This week the New York Post reported that when Barack Obama met with Iraqi officials he asked them to hold off on an agreement to begin withdrawing troops until after elections in America. In the article “Obama Tried to Stall GIs’ Iraq Withdrawal” Amir Yaheri of the Post wrote:
“According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
“‘He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,’ Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its ‘state of weakness and political confusion.’
‘However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.’ Zebari says.”
In response to the article, Steve Gilbert of the Sweetness & Light blog wrote:
“This headline is actually somewhat misleading. What Mr. Obama was calling for would not really have delayed the withdrawal of US troops, since nobody sees them being removed before the elections. But what he wanted was perhaps even worse than that.
As you can see, Mr. Obama wanted the Iraqis to refuse to negotiate a ‘timeline horizon’ for US troop withdraw until after the elections, when presumably he would be the President-elect or President in fact.”
The Obama campaign issued a press release denying the New York Post’s account of his meeting with Iraqi officials, saying that it had “as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.”
However, in their denial the campaign then stated that it was Obama’s objective to delay an agreement. Agence France-Presse reported, “In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a ‘Strategic Framework Agreement’ governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, [Obama national security spokesman Wendy Morigi] said.
There is no question now on the Obama Administration’s foreign policy philosophy – to use whatever American troops and resources available to make Obama look like a heroic diplomat.
Affirmative Action Election
At a campaign stop in North Carolina over the weekend, Joe Biden told the audience that electing Barack Obama would be “transformative” for America. Asheville, NC’s Citizen Times reported:
“Biden said the policies of running mate Barack Obama make his presidency even more urgent and declared this to be the most important election that any living person has seen in their lifetime. But he particularly singled out the meaning of electing someone who is black.
‘That will be a transformative event in American politics and internationally,’ Biden said. ‘That all by itself will be significant.’”
Prior to his speech, Biden attended a campaign fundraiser at the home of Erskine and Crandall Bowles. Sound familiar? In 1997, BusinessWeek reported:
“‘[T]he Erskine thing,’ as it’s sometimes called in this corner of South Carolina, across the state line from Charlotte. Erskine? That’s Erskine B. Bowles, Crandall’s husband and, since January, President Clinton’s Chief of Staff. Thing? That’s shorthand for the Whitewater mess he finds oozing around him. Only six days before, Erskine Bowles had been forced to testify about why he tried to line up work for disgraced former Administration official Webster Hubbell. Was he trying to keep Hubbell quiet about Whitewater?”
Yes, the “transformative” change that’s still funded by the same Democratic players.
After Obama’s comment last week that “you can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig,” launched a thousand excuses. Was it a jab at Sarah Palin? Was it just a coincidence? On her blog, Ann Coulter wrote what should be the final word on Obama’s piggish remark:
“The most famous line in the most famous speech given in 20 years, concluded with the punch line: ‘lipstick’ — specifically that Sarah Palin wears ‘lipstick.’ To use the hoary cliché about ‘lipstick on a pig’ days later in attacking the McCain-Palin ticket and pretend that it had nothing to do with Palin is utterly disingenuous.
It would be similar to, but worse than, using the even more tired political cliché, ‘that dog don’t hunt,’ in an attack on the Bush administration — days after Cheney’s hunting accident.
There’s a reason Obama’s half-comotose audience suddenly came alive and hooted when they heard the ‘lipstick on a pig’ line.
No one said ‘you people’ for years after Ross Perot’s speech to the NAACP. To this day, no one would say ‘that woman.’ without giggling about Clinton’s reference to Monica (which, coincidentally, was his most famous speech). Days after Palin’s ‘lipstick’ joke, ‘lipstick on a pig’ refers to Palin.
Obama was either being a cad or he’s not half as smart as they say he is.”
ABC Corrects Obama’s Freudian Slip
The mainstream media’s support of Barack Obama is such a well-known fact that even people like Bill Maher have acknowledged it. In an online report on September 15, ABC took it upon themselves to correct Obama on whether he’s run a negative campaign.
On ABC’s Good Morning America, Obama said, “If we’re going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily.”
Finally, an honest politician! Of course, ABC couldn’t let this Freudian slip get by. In the online report of the interview, ABC’s Mark Mooney wrote, “What Obama apparently meant was that McCain, not Obama, has put out more negative ads.”
With all of Obama’s gaffes, he sure is lucky to have the media looking out for him.
The Truth About Obama: What Every Citizen Should Know
HUMAN EVENTS’ new publication, The Truth About Obama: What Every Citizen Should Know is now available online.
“[Obama has] a record of supporting corruption, associating with criminals and terrorists, taking stances even to the left of our most liberal politicians (including blocking a bill in Illinois to ban a particular sort of infanticide) all from positions of power obtained without ever winning a truly contested election.
Despite his unimpressive record, Obama’s history is of ‘a shrewd, Machine-aligned politician from Chicago — a charismatic, smooth-talking politician whose words make people faint’ — and his lack of experience. ‘Obama appears to be escaping the appropriate examination that any man (or woman) who covets the Oval Office deserves.’”
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter