The McCain campaign is taking their effort to distance their candidate from the unpopular President Bush to a whole new level: McCain’s advisers are now openly attacking Bush on Iraq — and not only that, they’re also saying that Barack Obama is the one who is like Bush on the war!
On a conference call just now with reporters, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann compared Barack Obama’s insistence on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq to Bush’s insistence that we were winning even as things went badly for years.
“I think the American people have had enough of inflexibility and stubbornness in national security policy,” Scheunemann said. When asked later by the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein whether the campaign was disparaging President Bush, Scheunemann dug in: “We cannot afford to replace one administration that refused for too long to acknowledge failure in Iraq with a candidate that refuses to acknowledge success in Iraq.”
Forget “McSame.” The candidate who would really continue Bush’s policies is “BushBama.”
Wow…. đŽ đŻ Talk about spinning like a top. I have a very bad feeling this is going to backfire on McCain in a really big hurry.
Anyone who thinks that Barack Obama is anything remotely similar than Bush, quite frankly, has got a screw loose.
I’d be willing to bet that Barry’s behind is bit sore today…
A stinging Editorial from the Washington Post on Barry’s Iraq Plan:
BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: âThey said we couldnât leave when violence was up, they say we canât leave when violence is down.â Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might ârefineâ his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.
Mr. Obamaâs charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obamaâs timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obamaâs strategy allows no such linkage â his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.
At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued â wrongly, as it turned out â that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a âspikeâ in violence. Now, he describes as âan achievable goalâ that âwe leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future â a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge.â How will that âtrue successâ be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.
[…]
“Whatâs missing in our debate,â Mr. Obama said yesterday, âis a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq.â Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the warâs outcome â that Iraq âdistracts us from every threat we faceâ and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. Thatâs an irrational and a historical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the worldâs largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraqâs future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.
Ouch! That had to hurt. As I pointed out on Monday, Barry’s plan is just more of the same, but ever so slightly modified to somewhat reflect the conditions on the ground. However, what the Washington Post is getting him on, is his continuing insistence that he is pulling us out, no matter if we’re winning or not. I agree, pulling us out of Iraq, irregardless if we went in there on bad information or not, is just bad policy. It shows a lack of personal responsiblity, which is, as I have said repeatedly, what the Democrats and especially the far left are infamous for.
Republicans were not alone in that response. Michael E. O’Hanlon, a Democratic defense analyst at the Brookings Institution who has been an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq, said he could not believe that Obama would put such a definitive timeline into print before a trip to Iraq, where he is to consult with Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders.
“To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule — regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground — is the height of absurdity,” said O’Hanlon, who described himself as “livid.” “I’m not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn’t be president. I’ll leave that to someone else.”
The reason I don’t get it is, because what Obama wrote in that Op-Ed piece was basically his primary stump speech with some very minor refinements to it. So, why anyone on the Democrat side would be “Livid” about it, as they this guy put it, is well beyond me. In other words, Obama did not say anything different, than he did in the primary, he just updated it to reflect current events.
Now his point about Obama going to Iraq, I can see that point. But for him to become upset about what was written, I don’t get that, at all.
Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.
“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”
GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. “The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong,” said McCain, adding that Obama “refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding.”
B. Hussein Obama, Website Editor in chief. I love it! đ đ đ đ
However, the left would just say, what about all the times that the George W. Bush Administration changed their message, as the Iraq dissolved into chaos in 2004? How many times did they change their reasoning for even being there?
Of course, the Republican Neo-Cons are wetting themselves over this, and I’ll put the various ones in down at the end.
The way I see it, he’s coming towards the center, instead of pandering to the hard left, which is what he did in the primary, which is what the Congress did in the 2006 election. I’m personally glad to see that he’s trying to prove himself not to be another Dennis Kucinich, but rather a more moderate progressive, who is more pragmatic, than idealistic. This could very well help him in the general election. I think.
Many years ago, the Right actively told the story of just how harmful government really was to society. But then Republicans took control of government and we basically stopped telling that story. As a result – and even thought government is far larger – the public and the media pay far less attention to the costs and consequences government; instead, they are clamoring for even bigger government.
He is so right, until this Nation wakes up and realizes the Big Government is NOT solution, we will be in much trouble. It will be up to the Republican Party to to get back to it’s morals of small and limited Government and limited spending. The Globalist agenda and big Government agenda of this President has totally ruined that party. Hopefully people like me, John Henke and many others can bring the Conservatives back to senses and make the realize that the more that gets done, without the Governments help, the better.
Our friend John Monti is facing yet another bogus legal challenge (learn more here) and he could use our support. Make sure to join his Facebook group and hit the tip jar!
This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If youâd like to join find out how right here.
This is a great article, I recommend you go read it all…
Quote:
“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” George W. Bush, September 13, 2001. “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
The move to impeach President George W. Bush has been around for years. A large number of Americans actually thought that by voting in Democrats and “taking back” Congress in 2006, not only would America withdraw from this heinous, unconstitutional war in Iraq (and Afghanistan), they could also expect the incompetent, Nancy Pelosi, to spear head the impeachment of Bush. Of course, these duped Americans were played, again. There was never any doubt in my mind that there would be no impeachment. – The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder By Devvy Kidd (via NewsWithViews.com)
The most important point that Mrs. Kidd makes in this article is:
1. It is not our duty or obligation to remove any dictator from any foreign country by invading and killing anyone in our way. The Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823
2. It is not our responsibility to invade a foreign country to promote the evil of democracy. The Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823
3 – It is not our responsibility to invade any foreign country to allegedly protect a neighboring country to settle squabbling, religious or tribal differences between them that have lasted decades or a thousand years. The Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823
4. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize the American people to be robbed using borrowed money to fund wars based on lies and what is known as nation building. Our military is for our defense, period. We have the right to defend if attacked.
5. Bush has acknowledged the fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11, 2001.
6. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
7. Iraq was NOT any kind of threat to these united States of America.
8. Bush and his co conspirators planned the invasion of Iraq long before September 11, 2001, because it is the agenda being pursued for world government and every country who doesn’t fall lock step into line will be invaded and occupied until the desired results are achieved. That agenda includes making sure control of the world’s oil supply is in the hands of the power brokers who own the U.S. Congress.
Paid mouth pieces and party hacks on the stupid tube shout that any American questioning Bush’s motives during a time of war and and the invasions of two non threatening countries are somehow aiding and abetting the enemy. “Soft on terrorism.” Classic propaganda. It is our duty to question the motives and policies of those allegedly elected to public office on any issue – especially war.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
[….}
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. â And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
It was on this day, 232 years ago. That men decided that freedom was the only way. This post is for them.
A few videos:
A video that tells the story of our National Anthem and how it came to be:
A singing of our National Anthem, that I think is the closest thing to Heavenly Angels singing that we’ll ever get here on Earth:
Another American Classic:
Another one, done, only the way, this man could do it:
Even John Wayne knows:
I posted this, not for some stupid political ploy, not to be clever, but to remind everyone, no matter what your political stripe or conviction or feeling, You are, We are, all Americans. This is our land, and we should, at least once a year, stop and reflect on our freedoms. The freedom to write, the freedom to Pray to whatever God we wish or the freedom to not pray, at all. The freedom to agree, the freedom of dissent or to disagree, the freedom to assemble or simply the freedom to do nothing at all.
As Always, We remember our soldiers, especially those who have fallen:
One of my favorite songs:
Update: I could not remember the name of this song last night, I remembered the name this morning:
I cannot listen to this without tearing up⌠itâs tough, even for a guy:
God Bless the United States of America and God Bless and Keep our Soldiers.
