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=68124

[acmavm]

99. Nice try but no cigar. Just because one lies it DOESN'T excuse the blatant

lies of the other. Hypocrites here tried that bullshit tactic to excuse Spitzer's behavior. Didn't work then either.

I don't like Clinton OR Obama. So I can sit here and tell you that (not having stars in my eyes when I watch/read/hear about their never-ending propaganda shit they spew) they both suck. Media picked so that they can be milked for all the drama required to fill up 2+ crappy years of non-stop campaigning. Fuck (I hate and I do mean HATE!) to admit this now but, compared to these two, even JOE BIDEN looks good to me now. And I NEVER THOUGHT FOR ONE MINUTE that that thought would ever do a happy dance across my mind.

[SwampG8r]

168. bill will give him a cigar

might be a lil soggy tho

[Life Long Dem]

3. As if it takes a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Why it's Hillary lying!!!

With a 100% chance of getting that one right, I would think you would have had a harder question than that one. Sigh...

[Perry Logan]

4. Joe has also done some excellent debunkings of the Obama people's countless lies about Hillary.

All well researched.

[Political Heretic]

5. The author needs to learn that there is actually a real definition for "lying"

And nothing in all these wasted words is it.

Obama didn't speak out often enough for this writers tastes? Okay, that's not a lie though.

Claiming Obama only opposed the war because it was politically expedient or after assessing political fallout? That's subjective opinion. His claim that is the only reason is no better than Obama's claim that isn't.

Opposing cutting funding for the war - something I would have also opposed while I at the same time opposed the decision to go to war from the very start - is in no way incongruent with opposition of the decision to go to war. Leaving our troops stranded in Iraq without any protection (something this president most certainly would have done) is not an acceptable approach to ending a war that should have never been started.

The issue of continuing to fund the war and opposing starting the war are not the same. Much of this blog pretends that they are.

Statements like "Obama did no noticeable arm-twisting" are also anecdotal and even if such statements were quantifiable, which they are not, wouldn't constitute a lie.

And on and on....

A lie on the other hand, would be saying that you remember detailed circumstances of an event that literally never happened.

[Perry Logan]

6. I love that "Obamite chutzpah"--after eighty zillion false accusations against Hillary.

Your definition needs work, too. Saying that you "remember detailed circumstances of an event that literally never happened" could be the result of imperfect or false memory. It happens all the time. So calling Hillary a liar on Bosnia is just another smear.

[Political Heretic]

8. Name one.

She didn't fail to remember, or get certain parts confused or mistaken - she meticulously and repeatedly "remembered" an entire series of fabricated events.

Trying to spin that as you're doing is categorically insane.

[Perry Logan]

10. The accusations get disproved, usually within the first or second post. This is my observation.

People with false memories "meticulously repeat" them all the time. Your hatred of Hillary may be clouding your mind.

[Political Heretic]

11. So name one.

It's not a "false memory" to say I remember landing under sniper fire, and running off the tarmac for shelter, when instead reality bore not even the slightest resemblance to that statement. That's not memory confusion. And to say it is is precisely the kind of disingenuous nonsense that makes the political process so disheartening.

Politicians, even great politicians get caught exaggerating their resume all the time. Obama has too. Maybe even about the war. It happens. It isn't the end of the world. What makes this such a big deal are supporters such as you that make the most ludicrous excuses for it that are just utterly asinine instead of saying, yeah she got caught stretching the truth - not a big deal.

[Mezzo]

24. how 'bout if you stop asking other people to do your homework...you name one. nt

[Political Heretic]

83. Umm... I didn't make the unsupported claim. He did.

[roguevalley]

47. false memories. none of my nephew's memories are false when

he was getting shot at in Bosnia. I suppose when Hillary lies about such things and abuses the troops doing so its fine and dandy. If bush does it or reagan, its evil. Hypocrite, much?

[krkaufman]

157. Except if it was a false memory ...

... then Hillary's rationalizations for telling the Bosnia tale as being "sleep deprived" and having "misspoke" are lies.

[JoFerret]

29. Check the hate on DU

And check it at the door.

[Political Heretic]

84. No hate here.

Just facts.

[JoFerret]

126. Plenty of hatred

in DU.

...loads of honest disagreement and different interpretation but plenty of hate too.
Plenty.

[merh]

34. Hillary should have checked the video

or maybe asked Sinbad - she did neither, she just exaggerated the truth, lied about sniper firing.

Keep in mind the most obvious problem with her lie. Her daughter, her only child, the president's only child, was with her. Was it child endangerment to bring her child with her into the battle zone where sniper's bullets whizzed over head? So is Hillary a liar or a negligent mother?

The man that commanded the forces on the ground when Hillary visited has said that her version is not true, that there is no way they would allow Hillary and the president's only child to be put in that danger.

[goletian]

89. yep. lies are inaccurate statements.

obama is very careful in his wording so not to lie. this is a great talent he has. you cannot claim someone is lying based on subjective opinions. only absolute statements, unequivocal ones, can be called lies.

[intaglio]

7. O-kay, so you claim it is a "provable lie"

What proof? all you have is unsupported assertion and hearsay; the votes for funding and quotes supportive of troops seem to be innocuous given the suicide that lack of such support would be to a Congressman from a minority.

Regarding a draw down of troops, well I am sorry but the US (and UK) broke Iraq and getting out in full, immediately, is like a petulant child abandoning a toy because "it's broke"; until a substantial international response can be arranged to protect people working to restore the infrastructure US and UK troops will have to provide that service. There are logistical and military problems associated with the "sauve qui peut" that you seem to favour, please remember the chaos of the last helicopter from Vietnam.

The canard about the video of Obama's speech I had not seen before and I must congratulate you, Perry, for inventing controversy where none exists. The YouTube descriptives clearly state that the speech is being performed from the text of the speech delivered; no-one (apart from rabid Obama opposers) has implied that this speech was never given. You will make much of the fact that recording the original speech has never appeared on the Net but in 2002 that phenomenon had yet to take off. The speed with which this has happened leads me into a state of cognitive dissonance and I have been surfing since '91/'92 but at least I correct myself!

[Perry Logan]

9. NB: The article was written by Joe Cannon, not by me. You can go there to see supporting links.

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-lie-numero-uno-iraq.html

[intaglio]

13. I did

and you are using that article for your OP. This (and your history of Obama distrust) leads me to assume that you support the thrust and conclusions of the article. My post challenges you with my take on your OP for I must assume that the article tunes into your belief system either that or I must assume you have no critical faculties.

[madrchsod]

12. so you are posting something from a right wing blog..

i knew there were to many "code words" in this piece of shit article written by joe...

seems joe has a problem with black people....i could be wrong but i`d say he`s a racist--

[Perry Logan]

14. Calling a critic of Obama a racist. That's new.

[dogday]

22. What in this piece says that?

To disagree with someone who is black, does not make anyone a racist.. Shame on you for casually throwing the word around.. You know it is like the boy who cried wolf.. When a real situation comes along that is racist, people are not going to respond, cause you use the word when it is not even necessary...

