Obama and his campaign are counting on the fact that Sheeple have short memories. The Iraq War was ratified by Congress in February of 2003. The war officially began March 19, 2003. Obama was elected into the US Senate in 2004 and took office in 2005. Unfortunately, those that oppose the war today are more than willing to believe that he went against the grain and voted against the war. One has to ask though, why is no one talking about this?
This one position has been a primary tenet of his campaign, yet no one pays any attention to it because those that do remember and have the ability to point it out - the Liberal Media, cannot bear to tarnish his halo! He beat Hillary, in part, by comparing her "flip" on the war with his consistent opposition to it. The reality is that we really cannot know how he would have voted because he could not have voted at all. I can claim that I am against something all I want, but unless I take some form of action demonstrating this in a meaningful way, that claim is both unproven and irrelevant. My point is that this primary platform for his campaign is yet another total falsehood.
I had considered bringing this up before, but decided to push on to more current issues. However, yesterday's Saddleback debate brought this right up to the forefront again. Rev. Warren asked both candidates what their most gut-wrenching decision was. Obama's statetment was perfectly orchestrated to soothe those that still support the Iraq war, while satisfying those that oppose it. Obama's statement was that his most gut-wrenching decision was to oppose the Iraq war, because he knew that Saddam was a real threat to the US (Funny, that was the justification FOR the war), and that Saddam was a really bad guy. Obama's statement suggests that he actually had to take some risk in his opposition of the war. Since his reputation and political career could not be at risk and he really took no action at all, how was this a gut-wrenching decision?
I could introduce a red-herring, and bring up McCain's decision - which could have actually cost him his life - but I won't. I will, however, bring up a decision that Illinois State Senator Obama made that must have required some serious nail-biting; so much so, that he has tried to hide and down-play it ever since.
In 2001, Illinois State Senator Patrick O'Malley introduced Senate Bill 1095 "whose scope was carefully limited and whose language was completely unambiguous" (Freddososo, 2008, p. 195). This bill was crafted as a "Born-Alive" bill, intended to identify any child that leaves its mother's womb as a living person and entitled to protection under the law. Obama opposed this bill, which even NARAL stood silent on. He was the only senator to speak out against the bill, claiming that it would put abortion rights at risk. In this case, Obama actually did take an action that showed what his opinion was. Obama stated that the bill would not pass "constitutional muster" because the equal protection clause does not allow someone to kill a child, and if these live-born babies are considered children, this would be an antiabortion bill. (Freddoso, 2008, p. 196). However, when it came down to the vote, his convictions here were not sufficient for him to give a "no" vote. Instead, he chose a safer approach and voted "present". In 2001 a nearly identical bill was passed unanimously in federal legislation. The only difference was to add a "neutrality clause" that would ensure the crystal clear bill could not in any way threaten to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The Illinois bill was re-introduced to Obama's health subcommittee in 2003 (coincidentally, the same year Obama was supposedly opposing the war in the US Senate). It never made it to the floor for vote, however. In the shadows of his committee, he quietly killed the bill.
Now, we could say that Obama's speech in 2002 against the Iraq war was a clear indication of his position; that by this we can assume how he would have voted. Not true. I submit to you that Obama has on numerous occasions spoken out in opposition of some rather good legislation only to vote "present" rather than support his position with a "no" vote. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted present 137 times! Obama's track record suggests that he would have either followed what was popular (or fit the Democratic Party line) or he would have abstained from issuing either a yes or no vote. I think it is safe to say, that when the Iraq war was so popular, Obama would not have voted "no" unless he could somehow foresee that the popularity of the war would falter and that having voted against it would work in his political favor.
Ok, so he is no angel, just another politician, but does that mean that because of this one little bill way back in 2003, we should not trust Obama? Yes, and as Glenn Beck would say "Here's how I got there". As quietly as he could, Obama killed the revised bill in his healthcare subcommittee and ever since has provided a consistent response to why he did not let the bill reach the floor for a vote. The fawning media has consistently accepted this as true and it as been quietly kept shut away in the campaign closet. Until just this week!
On Saturday, Obama stated in a CBN interview that he killed the bill because it lacked the neutrality clause found in the Federal bill; which he had previously stated he would have voted for if he had been in the US Sentate when it was passed. He then told the interviewer that he was offended by those that continue to raise this issue. 24 hours later, a spokesman for his campaign indicated that his comments about the bill's provisions were a misstatement (read - LIE!), that the two bills did indeed contain identical neutrality clauses. Given that this specific bill is one he has been interviewed on several times and even found it important enough to justify his position in his book The Audacity of Hope, it seems highly improbable that he would make a mistake on why he took the position in the first place.
I know I am spending what seems to be an inordinate amount of time picking on Obama. I cannot help that. I am a Conservative and make no apologies for being one. Having said that, I apply logic and reason to my decisions as to where each candidate fits my Conservative values. In some respects, McCain rides close to the center. Where it matters, such as his position on when life begins (McCain states it begins at conception!), McCain is most definately Conservative.
Remember, the President does not create law. He can veto, and he has the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices, but he must allow the legislative branch to create legislation. As such, I know that I don't have to agree with all of a candidate's positions to vote for him or her. What I need, is the ability to trust their judgment and decision-making capability.
The more I look at Obama, the more I find that his statements lack reason and logic, ignore the facts and sometimes - fabricate them. When I winnow through the misrepresentations, and misdirections, I find this candidate is intentionally attempting to hide his extreme liberal agenda to secure votes. I feel that as a Conservative, I have an obligation to point out these issues as I see them. Doing so should reinforce the point that not voting this election year is NOT an option for Conservatives or Liberals. I, for one cannot vote for a candidate that consistently lies to justify or hide his actions, associations, and decisions. This should be true for any informed voter, regardless of whether you are Liberal or Conservative. As a Conservative I also know that not voting for McCain because he is not Conservative enough, is the same as voting for a candidate whose views we do know are views I primarily disagree with.
As always, I welcome all comments and will respond to those that are posted. Please apply logic and reason if you are going to state a position. If possible, provide some indication of research. If you quote someone, please provide the reference so the source is adequately credited and others can find the information too. I believe this to be essential to having any meaningful dialog regardless of one's position.
References
Freddoso, D. (2008) The truth against Barak Obama. Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment