Jun 06 2008

Obama Spinning So Fast He’s Not Sure What He Is Saying

Published by at 11:22 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

At AIPAC Obama made some claims which don’t wring true with his previous positions and with comments right after the event.  First was his claim that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be considered and international terrorist group:

Expect the big story coming out of AIPAC to be Obama’s declaration that he thinks the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps ought to be designated a a terrorist organization… and how this balances with his vote against that exact designation less than a year ago.

In September, 76 senators, including Sens. Reid, Schumer, Durbin and Clinton voted for it.

The RNC notes:

In October 2007, Obama Described Kyl-Lieberman As A Justification For Attacking Iran. OBAMA: “[The] Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Five Years After Iraq War Vote, We’re Still Foolishly Rattling Our Sabers,” Manchester Union-Leader, 10/11/07)

Obama is so two-faced on issues he makes most other politicians look forthright and honest in comparison. Well, that was not the only claim he made to AIPAC. There was another claim he is now “clarifying” into total incoherence:

“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.

“Two principles should apply to any outcome,” which the adviser gave as: “Jerusalem remains Israel’s capital and it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.”

He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.

“Beyond those principles, all other aspects are for the two parties to agree at final status negotiations,” the Obama adviser said.

Obama must think Americans are pretty stupid not to find his constantly shifting stories more than a little disconcerting. He likes to twist popular phrases and and ideas to undo their clear meaning so he can shove some liberal and opposing positions inside them. He doesn’t even have the convictions to say what he means to America – which is a change from the current President all right. With Bush he meant what he said and did what he said. He did not try and hide it.

Another interesting story out is Obama’s attempts to physically intimidate Joe Lieberman:

The crux of Lieberman’s argument, however, was that Obama was putting the blame for Iran’s rise in the Middle East on America’s doorstep, pushing the argument that the Iraq war had strengthened Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s standing in the region and left Israel less secure.

Furthermore, during a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.

While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

More here:

They shook hands. But Obama didn’t let go, leading Lieberman – cordially – by the hand across the room into a corner on the Democratic side, where Democratic sources tell ABC News he delivered some tough words for the junior senator from Connecticut, who had just minutes before hammered Obama’s speech before the pro-Israel group AIPAC in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign.

Watch video of the encounter on the Senate floor HERE.

The two spoke intensely for approximately five minutes, with no one able to hear their conversation. Reporters watched as Obama leaned closely in to Lieberman, whose back was literally up against the wall.

Actually the video shows Obama literally pulling Lieberman away and not letting go of the hand long past the time respect and decency demands. Obama is showing his true colors, as a bully. It seems there is a real nasty person behind that media facade, something that has been reported on before. Not sure Obama is going to wear well over the hot summer and economic frustrations.

13 responses so far

13 Responses to “Obama Spinning So Fast He’s Not Sure What He Is Saying”

  1. kathie says:

    Who writes Obama speeches? He needs a fact checker. Maybe he doesn’t realize the importance of the job he is running for. You can’t just say anything on a national stage. What he says goes around the world. He had better wake up and fast.

  2. norm says:

    aj…based upon your comments the only interpretation can be that you think the us should impose it’s desires upon the isreal/palestinian negotiations. this must be the reason you see negotiation as appeasment…because you simply don’t understand the concept on even the most basic level. obama made his view clear. he then said it was up to the two parties in the negotiations to determine the fianl configuration. his view did not change unless you intentionally mis-interpret the quote.
    the quds force very likely enables terrorists. but giving the current inept civilian leadership an opportunity to wage more war, based upon what to date is at best flimsy evidence, cannot in any way be seen as a the responsible action of a legislator. these views and actions are not in any way contadictory. unless of course you are “…spinning so fast you are not sure what you are saying…”
    and finally the attack and occupation of iraq, along with other of the administrations middle east policies, has in fact strengthened iran’s standing in the region and made isreal less secure.

  3. MerlinOS2 says:

    Many are already pointing to the other issue at AIPAC about the divided Jerusalem commentary which his campaign staff has already issued a ‘clarification’ for.

    Guess it depends on your definition of ‘divided’.

  4. conman says:


    I’m wondering when you are going to start covering more significant stories regarding the Middle East, as opposed to the Obama speech fluff (not to mention the alleged Michelle Obama video story that is soooooooo old news).