[billbuckhead]

36. "i could be wrong but i`d say he`s a racist--"

You're not sure, but you'll err on the side of calling him a racist

Racism in American politics is close to a meaningless term after this campaign.

[guyanakoolaid]

119. Pretty rich coming from a comfirmed racist like you, Billbuckhead

[billbuckhead]

128. What have I ever said that is racist?

[guyanakoolaid]

129. You specifically called on people not to vote for Obama because you said a black can't win.

Do you deny saying this?

[billbuckhead]

137. Can a Muslim win? A Christian Scientist? An openly gay person?

Sorry what you're accusing me isn't racism, just telling the truth. BTW, because of where I live, I bet I've voted for more black people than you have.

[krkaufman]

159. Ummm... saying "a black can't win" is not "truth"

It is an opinion that, at best, is weak-kneed projection from which the Left has suffered for too long, and, at worst, a racist comment. And I say it can be considered a racist comment -- not that you are a racist -- based on the fact that an opinion is being put forth as truth, as fact, as part of an agenda to prevent the African American candidate from being nominated not because of the content of his character or his record but because of the color of his skin.

Barack Obama isn't just "a black man", he's a person with a particular history and character, and opinion polling indicates that his chances of winning the Presidency are as good or better than for any of the remaining candidates.

[Ken Burch]

93. There were NO African American Congressmembers who wanted to back HRC.

Why would they?

[Vinca]

15. One of the most positive things about Obama and one of the main

reasons you should vote for him is he is not afraid to change his position. If he believed one thing in 2002 and something changed his mind, he won't continue with his mode of thinking from that time if it isn't right for this time. He's a brilliant man who will study a situation in real time and not dwell on political consequences if his position happens to change. "Flip flop," as we know, is a stupid meme when applied to the fast changing world.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. This is a lie?

Barack says "U.S. Senate" instead of "state Senate"?

That's just a mistake.

The "not much difference" position WAS about the occupation and who was "better to execute."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002

Here's the actual quote from the NY Times July 26, 2004 article:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E2DF153DF935A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.

That night he was going to electrify the Democratic National Convention. That means he was supposed to be toeing the Kerry-Edwards line. And STILL he criticized the Congressional leaders for buckling the way they did. AND he defended his decision to speak out against the war at the time of the invasion.

If this is the best Joe Cannon has got, it's no wonder he supports 9/11 fantasy spinners like Daniel Hopsicker, Perry.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. By the way, Joe Cannon's sinister picture of Obama hardly even looks like him.

The bias couldn't be any more overwhelming than that. Maybe if he put some devil horns on Obama, he could be a little more biased against Obama, but not by much (not without descending into actual racism, something he has not done as far as I see.).

[rodeodance]

40. A BO fan posted a crappy photo of Hillary yesterday on a thread and the sheepies

jumped all over and said Yeah!!

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Why do you abbreviate Barack Obama's name like that?

BO? Really?

Do you understand that by doing that, you are participating in a vicious racial slur?

One of the constant held biases of racists is how African-Americans smell. I know this because I was born in Alabama and I have heard it.

Now, here you are, abbreviating Obama's name into something that will bring that connotation to him. This is something I first saw on Faux News, btw. That crappy comedy show they tried for a while? The very first episode was a riff on this bullshit. You are probably doing this without being aware of it, so I'm letting you know. It's EXTREMELY offensive.

Now, to your point. Did you see ME jump all over that crappy photo of Hillary? No. Because that is bullshit. No one is saying that there are no Obama supporters who aren't attacking Hillary unfairly. But an unfair attack is an unfair attack, and the picture at Cannon's website is almost unrecognizable as Barack. And "Obama supporters jumping on a picture of Hillary" doesn't change that at all.

[roguevalley]

48. if you take time to read that poster's shit, you will find a trail of spew

a mile long. its okay for rd to hate. that's not hate. everyone else's hate is hate though. Just so you know. :sarcasm:

[MediaBabe]

61. Whining about Obama's initials yet you belittle Clinton

I notice you demean Clinton by referring to by her first name in the same sentence you elevate Obama by using his last name. Properly you should have been consistent.

Could it be that sometimes insult is not intended? Could it be that brevity in the title of a thread was the intention, not insult just as you maybe didn't intend to slight Clinton. Or maybe you did...

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Is referring to Hillary by her first name (a way to distinguish her from her husband)...

...nearly as offensive as referring to Barack Obama by his initials (something he has never gone by), something is being used by racists in this country to smear African-Americans?

I don't think so, not by a long shot.

As I said, I didn't think the poster was aware of what they were doing. This is why I told him or her this. It most definitely is being done, and I would think that no one here at DU would willingly participate in a racist meme.

And I have defended Senator Clinton on these boards many times.

[krkaufman]

162. I'd have liked to assume that you are both being intentionally silly ...

... but, just in case, "Hillary" is her campaign branding, both to present a more friendly image and to create a separate image from her husband's legacy; whereas, Obama's campaign brand is "Obama '08."

[Number23]

80. Huh?

One of the constant held biases of racists is how African-Americans smell.

I'm a black chick from Georgia and I have NEVER heard that one before.

[bridgit]

81. welcome to du, Number23...

:toast:

[Bolo Boffin]

85. I hope that you never hear it again.

I'm a 40-year-old white man from Alabama (sad to say), and I heard it a lot growing up - mostly when African-Americans weren't around.

ETA: It is an ignorant and foolish belief. I just wanted to make that clear.

[krkaufman]

160. You're kidding, right?

BO = Barack Obama
HC = Hillary Clinton

There's a point where sensitivity becomes overly sensitive.

[quickesst]

17. This statement....

"Barack Obama is both an intellectual coward and a shameless revisionist of his own history. Like the banker who will lend you money only when you don't need it, he opposed Bush's war only when doing so carried no political cost."

....is one that amazes me. The kicker? His continued support for funding the war while relying on his politically safe statement against the war to win democratic votes. Obama supporters, who's recall of events in recent history has obviously suffered, have now adopted the Repug defense that a vote to defund the war puts the troops in danger, and to do so would be unpatriotic. If I recall, the call to defund the war was widely supported here, especially when, unlike repugs, dems could actually comprehend that defunding the war would not put troops in immediate danger, but would force an end, and a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Funny how things can be interpreted(spun).

Paul Abrams: Huffington Post
First, the facts: Congress could vote to prohibit further appropriations for military operations in Iraq as of a specific date. That would NOT put the troops at any greater danger than they are now, because they would be fully funded (pay, food, gear, ammunition, benefits) until then. The military would have to organize their missions so as to get them out without compromising their safety. Somehow, the idea seems to be swirling in the surrounding ether that the troops would remain, but would be short of food, gear, ammunition, or other necessities. As Mozart muttered in Amadeus when the Emperor was trying to convince him his music had "too many notes": "this is absurd". It would only happen that way if the Administration made it happen that way. Why not say it?

Email
Print
But, Bush opponents will not do this without knowing that they can also win the spin when the Rove-right wing attack machine strikes. Here's how:

(my words:Adopted by Obama supporters)The spin: Neocon spin is that opponents are not willing to give our troops what they need to win, make them more vulnerable, expose them to greater risks, etc. So long as the true implications of cutting off the funds remain unuttered or unchallenged, many natural allies that oppose what Bush/Cheney are unleashing will not take that necessary extra step.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/defunding-the-war-win-th_b_38759.html>

Hard to believe that so many liberal democrats can be transformed into what those same liberal democrats have been fighting against for the last seven years. Thanks.
quickesst

[jgraz]

25. Cannon is a reliable Hillbot and anti-progressive

He's viciously attacked Cindy Sheehan for criticizing Pelosi's fear of impeachment and he's well-known (assuming anything about Joe Cannon could be considered well-known) for his wild-eyed rants against progressives, which he calls "progs".

Joe can be relied on to twist any fact, shade any truth to justify his grinding of whatever personal axe has currently lodged itself in his minimally functional consciousness. In short, he's a crank of the highest order.

[StClone]

82. Cannon used to be Repected

Now he and BartCop are sort of wacky.

[liberalcommontater]

145. I've read him for 3 or 4 years

along with Truthout, Smirking Chimp, Firedoglake, Crooks and Liars, DU, Daily Kos and Huffington Post. He brings up many interesting ideas and discusses them lucidly. He often points out that some of these ideas deserve greater scrutiny. I do not agree with all of the ideas on all of these sites. However, they all speak to me with greater truth and intelligence than Fox News, et al.

I could not believe the racism charge against Bill. In looking at what he said, I don't see any racism at all from our first "black president." However, I despise the charge. I am a school teacher and I have been accused of racism in the most ridiculous of circumstances. Joe Cannon had a very thoughtful post about how Senator Clinton had the black vote sewed up last October and November. Employing racist strategies would have been stupid and the Clintons are not stupid. On the other hand, an Obama surrogate throwing out a charge of racism at an opportune moment, well that is reprehensible.

No one is pure in this business.

[HamdenRice]

26. He also believes Hillary played a role in the JFK assassination

Scroll down to the entry:

Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Hillary and -- THE JFK ASSASSINATION?

His blog routinely trashes DU, Kos and all progressives.

In the past, that blog from time to time had mildly interesting summaries of other people's reporting, but for inexplicable reasons has descended into some kind of insane hate fest.

Your citing this is, imho, one "yammering crank" (as your local newspaper described you) nut-job referring to another nut job.

[Mooney]

27. Hillary Clinton voted for the war.

Even if Obama had spent the last five years sitting on his ass reading "Guns & Ammo" magazine, it's still better than having voted for the war.

The efforts to minimize Obama's opposition to the war can never overshadow the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for it. She has to be held responsible for what she did. All the efforts to minimize Obama's opposition to the war will never mitigate what she did.

Hillary Clinton voted for the war. Thousands of people are dead because of this war, and we're in the hole for half a trillion dollars for it so far, with no end in sight. Even if Obama's opposition to the war is a complete fabrication, it's still better than having voted for it.

[Taxmyth]

72. Barack Obama voted to fund the war

Just as guilty or the right thing to do?

[krkaufman]

163. That's the kicker. We call for accountability for Republicans ...

... but feel that our politicians should not be held accountable for *their* votes and actions? (And that's putting aside the fact that Hillary's position on the Iraq war is too vulnerable for a GE campaign. See: "She was for the war, before she was against it.")

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Hmmm... based on the article there is only one conclusion:

Joe Cannon is the liar.

[Nine]

31. Can a single Obama supporter offer a real rebuttal to this? (nt)

[Bolo Boffin]

44. I'm sorry. What would you consider a "real rebuttal"?

Mistakes happen. He pulled his punches when he was about to speak at the Democratic National Convention, and was probably going by the playbook set out by John Kerry when he did so. Letting an known opponent of the Iraq War speak at the convention when you yourself are decrying the reasons for going to war is John Kerry's way of saying, "That was a big mistake." The message, as the NT Times article points out, is "Who's best to execute the peace?" That was the message and that's what Barack was drawing attention to.

[humbled_opinion]

100. "Who's best to execute the peace?"

Be careful with that one because even as Obama was slamming McCain for his 100 years in Iraq remarks... his advisors were planning on 60-80k troops roughly half of whats there now for a long time in Iraq as "Peacekeepers"....

The problem for Obama is that McCain gets the Foreign Policy nod and the handling of post war Iraq nod from Independents.....

The longer that Obama and Hillary fight this nomination battle the stronger McCains argument that he is the right choice for fixing the Bush fiasco becomes.... Now we have Obama not using the McCain comment about 100 years in Iraq.... Obama camp apologizing for comments that a talk show host made that McCain is a Warmonger....

The problem for Obama is that the more his position and McCains position look similar the voting block will side with the experience.

[Usrename]

57. Rebuttal to what?

He just called Obama a liar without giving a single reason for his claim. I guess the rebuttal you are looking for is:

Is not!

[TankLV]

139. Noticed that too...hard to argue with the TRUTH and FACTS...

[babylonsister]

33. Got any background on this 'expert' and his bona fides besides

your claim that he's an excellent researcher? Seems he just might have an agenda to me. :eyes: Nice try, Perry. Since you posted it, prove the man doesn't have motives. Otherwise, this is just another blogger with an opinion, just like you.

[OzarkDem]

41. He's been around a long time

Since the early days of the Bush administration, IIRC.

I suggest you read his links and the sources he provides to back up his claims. He's not just offering an opinion, he's backing it up.

[ProSense]

35. "So did Bill Clinton"? What a crock of BS!

Also, where was Hillary when Bill was "repeatedly" defending "Bush against the left on Iraq"?

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

link

In the middle of the 2004 campaign to make Bush a one-term president (select) for his illegal invasion, Bill Clinton was defending him.

Kerry, unlike Hillary, spoke out against Bush several times before Bush invaded, including this speech at Georgetown University on Thursday, January 23, 2003:

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.

<...>

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

Kerry in 2003:

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time, continued Kerry, I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words "weapons inspectors" were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush's people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

link

Kerry has never wavered in calling out Bush on his immoral war, and he led the effort to set a deadline for withdrawal.

Hillary Clinton's problem has been not only her silence, but also her inability to explain her position with clarity and consistency.

[MethuenProgressive]

37. "Obama is both an intellectual coward and a shameless revisionist of his own history"

Yep!

[Usrename]

58. Shows your complete lack of any sense of history or decency.

Calling him a coward, that a good one. He has nothing to lose.

:grr:

[MethuenProgressive]

59. Typical Obama person.

Lacks any sense.

[Usrename]

60. It has more to do with things like character, ethics, morality...

..things you wouldn't understand.

