I realize there is a good deal of spin involved in politics, but it's something else altogether when a story is made up out of whole cloth. The common term for it is 'lying', and it's incredible how often politicians get away with it. The most recent example I've witnessed of outright lying (and with a straight face too) was done by Obama supporter and possible Vice Presidential candidate Senator Evan Bayh on the Fox News Sunday program. Bayh and fellow possible Vice Presidential candidate Senator Joe Lieberman, an Independent/Democrat and McCain supporter, were discussing the Iraq war with moderator Chris Wallace. At issue was the 16-month Iraq withdrawal timeline proposed by Barack Obama and approved (until it was un-approved) by Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. First, here's Lieberman's statement:
LIEBERMAN: "Look, the fact is that if Barack Obama's policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn't go to Iraq today. It wouldn't be safe. Barack Obama and John McCain saw the same difficulty in Iraq. John McCain had the guts to argue against public opinion, to put his whole campaign on the line, because, as he says, he'd rather lose an election than lose in a war that he thinks is this important to the United States. The reason I say Barack — if Barack Obama's policy couldn't — had been implemented — if Barack Obama's policy in Iraq had been implemented, he couldn't be in Iraq today is because he was prepared to accept retreat and defeat. And that would mean today Al Qaeda would be in charge of parts of Iraq. Iranian-backed extremists would be in charge of other parts of Iraq. There'd be civil war and maybe even genocide. And the fact is that we are winning in Iraq today. And you know, you can't choose, as Senator Obama seems to think, to lose in Iraq so you can win in Afghanistan. The reality is if we lost in Iraq, which Obama was prepared to do, we would go to Afghanistan as losers. Instead, Al Qaeda has its tail tucked between its legs..."
Lieberman told the truth. Now, here comes the BIG LIE by Evan Bayh (the lie is in capital letters).
BAYH: "I have to respond to that. BARACK OBAMA WAS NOT FOR LOSING IN IRAQ. Barack didn't want the war to begin with. John McCain opposed surging troops in Afghanistan until last week."
LIEBERMAN: "...bottom line, no question that Barack Obama was prepared to lose in Iraq."
Bayh tells the BIG LIE again.
BAYH: "THAT'S NOT TRUE."
Now, c'mon people, I don't care if you are a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal, or a communist, everybody knows that Barack Obama made his name by being the anti-war candidate, the one who was against the Iraq war from the start. Obama voted against funding the war. Obama said he'd end the war every day on the campaign trail. In january 2007, Obama proposed a withdrawal timeline that would have guaranteed that the USA lost the war. Obama was against the surge, said it wouldn't help, and still says he would be against it even in hindsight. He was wrong, but he won't admit it (has anyone noticed yet that Obama NEVER admits he's wrong ?). Now, he pretends like he always said the surge would bring security to Iraq. That's another big lie. He said precisely the opposite. The facts are, if Barack Obama's Iraqi policies had been implemented over the last couple years, Iraq would be a failed state today. Al Qaeda would be celebrating their largest victory, and an Iran controlled insurgency would be running large parts of the country. Barack Obama was all about losing the Iraq war. I never heard the words 'this is how we succeed in Iraq' pass his lips. He didn't care anything about success there. That's why his minions run around mouthing inanities like 'what does victory in Iraq look like ?', and 'there is no military solution possible in Iraq'. It's all designed to coverup the fact that Obama and the Democrats WANTED TO LOSE THE WAR IN IRAQ, because it would destroy Bush and the Republicans. Those are the facts. The Dems should at least be forced to own their own convictions, just this once.
But no. Instead, they lie, as they always do. Evan Bayh has the audacity to say Obama didn't want to lose in Iraq. The Democrats are moving on to their next cover story, their next talking point, their next obfuscation, their next tactical shift. They destroy history in their wake, as if nothing happened prior to today. Now they will even try to tell you that al-Maliki agreeing with Obama's 16 month withdrawal timeline proves that Obama was somehow correct, that Obama has quite a knack for foreign policy. You aren't supposed to remember that there would be no possibility of a successful 16 month withdrawal timeline in Iraq had we listened to anything Obama and the Dems said the last couple years. There would be only defeat. Not one of Obama's 300 foreign policy advisors should ever convince you otherwise.
And that's not a joke, Obama really does have 300 foreign policy advisors on his campaign. Hopefully, they should be able to craft a few speeches for Barack to tell overseas that make it seem like he has a clue. Then again, you'd think at least one of them would know what the Siegessaule monument in Berlin represents (Nazi power) before they choose it as a backup Obama speech site, after Obama's audacious ego was snubbed by the Germans at the Brandenburg Gate. Sieg Heil.
About This Blog