Obama “Change”

Barack Obama ‘Refining’ Iraq Position on Own Website

Barack Obama ‘Refining’ Iraq Position on Own Website

Contact: Press Office,  703-650-5550 ; www.JohnMcCain.com


ARLINGTON, Va., July 15 /Standard Newswire/ — Today, the New York Daily News reported that Barack Obama has begun to “refine” his Iraq position by removing from his website the statements that he would “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq” and the Surge is “The Problem” in Iraq:


Barack Obama “Refining” His Position On Withdrawal…

New Obama Website: “The Removal Of Our Troops Will Be Responsible And Phased” And Would Be Done In 16 Months. “The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 more than 7 years after the war began.” (Obama For America Website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/, Accessed 7/15/08)


Old Obama Website: “Obama Will Immediately Begin To Remove Our Troops From Iraq.” “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” (Obama For America Website, Accessed 7/3/08)

· Click Here To View This Part Of The Old Website.

Barack Obama “Refining” His Position On The Surge…

This Weekend, The Obama Campaign Removed All Criticism Of The Troop Surge From His Website. “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.” (James Gordon Meek, “Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq,” New York Daily News, 7/14/08)

· The New Website Cites An “Improved Security Situation.” “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.'” (James Gordon Meek, “Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq,” New York Daily News, 7/14/08)

New Obama Website: Problem Is “Inadequate Security And Political Progress In Iraq.” “Inadequate Security and Political Progress in Iraq: Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge. Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military’s hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families. It is also a consequence of the decision of many Sunnis to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, and a lull in Shia militia activity. But the absence of genuine political accommodation in Iraq is a direct result of President Bush’s failure to hold the Iraqi government accountable.” (Obama Fo r America Website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/, Accessed 7/15/08)


Old Obama Website: The Surge Is Part Of “The Problem.” “The Problem — The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq’s political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq’s civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq’s political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.” (Obama For America Website, Accessed 7/3/08)

· Click Here To View This Part Of The Old Website


Spread the word…..


 This is something you should be
aware of so you don’t get blind-sided.
 This is really going to catch a lot
of families off guard.
 Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:

 0% on home sales up to $500,000
per home (couples) McCain does not
 propose any change in existing
home sales income tax. OBAMA
 28% on profit from ALL home sales How does this affect you?


If you sell your home and make a profit, you
 will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.
If you are heading toward retirement
 and would like to down-size your
home or move into a retirement
 community, 28% of the money you
make from your home will go to taxes. This
 proposal will adversely affect the
elderly who are counting on the income
 from their homes as part of their retirement income. DIVIDEND TAX 

 MCCAIN 15% (no change)

 OBAMA 39.6% How will this affect you? 

If you have any money invested in stock
 market, IRA, mutual funds,
college funds, life insurance, retirement
 accounts, or anything that pays
or reinvests dividends, you will now
 be paying nearly 40% of the money
earned on taxes if Obama become president.
The experts predict that ‘higher
tax rates on dividends and capital gains
would crash the stock market yet
 do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit. INCOME TAX 

 MCCAIN (no changes) Single making 30K – tax $4,500
 Single making 50K – tax $12,500
 Single making 75K – tax $18,750
 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
 Married making 75K – tax $18,750
 Married making 125K – tax $31,250 OBAMA
 (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
 Single making 30K – tax $8,400
 Single making 50K – tax $14,000
 Single making 75K – tax $23,250
 Married making 60K – tax $16,800
 Married making 75K – tax $21,000
 Married making 125K – tax $38,750

 Under Obama your taxes will


more than double!
 How does this affect you? No explanation
needed. This is pretty
 straight forward. INHERITANCE TAX 

 MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax How does this affect you? Many families


have lost businesses,
 farms and ranches, and homes
that have
been in their families
 for generations because they could not
afford the inheritance tax.
 Those willing their assets to loved
ones will not only lose them to

 * New government taxes proposed on
homes that are more than
 2400 square feet

 * New gasoline taxes (as if
gas weren’t high enough already)

 * New taxes on natural resources
consumption (heating
 gas, water, electricity)

 * New taxes on retirement accounts
and last but not least…. * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine 

so we can receive the same
 level of medical care as other
third-world countries!!!