[MethuenProgressive]

63. Really? And you still support Obama?

Wow. Are you disconnected from reality, or just one of many victims of years of RW anti-Clinton propaganda and months of Obama's Swiftboating of the Clintons on race?
I don't know how any Democrat would rather hand McCain the Whitehouse than support Sen. Clinton.

[Usrename]

68. Like I said, things you can't comprehend.

:banghead:

[rodeodance]

91. as MP said--things you choose not to comprehend. Your bubblelife will burst some day

[Usrename]

112. Does this mean that you also think Obama is a coward?

Just wondering about your own comprehension abilities.

[polmaven]

154. Things he "wouldn't understand"???

Character, ethics an morality are qualities you accuse MP of not being able to understand. Why is that, exactly?

Do you know the poster? Are you aware of the poster's personal life?

Because he happens to disagree with your choice of a Democratic nominee he is without character, unethical and immoral? Is that what this has become? Agree with me or you are worthless?

I, personally, think you owe MP an apology.

[Usrename]

155. You may be right about the other poster, I don't really know.

Maybe he just chooses not to use his skills here at this time for some reason.

While most human beings are concerned about the safety of someone like Obama, it seems out of tune to try and label him a coward.

Do you honestly think that there is no risk for him to become our president, or that he is unaware of the risk?

It's folks like Joe Wilson and this poster who I am responding to, that would lable him a coward, that owe the apology.

Use your head.

[indimuse]

88. present!

I didn't know Rezko was blah blah blah...I didn't know my preacher was blah blah blah...I didn't know those 32 buildings in my district were unfit to live in etc..blah blah blah...I didn't know I took 3 times more cash from rezko campaign donation, than I previously disclosed..blah blah blah..

[humbled_opinion]

101. WOW.... That one could have come directly

From freeperland.... Amazing, I see that is going to be the RW attack on Obama....

"I didn't know"

and what I did know "Iraq was bad"

is going to backfire on me because McCain knows what to do to fix it...


Typical.

[TankLV]

140. the TRUTH is really hard to handle for you obamababies, isn't it?!?!

[GarbagemanLB]

38. I am fauxtraged!!

[blogslut]

43. He's wrong

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z0BzRhtAcd8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

[Neshanic]

45. He's a typical politician. Anything to get elected.

[2rth2pwr]

49. Obama will keep Blackwater in Iraq

AMY GOODMAN: Obama was speaking at the Cooper Union. I had a chance to briefly interview him as he was shaking people’s hands after he left the stage. I asked Obama why he’s not calling for a total withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in accordance with the 70 percent of Iraqis who say they want the US out.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/28/amy_goodman_questions_sen_obama_on

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Obama, quick question: 70 percent of Iraqis say they want the US to withdraw completely; why don’t you call for a total withdrawal?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I do, except for our embassy. I call for amnesty and protecting our civilian contractors there.

AMY GOODMAN: You’ve said a residual force—

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Yeah, but—

AMY GOODMAN: —which means thousands .

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, no. I mean, I don’t think that you’ve read exactly what I’ve said. What I said is that we do need to have a strike force in the region. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places. But we do have to have some presence in order to not only protect them, but also potentially to protect their territorial integrity.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you call for a ban on the private military contractors like Blackwater?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I’ve actually—I’m the one who sponsored the bill that called for the investigation of Blackwater in , so—

AMY GOODMAN: But would you support the Sanders one now?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Here’s the problem: we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can’t draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops. So what I want to do is draw—I want them out in the same way that we make sure that we draw out our own combat troops. Alright? I mean, I—

AMY GOODMAN: Not a ban?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I don’t want to replace those contractors with more US troops, because we don’t have them, alright? But this was a speech about the economy.

AMY GOODMAN: The war is costing $3 trillion, according to Stiglitz.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: That’s what—I know, which I made a speech about last week. Thank you.

[rodeodance]

86. thanks--I had not seen that.

[humbled_opinion]

103. Damn...

I hadn't seen that either and Obama's position sounds a little tortured....

Hmmm... Is this real?

[2rth2pwr]

121. There is audio at the link

[humbled_opinion]

150. Wow... Ok but he still not as bad as Hillary so I will continue to support him.

[bridgit]

50. Said it before, no politician is spun from gold; BO's fainter, more vaporous hearts

are going to be going through some tough times. There'll be crow to eat. I only hope they'll be able to gak it down.

I loved that performance of BO's on Matthew's college tour. BO explaining where all the money he is to be re-appropriating will be going. Top of his list? Like he doesn't know which group he's sitting in front of? College scholarships!! The room erupts with glee, pleasure, hope, change, affirmation; poms-poms are shaken, young women are held onto the shoulders of cheer-leading team mates cheering, shrieks from the audience not unlike Morrison's ghost children's shrieking adoration before the rock star that lingers & lingers...

But then right behind that, BO mentions "work"...and the room falls silent, and 'building things'...the room seems to fall even more silent, the faces become more stiff, rigid.

BO and his supporters are a-flow within a pom-pom waving world. A world of dorm rooms, fraternities & sororities, cool kids, micro brew, futures, working some people into and others out of your network for reasons known only to some. That's why BO spends so much time in university gymnasiums...he understands his audience as being, by & large, isolated from the world; an entire segment able to text message his poll numbers up while belittling "uneducated" working Americans as worth less in this nation and do not say it does not happen cause it happens right here on DU, no...

BO votes 'present' too much for a guy that touts work as a virtue. His voting record is a peculiar mix that includes some heinous RE neocon world ending manipulation.

Lucy! You got some s'plain'n to do


Thanks for posting :kick:

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Please see my post #42 about your offensive abbreviation of Obama's name (I'm sure you aren't aware)

Obama is only five letters long. It's not so onerous to type. And by doing so, you abandon an offensive racial slur.

As I noted, you are probably unaware of this. But it is there, and it is very offensive.

[bridgit]

53. I disagree, I've keyed Barack Obama on numerous occassions...

My sense/read of your post above is that you're being hypersensitive. This is a message board. As a practical matter we are not here offering treatise, tracts, thesis and/or disertations...we're keying items in some cases as briefly, as concisely as possibly. And it is becoming a weary experience being contiguously race baited by Barack Hussein Obama's supporters seeking little but to pull the discourse far off field.

Whether it is SCOTUS, POTUS, IMO, HRC, IBM or what-have-you...Barack Obama's initials are BO

I was at the time the first little white girl to intern at Alvin Ailey http://www.alvinailey.org My son's GodFather is a black man, we have a 1/2 black granddaughter, and I will not rise to being race baited by anyone. People do have choices, they can, just to indicate two: either wallow, or move on. I prefer to move on.

All the best

[Bolo Boffin]

54. So you now know of this offensiveness and you are unrepentant

AND you start in with the Barack Hussein Obama line. Classy.

You are participating in a vicious racial slur, and now you are doing it knowingly.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bridgit]

67. disagreed...

[Bolo Boffin]

71. What exactly do you "disagree" with?

Do you deny that racists smear African-Americans by claiming that they stink?

