Re-watching the totally rad Donnie Darko last night, I was inspired to bring you on a little time travelling adventure. What have we wrought? This was originally written by me approximately 28 months ago:

“To Those Supporting Obama”

I think Barack Obama is a very smart man. I believe his heart is the right place. But he is a charlatan. Name the issue – he hasn’t flip-flopped, he is on BOTH sides of it all the time.

His entire candidacy from before the Democratic Primaries was based on his opposition to the 2003 war in Iraq. He has said time and time again that they had nothing to do with 9/11, we shouldn’t be spending our money there, etc. That’s fine. Let’s for the sake of argument say that Hussein’s Iraq didn’t harbor any terrorists or pay the families of suicide bombers (both of which he did). Let’s say that he never had any WMD programs (which he did). Let’s say he didn’t declare the United States his enemy (which he did). Let’s say he never violated the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire/No Fly Zones/UN Sanctions (all of which he did). Let’s say all he was ever guilty of was ethnically cleansing the Kurds, oppressing the Shia, killing, torturing and imprisoning all political opponents, suppressing free speech, free elections and religion, and of course invading and then killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Kuwaitis and attacking Israel. In other words, Hussein was purely “the Middle East’s problem”. Now consider this from last night’s debate:

“What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don’t have national security issues at stake?

Obama: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.

If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?

If we could’ve stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.

So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.

And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.”

Ummmmmm….doesn’t that mean you would have intervened militarily in Iraq, Mr. Obama?!?

The constant duplicity should insult every single one of you. On the question of breaching Pakistani sovereignty to get bin Laden:

“Obama: Look, I — I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Sen. McCain continues to repeat this.

What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.”

HELLO???? Taking out bin Laden within Pakistan IS attacking Pakistan!! I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, not even McCain is saying that. But being dishonest and claiming BOTH positions is the problem. And it is happening issue after issue after issue.

In Afghanistan, Obama says we need more troops and a new strategy – even though McCain said that well before Obama did – that’s fine. He is usually very complimentary to our troops there. Unless it doesn’t suit him at the moment.  See Aug. 13. 2007:

“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there”

Does he have no idea what the actual missions in Afghanistan are?? Ariel attacks from fighter jets are NOT happening without ground support. Chances are, however, he knew full well he was lying. This is the same bull the extreme left pulled during Vietnam. A certain John Kerry famously lied (even to Congress) about what he and his fellow soldiers were supposedly doing on the battlefield.

“There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed”

“Many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia…They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.”

Ideologically, Obama is McGovern and Kerry without the military background. He is Gore without the senate/VP background. He is Dukakis without the gubernatorial background. Yet he would have you believe he is more like Kennedy and Reagan. Would Obama agree with this?

“”A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

JFK, 8/13/62

Of course he would not agree. Then he would claim that he does…

Please reconsider your support of this silver-tongued prototypical politician. He is not different; he is “more of the same”. Now imagine the same liberal party in charge of the White House, the Senate, the House and soon the Supreme Court…

Advertisements