    There are significant things going on in Iraq this week with the US-Iraq security agreement that you do not appear to have even mentioned. Significant Iraqi groups and players are strongly criticising the proposed US security agreement, which is critical for our long-term presence in Iraq. Today they are reporting that thirty-one Iraqi legislators, representing a majority of the Iraq Parliament, sent a letter to the US Congress expressing “widespread disapproval of the proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops.” http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ma10_delahunt/usiraqsecurityrelease64.html

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if after all of this US debate over whether or not a timetable for withdrawl is wise, the Iraqi government requires us to do it anyway? Far too early to assume that will eventually happen, but it is certainly not a good sign for Bush/McCain/GOP on the Iraq debate.

    I know you do not typically like to comment on the negative Iraq stories, but I’m curious what you take is on this situation. It seems pretty significant and worthy of attention given your focus on Iraq. So, what do you think?

  5. AJStrata says:


    Not much really happening in Iraq except lots of success! Seems the Democrats won’t get their silly Surrender Party.

    So far, lots of debate – no fighting.

  6. Terrye says:

    The way Obama went after Lieberman reminded me of the way Al Gore would stalk Bush at the debates. It just looks weird.

    And Obama knows he can change his position as often as he changes his underwear and people like norm and conman will make excuses for him. So why should he worry about it?

  7. Terrye says:

    Actually conman the Iraqis have always been in a position to do this inspite of the fact that the left assumes we are just murdering occupiers. The Iraqis are also considering a long term security deal with the US, much like the one we have with Japan and Germany and several other countries.

  8. conman says:

    AJ & Terrye,

    Apparently you need to pay closer attention to this story. The Bush administration does not consider the widening divide between the US and Iraqis over the security agreement a success. This is a significant issue and major problem for Bush’s long-term strategy in Iraq. Yes, the Iraqi government is considering a long term deal with the U.S., but the problem is they don’t want to agree to fundamental aspects of our proposal. Apparently they want a timetable for withdrawal. This is a major problem for McCain/GOP if we are unable to resolve it. Can you imagine what McCain/GOP will say this Fall about Iraqi strategy if the Iraqi government is still on record demanding a timetable for withdrawl and we still do not have an agreement in place to legalize our occupation after the UN mandate expires in October 2008?

  9. AJStrata says:

    Conman, I am quite aware of the disagreements and the over hyped reporting.

    Stop panicking every time someone disagrees! Geez, you liberals wet yourselves every time a little challenge shows up. No wonder your the Surrendercrats.

  10. conman says:


    Good point – I do have a tendency to over-react when disagreements crop up in Iraq. I remember being worried about the Samara bombings in 2006 leading to an escalation of the Sunni-Shite tensions. Look what happened in that case. Two years, several thousand dead Iraqis and a couple thousand dead American soldiers later and we are back on track! If only I had listened to your posts back in 2006 calling the concerns over the Samara bombings overblown I would have saved myself a lot of worrying.

    So I’m wondering, what part of the reporting is over hyped? Is it the reporting that the negotiations have been suspending and may not be started up again until after the next Iraqi election? Is it the reporting that almost all of the major Iraqi leaders and political parties have publically objected to it? Is it the letter from a majority of the Iraqi parliment to the US Congress stating they want a timetable for withdrawl?

  11. VinceP1974 says:

    What a creep:



    June 6, 2008 — WASHINGTON – An emboldened Barack Obama browbeat Sen. Joe Lieberman on the Senate floor after the self-proclaimed “Independent Democrat” slammed the candidate on behalf of Republican John McCain.
    Flexing his new power as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Obama greeted Lieberman, a prominent McCain backer, on the Senate floor Wednesday – then promptly led him by the hand to a back corner to give him a talking-to.

    “He had him pinned against the wall,” said one Senate aide who saw the tete-a-tete.

    Obama leaned in closely during an animated conversation that lasted several minutes.

    At one point, Obama pointed up at reporters gathered in the press gallery to observe the scene.

    But the conversation ended amicably enough, with the senators patting each other on the back, according to the newspaper Roll Call.

    “It was a very friendly and cordial conversation that was absolutely nonconfrontational,” said Marshall Wittman, a Lieberman spokesman.

  12. […] audiences, to win.  Except this Eddie-Barack is hard for some to detect.  But if you look at his performance at AIPAC recently, where he stated positions 180° from what he had said were his positions, and then afterwards […]

  13. […] of Obama’s two-faced flip-flop-flip was on the matter of Jerusalem and whether it would remain the capitol of Israel. Again we have no clue what his views really are […]