Do you deny that BO is a common abbreviation for the term "body odor"?

Do you deny that racists are referring to Barack Obama by his initials to reference that initial smear (with the example I gave of the stupid Faux News show as a prime example)?

I have said that perhaps you are unaware of this being done, and thus can be excused for doing this. But all of those things are true. I don't honestly understand how you can deny any of those things.

[bridgit]

74. For openers yes, I disagree with your premise that AA's "stink" (your words)...

I find that a most vile & disruptive propagation of ignorance on your part to the say such a thing as "African Americans stink" as I know of no AA's in my orbit that "stink" (if you'd care to enlighten us as to just how thay "stink" then do so), that is a pernicious assertion on your part that I reject out of hand; I reject it with every fiber of my being...as it, your standard screed it would seem, is *no-where near* to my personal experience; and as alluded to in my post above, I have shared my psychical essence on a stage full of AA's so you need to move beyond it. As that is a stupid, racist thing to assert.

I disagree that 'BO' is, in this context, "a common abbreviation for the term "body odor"...that is stupid & ignorant at it's core. And requires no further comment but to suggest that you are mistaken on a grand, irrefutable level.

I disagree that; and we are speaking here of DUer's i.e. me, and not per se "racists" now are we (which I continue to maintain you would do well/better to consider your very own contributions to the furtherance of, for your own benefit) are referring to BO as a stinking black man...that is as well just plain stupid and race baiting gibberish.

Negative...

You are continuing to propagate race baiting racism by these very means you consider most grand though are imo pernicious or here; giving you this: specious at best.

So that after your having refused to understand, recognize, or respect the experiences of others to your detriment...I declare: Welcome To America Instead...peace!

[Bolo Boffin]

87. I am informing you of a racist bias - and it is not one that I believe or ascribe to.

Your effort to make that something I believe myself is for nothing. I don't. I know the racist belief is out there. That is ALL I have said. Quit twisting my words to make them something they are not. I very precisely stated what I did to avoid such a idea. That the belief is out there is undeniable, and your contortions to make me say something I am not means you know this to be true.

I didn't say that BO in this context means body odor. I said that BO can mean it. That is undeniable as well, and your contortions to avoid the plain meaning of my words means that you know this to be true as well.

By continuing to refer to Barack Obama as BO (an appellation he has never gone by in his life), you are assisting what some are using as a racist meme against him. You are enabling it.

Your granddaughter is lovely.

[bridgit]

118. I know precisely why you're doing what you're doing...

It is because your candidate is weak on answering questions of substance in real time. He waffles. He's lawyerly. He rarely says what is on his mind (until his poll numbers flutter, affecting the arc of his personal flight path). So his supporters are prepared to drag the entire world down, into, and then through every gutter so as to alleviate him from having to do anything but sit there with his chin held high atop his chrome, high-horse diplomat with a far away stare as though perpetually posing for the bronze statue his supporters already think he is.

It is clear that BO can mean Barney Oldfield for that matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Oldfield and this is only part of the problem when people attempt to drag discourse so are off field.

Your words are clearer than apparently even you think they are, or are prepared to admit. What you seem equally unaware of, however, if while inversely proportional to the aforementioned clarity; is that they are themselves meme that *you* are propagating and yes..."in this context".

So have fun. But tell me why instead of propagating racist meme; and I'm sorry but this is his name, but why did Barack Hussein Obama vote to sustain Cheney's secret closed door energy policy, and drag America off to the energy crisis she sees before her today? Why? http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213 And don't bother trying to point to some 3bil tax offset that your guy made sure was in there like so many do around here. If we know nothing we know, that to BigOil's off-shore holdings, in fact what are now war profits; 3bil is chump change. So if you would please riddle me that instead.

There's a very real likelihood that BO will get in there. Maybe it's time he start answering some questions in real time instead of standing round university gymnasiums waving from the midst of cheering pom-poms.

[Bolo Boffin]

125. I am telling you about this to make you aware of an unintended message under your words.

And now that you know this, you continue to use the initials.

How sad.

[bridgit]

135. Very well, thence forth BHO it is...

Now turn that frown upside down as I knew you'd have no answer for BHO's voting record such as it is :(:)

[Bolo Boffin]

148. What's so difficult about typing Obama?

You can't manage the civility you'd show a strange dog on the street for this possible Democratic candidate for President?

[bridgit]

152. Here's your problem, and it's not *just* yours, it is the problem of many, many BHO supporters...

They're not able to get their heads all the way around his name, they can't handle it. They whine when the 'H' is left out saying that having done so draws attention to it by not being there :eyes: They whine when the 'H' is included because *it is there* (don't you see how silly this stuff is?) but my sense is that they fear the name 'Hussein' is not a deal closer and reminiscent of an Islamic world filled with such common names. And all that that implies. I have no such problem. That problem is clearly yours to move beyond.

You can't have it both ways. If this is your only issue (and I've seen you in other threads jacking this same ole jaw reminding theeeeee entire world, and in some of the most ham-handed manners I've ever seen here at DU just how much folks in your part of the country have thought AA's "stink" which I continue to disagree with on the face of it) I do have empathy for you. But little else. It would seem even ponies at the circus have more tricks. I've already suggested that you simply move beyond such stale, useless meme, like many Americans do over a host of issues. But you won't, or can't cause you're stuck-on-stupid.

Post a reply here if you'd care to. Make it a down & dirty one if you must. But I will not reply. I am done with you and people like you. IMO you're just not contributing anything. Plus I have better things to do. So again...

Have fun. Oh, and by the by, I do not "show strange dog(s) on the street" all that much civility. And if you had seen some of the strange dogs on the streets of my city, my further sense is that you wouldn't either so don't give me that nonsense.

That is just more of your meme race baiting gibberish coming from a different angle. Maybe you just need to grow up. Or move to a different part of the country where people don't think such peculiar thoughts on a routine basis.

[Bolo Boffin]

153. I didn't ask you what my problem is. Why can't you just type O B A M A?

How many times are you going to try roping a belief of that vile racist meme around my neck? You can "continue to disagree with on the face of it" all you want. I disagree, too. I think it is false, just like you do. None of that changes the fact that it is out there.

You know, if I found out that a cute little way I had of referring to Senator Clinton turned out to be potentially associated with a vile sexist meme, I would drop it. I would thank the person who informed me, because I wouldn't want to be suspected of giving that kind of offense to her. I'll argue my disagreements with some of her policies up and down, but in the end, if she's the nominee, she's got my vote -- and we would be lucky to have her.

But you try to turn me into a racist over and over again, and continue to use the initials just as much as you damn well please. Why, you have black people in your family! How nice it is to hear that one again. :sarcasm:

So, go your own way, you're on ignore, bye.

[TTUBatfan2008]

51. So has this guy...

analyzed Hillary's campaign in the same manner? Because I'm almost certain that she's lied just as much, if not more than Obama or any other politician involved in this campaign. You can put a microscope on any politician and you'll find a shitload of lies. Hillary is no different, but I don't see this guy holding up a microscope to her. Why is that?