Talk Show Host John McLaughlin Calls Hussein ‘Oreo’

Pelosi Puts The Country In ‘Harms Way’ With Her Energy Idiocy

Special rules for Obama?

Thomas Lifson
Sooner or later, voters are going to recognize the exquisite sensitivity of thObama-protested covere Obama campaign to ridicule as weakness. By choosing to cry foul  over the New Yorker cover depicting the Obamas as the opposition supposedly sees him, the campaign reveals the precariousness of the substance-free image-building effort to date.

The irrepressible Doug Ross  dug up a New Yorker cover mocking Bush and Cheney as the gay cowboys from Brokeback Mountain, sarcastically noting the missing firestorm of protest.


Are Americans really going to want to vote for someone who holds himself to be above criticism and mockery?
Hat tip: Larwyn


Obama the Political Chameleon

Obama the Political Chameleon

Rick Moran
Having won the Democratic nomination by pandering to the left wing base of the party, Obama had a choice.

He could play the role of George McGovern and keep faith with his liberal principles, being cheered on by the 25% of the public who identify with his far left personae while getting slaughtered in the general election by the more centrist McCain.

Or, he could throw his lefty bretheren off the bus and do an about face on every major issue that the liberals fell in love with him for.

Guess which route the Democrat has chosen?

FrontPage.com’s Jacob Laskin has an excellent piece out today where he highlights with great clarity how Obama has abandoned his far left base, leaving them sputtering with indignation, while he has moved to the center on every issue of import in American politics. From Iraq to abortion, Obama has sidled up to the middle of the road thus obscuring or blurring the differences between himself and John McCain.

All Democrats have done this to some degree since the McGovern debacle. But no one has done it coming from as far left as Obama surely is nor has any Democrat so shamelessly and totally abandoned clear cut leftist positions taken in the primary in favor of adopting polar opposite positions close to the middle of the political spectrum.

Luskin points out that Obama’s supporters are none to pleased at the shift. He points out that “Not only have establishment media like the New York Times bemoaned the “new and not improved” Obama, but his younger admirers have turned against him.” This is especially true among the netroots who have backed his candidacy and given money on the internet in spectacular amounts. Luskin writes “So badly has the faith in Obama been shaken that commenter on Talking Points Memo wondered dejectedly if “perhaps we should get off our high horses and stop believing in Obama as a messiah.”

Luskin thinks that some of Obama’s actual positions – Iran for instance – haven’t changed that much. It is the rhetoric and emphasis that have undergone massive alterations. In this sense, the candidate has now made the race one of a personality contest between “old and tired” Mcain who will continue Bush’s policies and “the agent of change” who will supposedly shake up the status quo.

Whether that’s true or not, it is damned effective politics.

Obama’s Op-Ed on Iraq – Premise Untrue, And a History Lesson

Obama’s Op-Ed on Iraq – Premise Untrue, And a

History Lesson

Patrick Casey
The story behind Obama’s editorial (My Plan For Iraq“) just keeps on getting better and better. The candidate’s premise for his op-ed is that Iraq’s Prime Minister has asked for a solid timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from his country. That, Obama claims, mimics his own stance. However, Ed Morrissey (forever Captain Ed to us) over at Hot Air pointed out that the BBC, of all organizations, has come out and informed the public about a little faux pas about Iraq and withdrawal that the drive-by media committed regarding this alleged statement by Iraq’s leader.

According to our British friends, last week’s statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on his desire for US troop withdrawals, widely quoted and reported on by the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media, was mistranslated! So much for Obama’s lede…


Here’s what was reported last week, as recounted in yesterday’s BBC article:


The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, “the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal”.


Here’s Obama’s opening paragraph in his op-ed yesterday (and I’m certain that it is going to be a large part of his speech on Iraq today):


The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.


But here’s what the BBC is reporting as the real quote from al-Maliki:


In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word “withdrawal”.
What he actually said was: “The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence.”


That translation mistake, which the BBC says occurred in the written copy of al-Maliki’s statement that was handed out to reporters, is huge. Al-Maliki wasn’t saying that the sole item left to decide was the pace of US withdrawals, he was merely staking out Iraq’s negotiation parameters. Many articles were subsequently written, based on that mistaken translation, about how the Prime Minister’s newfound desire to negotiate and come to an agreement on only the withdrawal of forces — essentially a switch to Obama’s position — was going to help the Democratic candidate in the fall election. I think I even remember a poll conducted on how much it would help Obama, although I can’t for the life of me remember where I saw it.


The BBC goes on to say that the Iraqi government knows that although their military is getting better fast, they aren’t ready to handle the security situation on their own – and the Prime Minister knows it. Also, the BBC notes that the terrorists in Iraq are probably waiting for the United States to leave, so that they can launch more effective attacks in the country. ‘Translated’, that means that our combined forces have more than a few more targets to eliminate before a reasonable expectation of long-term security can be achieved. In other words, our work in Iraq isn’t done yet.


Noting that Barack Obama is going to be visiting Iraq soon, the BBC helpfully closes their article with a message to Barack Obama and his traveling companions Senators Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed (both of whom also opposed the surge in Iraq, and have stated that there was/is no military solution to the situation over there):


But when Mr Obama visits Baghdad, as he is expected to later this month, he is unlikely to find that the Iraqi government is quite as set on demanding deadlines for US withdrawal as he would like to think.


The fact that it was the BBC who alerted us to this “translation mistake” leads me to believe that their article was preemptive – that the BBC was scared that if the mistake was noted elsewhere, they wouldn’t be able to contain the damage. I think there’s probably more to this story – perhaps someone in the Prime Minister’s press office intended to send a different message than al-Maliki’s, for the ‘benefit’ of Western audiences. As I don’t speak or read Arabic, I can’t follow up on my suspicions, but I hope someone else does.


While I can’t wait to see, hear, and read the coming avalanche of corrections in the drive-by media that’s undoubtedly going to be triggered by this translation revelation, I’m even more interested in Obama’s. I wonder if he’s going to mention it in his speech on Iraq today?


N.B.:  If you’d like to see Barack Obama’s positioning on Iraq shattered even more, there are two great pieces from yesterday at The Weekly Standard‘s website. The first,  An Accelerated Withdrawal? by Bill Roggio of The Long War Journal, reminds us that the recent headlines about the Bush Administration now pushing for an accelerated withdrawal from Iraq are not true. The Administration is following, in fact, the same timetable that General Petraeus told Congress about last September (complete with a slide show for the slower members of Congress and the media!) — a timetable that is based solely upon security conditions on the ground. Two things to think about with this particular post. First, isn’t it sad that the drive-by media can’t even accurately recall what Petraeus told Congress just nine months ago? Second, isn’t it amazing that all the way back in September of 2007, General Petraeus was confident enough in the turn-around in Iraq that was being brought about by the surge that he was willing to go out on a limb and publicly recommend such a plan?


The other piece, “The War We’re In — Obama’s disturbing op-ed” by Thomas Donnelly, is also found at The Weekly Standard‘s website. Donnelly offers Obama a history lesson about Iraq and the surrounding region, something that the candidate sorely needs:


Obama needs to look at a map and a history book. Iraq long has been and today remains one of the two naturally dominant powers in the Persian Gulf region, home to the second-largest proven oil reserves on the planet and a front-line bulwark against revolutionary Iran. That’s where this story began: with Saddam’s Hussein’s ambitions for hegemony and his long and bloody war with Iran. It was a pity, as Henry Kissinger famously quipped, that both sides in that conflict couldn’t lose. But neither the United States nor the rest of the world could be oblivious to the outcome; the strategic stakes were too great.

Obama should also listen to Osama, who recognized “Baghdad as the capital of the caliphate” that he aspires to recreate. “The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation,” he declared in 2004. “It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world’s millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.” Bin Laden had a clear grasp of the inherent balance of power in the Islamic world; he would have preferred to rule in Baghdad than Kabul.


It doesn’t appear that Iraq, either historically or contemporaneously, is as much of a “distraction” as Obama hopes it is.

When is Obama Not Lying?

When is Obama Not Lying?

