Jan 08 2008
Washington Posts Calls Dems On Iraq, Notes Obama Lie
Well its about time journalistic objectivity and honesty attempted a return to the “news media” (what I call the SurrenderMedia). Today in an editorial the Washington Post slammed the Democrats for not accepting success in Iraq, and slammed Obama for basically making crap up on the fly:
AT SATURDAY’S New Hampshire debate, Democratic candidates were confronted with a question that they have been ducking for some time: Can they concede that the “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq has worked? All of them vehemently opposed the troop increase when President Bush proposed it a year ago; both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama introduced legislation to reverse it. Now it’s indisputable that the surge has drastically reduced violence. Attacks have fallen by more than 60 percent, al-Qaeda has been dealt a major blow, and the threat of sectarian civil war that seemed imminent a year ago has receded. The monthly total of U.S. fatalities in December was the second-lowest of the war.
A reasonable response to these facts might involve an acknowledgment of the remarkable military progress, coupled with a reminder that the final goal of the surge set out by President Bush — political accords among Iraq’s competing factions — has not been reached. (That happens to be our reaction to a campaign that we greeted with skepticism a year ago.)
Stop here a second and note that the Washington Post is establishing ‘reasonableness’ – the boundaries of reality. Now look were the Democrats ended up:
…. coupled with a blizzard of assertions about the war that were at best unfounded and in several cases simply false. Mr. Obama led the way, claiming that Sunni tribes in Anbar province joined forces with U.S. troops against al-Qaeda in response to the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections — a far-fetched assertion for which he offered no evidence.
While Obama has been imprinted with a nation’s desire to heal politically, he cannot be considered a viable option if he makes crap up and tells it to us as if it was the truth. At least he did not wag his finger at us like Clinton did over “that woman”.
But what he did on Saturday was actually worse than Clinton’s lies about his personal sex life – Obama lied to us about national security. If he can so easily lie about what is happening in Iraq on national TV then what else can Obama lie about? And how easily can he lie when he has a chance to craft one so as to not be so obvious?
I doubt Obama was consciously “lying” – I strongly suspect that he’s ignorant and clueless enough to actually believe what he said. Remember, he’s surrounded constantly by people who tell him that kind of stuff 24 hours a day, which include all of his supporters.
He’s saying what just about all democrats actually believe. Actual facts? The entire dem party gave up on facts a long time ago.
WWS,
Obama made it up on the spot – and knew it was BS. The man is a politician, not a saint!
Besides all the candidates have staff and others do similar to mock juries and toss them all the questions and tune for their responses to any debate questions likely to occur in a debate, especially when the formats were real short sound bite responses which you didn’t have the time to tap dance with.
Another thing that is odd about this election cycle is no incumbent VP running for the office and the race on both sides loaded from the start with mostly Senators and Ex Senators with a couple of Governors thrown in. Messes with the whole model for the Senator to President transition models because of the candidate makeup.
Then you have to remember these are the same people who talk their head off in the Senate chamber in support of bills they really may not know about or care about, but just have a deal worked to support that bill for someone supporting theirs down the line.
Big grain of salt warning on some of these players.
Amen AJ, Amen