[hulka38]

56. Who is this moron? What's his bio? How long his site has existed?

How much was he paid and by whom to write this stinking pile of poop. Unfortunately, people will believe it. But then again, it will be the same people who were convinced that Iraq was going to attack America with WMD. Society has already written them off as a loss anyway.

[liberalcommontater]

146. I've read him for 3 or 4 years

along with Truthout, Smirking Chimp, Firedoglake, Crooks and Liars, DU, Daily Kos and Huffington Post. He brings up many interesting ideas and discusses them lucidly. He often points out that some of these ideas deserve greater scrutiny. I do not agree with all of the ideas on all of these sites. However, they all speak to me with greater truth and intelligence than Fox News, et al.

I could not believe the racism charge against Bill. In looking at what he said, I don't see any racism at all from our first "black president." However, I despise the charge. I am a school teacher and I have been accused of racism in the most ridiculous of circumstances. Joe Cannon had a very thoughtful post about how Senator Clinton had the black vote sewed up last October and November. Employing racist strategies would have been stupid and the Clintons are not stupid. On the other hand, an Obama surrogate throwing out a charge of racism at an opportune moment, well that is reprehensible.

No one is pure in this business.

Posted earlier at #145, but it seems to answer your question.

[hulka38]

147. Thanks for your reply. I never bought that Bill was our first black president

because he's white. The idea that Hillary had the black vote sewed up in October of 2007 three months before the first primary and against a recognized and celebrated black U.S. Senator who had a large and well organized campaign nationwide is ludicrous. This black man who would win Iowa handily, attract cash, crowds and volunteers in unseen before numbers and would become the darling of the national and international media. But Hillary had the black vote sewed up in October of 2007.
The truth is, is that after Iowa the Clintons knew that they could not hold
the black vote. before the S. Carolina primary, they opted to try to marginalize Obama as "the Black Candidate", like another Jesse Jackson, in they eyes of the larger Democratic electorate. Obama pointed out what they were doing, media caught on and the gambit backfired on the Clintons.
I thought most people that follow politics understood this.
Based on what I've read and heard of him this guy is clearly nothing but a hack and shouldn't be believed. I doubt he even believes what he writes.
This Joe Cannon should turn the cannonfire towards his temple.

[liberalcommontater]

164. Hi, thanks too

I checked out pollster.com and found these. I am not trying to play gottcha, but what do you think having this info in hand?

http://www.pollster.com/08-SC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-AL-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-GA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

The unseen numbers I think are due to a couple of factors. Republican misrule and two strong candidates (three when Edwards was in - he was my first choice).

As for being the first black president, I agree, he is white. However, I do think that he has a connection with the black community that rivals that of anyone.

Looking forward to a Dem in the White House. Just have to keep our eye out for election fraud.

[Maribelle]

62. And the right wing is gearing up to attempt to fracture Obama.

Symposium: The Unknown Obama

One could also point out the existence of Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and even Justice Clarence Thomas, but that is taboo in most of black America because they don’t have the right kinds of politics. Rev. Wright, it will be remembered, referred to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as “Condoskeezza”, from the urban slang word “skeeze”, one of the most derogatory terms for a woman imaginable. He regularly refers to Justice Thomas as “Clarence Colon.” Here is real injustice to upstanding African-Americans, and the Senator never brought such things up at all. He generally slides out of perverse comments by fellow African-Americans by invoking the First Amendment and then changing the subject. I think we have yet to see what the real consequences of Obama’s retrogression on the race issue. If he loses the election, one can expect the level of racial tension and possibly even racial violence, to skyrocket, and some part of the blame can be laid at Obama’s feet for that should these occur.


I’d like to end this round by noting that, in my opinion, the Senator is actually quite politically retrograde in inverse proportion to his rhetoric of hope. I’ve already discussed why this is on the race issue, but it is true of his more general politics as well. Fred Siegel masterfully pointed out that Obama has very little political experience and is, in fact, “a clever but conventional Chicago left-liberal hack”. Surely one can understand why supporters of Obama would be silent about Obama’s real political credentials and lack of experience. After Bush, he may be a hack, but at least he’s “our hack”. And he makes us feel good. Such is politics.


Obama remains mired in the past, as well, on the issue of Iraq. The dominant message of his campaign is that we never should have gone to war in the first place (another demagogic feint to anti-war sentiment). This is about as backward a form thinking as one can get, since the new president must imagine and carry out a solution that protects the nascent Iraqi society, which is a fundamental duty that we have taken on ourselves as a nation, whether we like it or not. He must also protect American interests in the region, regardless of whether he agreed with the war or not.


The other central part of his campaign message on Iraq is that the war is a lost cause – a fact with which most Iraqis and General Petraeus would not concur. He is, in effect, consigning America to defeat against al-Qaeda, which can only benefit the latter and enable radical Islam to new heights globally. It is hard to see any “hope” in Obama’s plans for Iraq. In fact, I have strained myself to find any indication whatsoever of what exactly a President Obama would do about the war on terror. I suppose, like most left-liberals, he imagines that it only exists as a creation of George W. Bush, rather than something which was there before Bush and will be with us a long time, especially if Iraq is lost. The astute Paul Berman has recently pointed out in The New York Times that the silence of the left on radical Islam is one of the most troubling hallmarks of the discourse of modern times. Like his preacher, one gets the sneaking suspicion that Obama, like many left-liberals, really do think that we are the cause of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, as if the agents of the latter are simply reflexes of our “evil empire.”


more ...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C753AD1A-9481-43B1-AB96-3121A49B10F0

[McCamy Taylor]

64. Here is what I posted at Cannonfire

There are two camps here. Both are driven by distrust of one or the other candidate. Hillary-haters are cool if Obama wants to triangulate on the war to get elected. Obama-distrusters are fine if Hillary wants to triangulate on the war to get elected. But each side thinks that the other candidate's triangulation is a sure sign that she or he is in the pockets of the NeoCons aka Exxon.

You can see the problem here, right? McCain is the one in the pocket of the NeoCons and Exxon. Both Hillary and Obama are triangulating to get elected to stop the war. Neither is a liar. Obama's camp needs to chill with the "Gore is a liar" rhetoric (which is being propelled by the RNC and the MSM) because when they support it they hurt their own candidate's image with core Democrats and turn the primary into Chicago 1968--which is what Karl Rove planned last year. I have been blogging about this since last year.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Justice Is Comin]

66. obama never saw a fence

he didn't walk. He's a phony of mythical proportions.

That's what phonies do. Patterns and factual debunking don't matter to string bean fanatics.

They're on a mission to lose again.

[bhikkhu]

69. As excellent a researcher as Rush - its cherry-picked crap.

And I would say the same if it were posted against Hillary. I hope enough here can read well and follow the arguments to see, facts are only facts where they support an preconceived argument. They only need stand long enough to prop up the next one. The primary tool of the OP is the omission of context. And finally, the whole thing need be drawn out just long enough to generate that "bad taste in the mouth" that Democrats have grown familiar with when the time comes to vote for their candidate.