By James Lewis

Barack the messiah has fallen from grace. Here he was, a “racial healer,” a hip Hypester straight from Change & Hope, hypnotizing millions of worshippers, a modern William Jennings Bryant dazzling the mobs with the image of an America crucified on a Cross of Gold. Well, recently Obama is just another shifty-eyed, moondancin’ pol from the Chicago Machine, playing the race card like Jesse Jackson, even according to The New Yorker.    He makes outright deals with corruptocrat Tony Rezko to get his home cheap, and with the Teamsters to buy their election troops in exchange for Federal oversight leniency.    He’s been lolling in bed with the wild-eyed zealots of ACORN for ten years or more.   

The liberal media are down on him today — but of course they’re counting on the Braindead Vote to forget all about that in November when they lift him up again, just in time for the election. They’re stuck with O’Bumbler, and he knows it.


So Obama has been lying his head off. Can we count the ways? On Iraq, he’s was agin’ it before, but he’s for it now.  On Iran, he’s was for it before, and agin’ it now.   On FISA terrorist surveillance, he just voted for what the hysterical Left has convinced itself to be a Nazi attack on civil rights.  On Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he’s danced about that one half a dozen times, always ending up on a different side.  But liberal Jews will still vote for him, because they hate George W. Bush more than they love reality.


Obama is going to attack John McCain from the right, believe it or not, figuring that the Sucker Vote will fall for it. And he might be right.


So when is Obama not lying? When you catch him unawares. He wasn’t lying in his San Francisco sneers for the white voters of Pennsylvania.   He wasn’t lying when he said everybody (except Obama) should learn Spanish. He wasn’t lying when he was riffing about a jazz-based Black identity curriculum to fix all the education problems of the inner city. He wasn’t lying when he said that Iran is just a “tiny country” (it isn’t) that poses no threat to the US (it does). He was just riffin’ free like a rock guitar player in all those cases,  just out of the inspiration of the moment, but he wasn’t lying.


You have to remember, though, that he’s a quick study, and he’ll fix all the dumb mistakes in no time. Obama is a rookie who’s learning to act like a pro fast — but he has no depth of knowledge about anything that matters. He’s a pure creature of the dogmatic Left — during his adolescence with Frank Marshall Davis, in his education at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law, in his alliance with ACORN and Bill Ayers, in his two autobiographies, in his Alinsky period as a community agitator — excuse me, “organizer” — when he clung to such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright because it served his vast ambitions.  Obama is the slickest empty suit the Democrats have had since the early Clintons. That’s what they wanted, and that’s what they got.


The biggest question is still why Barack Obama is so sure, deep in his heart, that he’s qualified to lead this country of 300 million human souls at a time of war and crisis? Why is a rookie Illinois legislator who constantly played footsie with the Chicago Machine, with Black “Liberation” Theology — the new psychic slavery for inner city Black folks — and with corruptos like Tony Rezko — why is this slick street hustler so profoundly  convinced that he, and only he, can save this country and the Planet?


That question belongs somewhere in the depths of human pathology. It has something to do with being abandoned by his father and mother in Hawaii and Indonesia, and leaning on old mentor Frank to imagine a messianic future for him. But it’s no qualification to wildly overestimate your own experience and abilities so that you are just living in your own rockstar fantasy life. That was the way of Bill and Hillary, the Arkansas country slicksters, who also had liberals by the millions suckered to the gills.


So when is Obama not lying? When he blurts out his real opinions in private. Fortunately he is so undisciplined and overconfident that he’ll do that often enough. And Obama’s wife Michelle is a genuine PC Commissar, straight from the Russian steppes, who just cannot think outside of the racial resentment box.  This is Hillary & Bill, Version 2.0; a trendier paint job but the same old putt-putt under the hood. 


Well, the Dems and the media sold us eight years of the Clintons in 1992, culminating in the 9/11 disaster in New York City and the Pentagon. This time the liberal powers are going to try again with a couple of Black slicksters. They will lie and lie and lie and still be covered up by the media. Get ready.


And if you want to save your country, go all out for the only choice we have. You don’t have to like John McCain — all you have to do is contemplate the alternative. 


And pray for your country. Your country will need it.


James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com.