It is embarrassing to see how many will jump on bandwagons such as this...

[Cheap_Trick]

73. oops

looks like your cannon fired a dud. Nice try. Next?

[livingmadness]

75. When it comes to assessing any information

context is everything. Having taken a look around the site you applaud, I have to say the context is particularly poor and the author does little but spew vile hatred toward the man whom he is upfront enough to say "No, I'm not going to stop going after Obama". That cannot be overlooked in reading through what he presents, nor the inflammatory tone he takes When you take in the numerous smears Mr Cannon himself makes, his assertion that "I will never tolerate the left's embrace of Limbaugh-ism -- i.e., the politics of smear and vitriol" is somewhat laughable. I think, from what I have seen, he has become what it is he protests. His conclusion - that "Barack Obama is both an intellectual coward and a shameless revisionist of his own history" is a case in point. Why, given this context, would I be inclined to take his writing, 'researching' seriously?

Now before you jump up and done enraged that I am just another 'biased' Obama supporter, consider this. The New Republic ran an excellent piece on Obama's changing stance on the war here: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aaad0724-dd13-4ffa-810b-d5d3220ff055&p=1. It is well written, includes all of the important information Mr Cannon flings around, but is significantly more balanced. For example, somehow Mr Cannon ommits this in his expose:

"Even in mid-April 2003, just days after a Saddam Hussein statue was famously toppled in Baghdad--and at a time when a New York Times poll found that 79 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of the war--Obama, speaking to a Chicago paper, warned that Bush "is riding high on the whole Iraq situation for the moment, but ... he jury is still out." By February 2004, long after the time Hillary has charged he scrubbed his war speech from his website, Obama was publicly taunting his Senate primary opponents for failing to oppose Bush's "dumb war.""

Do you think that slipped Mr Cannon's notice, or he purposefully left it out? I suspect the latter which just goes to show that just because you tout your piece as 'factual', people can be very selective about which 'facts' they pick and choose from. If you can find any substantial point Mr Cannon makes that is not included in the TNR article I'd be happy to see it. Given that the TNR article provides extensive coverage of the issue and is critical as well as comprehensive of Obama's changing stance on war (indeed Mr Cannon really didn't need to 'research' at all), it is IMO a much fairer read.

Ultimately neither piece shakes my support of Obama - I see a candidate grappling with an incredibly important issue and attempting to view it from all sides. Has he embellished his stance in order to draw a point of distinction from Clinton in this election cycle? It would seem so. Hardly ground-shaking stuff though I'm afraid. I'm sure you will see it differently, and we will have to agree to disagree on that.

My advice to you is that if you want to take Obama to task, that you use credible sources. But then it wouldn't be the inflammatory piece you were perhaps looking for, now would it?

[livingmadness]

79. I forgot to add

The article begins with the claim "I loudly and vigorously opposed the war in Iraq" (supposedly an Obama quote) followed by the writers contention that "You can find the above Obama quote all over the net". Well I googled that quote and only came up with 3 hits. Hilarious.

[merh]

97. Welcome to DU

Your rational and common sense posts are a breath of fresh air.

:hi:

[Radical Activist]

77. Joe Cannon is a shameless liar or a fool or both.

This is the most deceptive pile of crap I've read in a while. Just because this moron is too lazy to do real research other than "deep googling" doesn't mean Obama didn't speak out against the war during his Senate campaign. It was well known during the campaign that he was opposed to the war, the only primary candidate to do so, and that's a principle reason why I supported him at the time.

The best part is that Cannon calls Obama a liar because he gave a speech against the war instead of writing it in a blog or letter to the editor. Cannon is a fucking joke.

[Maureen1322]

92. I read the post headline thought it was a hit job

and I was right. Read some of the replies and once again good democrats are killing each other over some article written by someone who no interest in getting a Dem elected. This makes no sense.

[wrando]

94. propaganda

Lies! Lies I tell you!

Obama really is a politician?
He doesn't walk on water?

what to do?

I know let's smear the messenger

Bill from ct

[bluebellbaby]

95. Great Post! Why did Obama need to "recreate" his speech if it was so great?

[Faygo Kid]

98. You get sent over here to reinforce this posting?

I smell a rat. Second post?

[NorthCarolina]

96. With limited tangible differences between them, the best reason to choose Obama over Clinton

to me is: Hillary Clinton is DLC and Barak Obama is not.

[Levgreee]

102. He holds the same position as Dean and Biden, once we were there, we were stuck with funding the war

The bus had already been driven into the ditch, now they had to get it out in a safe and responsible manner.

But make no mistake, the error was driving the bus into the ditch in the first place.

[humbled_opinion]

104. Be careful with that position...

It is the position that McCain is taking and when it comes to experience both Hillary and Obama are going to lose the independents to McCain on this issue.

McCain is a warmonger intent on destroying Iran with the help of Friend Joe Lieberman but now that he is called a warmonger Obama is apologizing for people using the term.

that is a poor move on the part of Obama because he must distinguish his position on Iraq from McCains.... The national debate on Iraq is no going to be about how we got there we know an idiot made a mess out of it. But what are we going to do to win the peace... Much will hinge on Patreaus reports and how they are perceived by the public.

I am an Obama supporter for many reasons but it is sad to say that Hillary has adopted the only true leadership position on Iraq.

She said she will remove all troops from Iraq regardless of what the situation is or what the Pentagon advises..... That is different then McCain and Obama.... If that was the number one issue in this campaign I would say she would win... but the economy has overshadowed Iraq and it happens to be Obama's strongest position.... So as long as the economy is tanking Obama should do just fine.

[Bolo Boffin]

105. Oh, that was four years ago. Bush has thoroughly cocked up the situation now. n/t

[humbled_opinion]

149. Who is Bush? n/t

[Irishonly]

106. Who Is He

When I used the google I came up with a soccer player, a dead man, a retired legislator and the chairman of the Utah republican party.:shrug: Edited for spelling

[Evergreen Emerald]

107. Isn't it amazing that not one media outlet covers this. They are too busy

trying to find dirt on Clinton.

[Raffi Ella]

166. Seriously, it really is. I'm stunned by the blatant bias for Barack Obama.

I'm equally as stunned reading the replies by his supporter's in this thread. Just Un-real.

[izzybeans]

108. It appears Joe Cannon knows some Hillary PR strategists. Congrats.

These claims have been duplicated times triplicate all over these here internets. Still doesn't make them anything more than spots on the standardized spinning wheel.

[zulchzulu]

110. This is more of the same old, tired, stale shit from the Hillbottery Clowns

Read this and STFU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4106912

[JayFredMuggs]

116. A great read ! Thanks !!!! eom

[balantz]

111. And to think

We could have had Edwards. He was pretty darned loud about getting out of Iraq, despite his earlier, more conservative stance.

Or, if you like, we could have had Kucinich. He would have gotten us out too.

So out of all the choices these two are the ones America (or should I say the M$M) have chosen for us.

In my opinion they are peas in a pod.

[walldude]

113. I read through the first 3 "lies"

The first wasn't even a lie. Obama said he opposed the war, but now that we are there we need to fund the troops. I don't see the lie.

The second and third "lies" are a supposedly "fake" video and a speech that was supposedly removed from Obama's website.

After the first lie wasn't really a lie I'm not willing to give this person the benefit of the doubt on the two he can no longer "prove".

There was no point in continuing.

[Gman]

114. Obama was for the war when it was convenient

now he says he's against the war because it's convenient. The guy votes "present" or just doesn't even show up for a vote to keep from taking a position. THis guy's absolutely worthless and above all, untrustworthy. Obama is a fake.

Obama is nothing but pure bullshit. He says nothing of substance. He's a vapor candidate.

[guyanakoolaid]

130. Please, Hillbots, keep these outright lies coming

Even the article itself, a pure smear job, concedes Obama was against the war in 2002 and 2003.

Black is white, I know, whatever it takes to put Hillary in the spot she was promised

[TankLV]

141. Yep - it's amazing really...

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gristy]

117. "begins a series of articles"

The implication is clear. That Obama lies so much Cannon can't fit it all into one article. That it takes so much time to document all those lies that Cannon thought he should get this summary of Obama's first few out as quick as possible and not wait to document them all. Oooh, I'll be waiting on the edge of my seat for the next installment, Joe! Not.

[guyanakoolaid]

120. Hillary is the candidate who VOTED FOR WAR in Iraq AND Iran - she or you will never spin that away

[mhoran]

122. Lame

Lame, lame, lame.

Some slightly unhinged nobody with a clear anti-Obama bias running the spin machine in high gear.

Remind me to come back to this thread the next time another Clinton supporter goes off on how Obama supporters need to stop with the hateful posts. Physicians heal thyselves.

[Politicalboi]

123. Why bother reading this bullshit

Hillbots can't see the difference of lying about "Sniper Fire" and supporting the troops that she helped send over there after the fact. They are a desperate breed and are looking for ANYTHING to help make her look good and NOTHING is going to work.

[Garbo 2004]

124. Cannon says he hopes a Republican wins in November, even if Hillary is the nom?

"Furthermore, this life-long Democrat now hopes for a Republican victory in November -- even if Hillary gets the nomination. That is how thoroughly the left has alienated me." http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/04/shut-up-randi.html

[mcollier]

127. Focus Team

What does this have to do with the price of Milk, gas, bread, eggs,and meat? Demand a discussion of the real issues facing Americans right now. Its only your financial security at risk...

Several real problem areas:

Credit Card interest rates: Get the DVD "MAXED OUT" Must See Documentary...

Transportation Costs: Truckers are now spending $900 to fill up their tanks; 1/3 of operating cost of airlines are fuel. Just everyday people's cost of getting to and from work (but everyone feels this)...

Baby Boomer Generation retiring at the same time when they are seeing their life's savings (retirement and 401k) drop like a rock.

Food Costs - Grocery store visits are getting much more painful...

Energy Costs - BGE (Baltimore Gas & Electric) slapped near an 70% increase in energy charge rates to consumers... OUCH! And really now competiton...

Fewer "Living Wage" Jobs... Fewer "None Living Wage" Jobs...: Over 200,000 jobs cut in first qtr 2008... Many more on the way out.

Rent is way up. Foreclosures are way up. Property values are way down. Interest Rates for consumers are still up (6.35%) or so, despite the government significantly lowering interest rates for banks and investment firms... The Feds poured a trillion dollars into the financial markets over the past 8 months, and much more to come... Where did this money come from and who's going to pay for it?

People with poor credit, can't get credit to bail themselves out of the mess, The Great Depression sets in... From Family to Family...

The War In IRAQ... Talk about an "Ear Mark" Spending $10 to $12 Billion a month on an experiment gone bad... "Hello, Washington we have a fire raging in America, Hello...Hello?


We have an Administration that has so FUBAR'ED America's:
Financial Policy
Energy Policy
Foreign Policy
Domestic Policy

A Must Read - Obama's Blueprint For Change....

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Please Read It. Refer it to others asap.

Find answers at: www.barackobama.com

[Skwmom]

134. Clinton is the liar and no amount of spin will change that.

[TankLV]

142. OBAMA is a LIAR and no amount of spin will change that!!!

Rezko, wright, mcglurkin - and all the countless others...

[jody]

136. BO is a political chameleon, he'll "change" his position to whatever seems appropriate at the moment

Like any other preacher caught up in the spirit when delivering a sermon, they resort to simple chants to capture the congregation.

For BO's followers the mantra is "HOPE, CHANGE, BLAME".

[billbuckhead]

138. Anyone doubt Hillary's opponent would have different Iraq position if the war was was going better

[hulka38]

144. You mean Senator Obama? I think everybody hoped the war would go better.

But it didn't. That's the reality in my world. And Senator Obama in 2002 warned people who listened that invading Iraq would be a terrible mistake.

[guyanakoolaid]

156. Anyone doubt Hillary would have different Iraq position if the war was was going better?

[anamandujano]

158. There is no way the war ever could have gone better. If you were

watching TV during the first Iraq escapade, all the commentators discussed what it would have been like to go to Baghdad. Everything they said has come to fruition.

Bush wanted to steal their natural resources and created chaos.

Mission accomplished.

[Milo_Bloom]

151. Who's lying? Joe Cannon...

He, like many, intentionally confuse speaking out against the war BEFORE it happened with actions taken AFTER it started.

Even Howard Dean, who was widely seen as the "anti-war" candidate didn't say we needed to immediately get out... he had nearly the identical position as Barack... now that we are there I hope we win and we need to make sure we don't leave it worse off than we found it (which was hard to do after breaking it in the first place).


The entire piece is innuendo (he removed x from his website so he must have something to hide)... that's not proof of a lie.

He also made a factual error... (or lie, whatever you want to call it) Obama WAS in the middle of the US Senate run... Much like presidential campaigns, people start campaigning for the spot before the "official" announcement. He made the speech in October of 2002 and "officially" announced in January 2003, but it was well known he was running at the time of the speech.

The most Joe Cannon has here is that Obama is making more out of the speech than it was at the time. He was just one of a few speakers that day and eye witness accounts say that particular speech was underwhelming in delivery and nothing special... the words are likely more powerful on paper than as delivered that day, although that is a guess, just like Joe Cannon's ASSUMPTIONS for the reason the speech isn't on the website anymore.

[unc70]

165. Can we prove that Obama actually gave THAT speech on 2-oct-02

A serious question, and after looking myself I was surprised at my answer.

I have not been able to find any proof that that he actually gave that speech on Oct 2, 2002. He spoke that day, he provided a version to a newspaper a couple of weeks later, after the vote in congress.

[SwampG8r]

167. to answer your question "who's lying"

its hillary
that is who is lying
24/7/365