The 2008 Weblog Awards
Vote for NoQuarter, finalists for "Best Political Coverage"!
You can vote every day.
No registration required!


RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

McCain’s New TV Ad

I hear that McCain is running this ad in Colorado and perhaps some other states. This blog hasn’t endorsed John McCain, but this ad is worth watching because it points to the issues that Obama will face if he is the Democratic nominee:

Script and Facts from the McCain campaign:

Script For “Troops” (TV :30)

Anncr: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.

He hadn’t been to Iraq in years.

He voted against funding our troops.

And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops.

Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.

John McCain is always there for our troops.

McCain. Country first.

John McCain: I’m John McCain and I approve this message.

AD FACTS: Script For “Troops” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.

· Barack Obama: “I became Chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.” (MSNBC Democratic Presidential Debate, 2/26/08)

ANNCR: He hadn’t been to Iraq in years.

· The New York Times: Barack Obama Had Not Been To Iraq For Over 900 Days. “For months, Senator John McCain and other Republicans have been criticizing Senator Barack Obama for not having visited Iraq in a long time, even running a daily tally that is now well past 900 days.” (Larry Rohter, “A Mixed Take By McCain Camp On Obama’s Trip To War Zones,” The New York Times, 7/19/08)

ANNCR: He voted against funding our troops.

· Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)

ANNCR: And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.

· Barack Obama Cancelled A Planned Visit To Ramstein And Landstuhl In Germany. “SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has cancelled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. Barack Obama will not be coming to us,’ a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. I don’t know why.’ Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama.” (Der Spiegel Website, http://www.spiegel.de, Accessed 7/24/08)

· Obama Senior Strategist David Axelrod Said The Pentagon Told The Campaign That Barack Obama “Should Not Come.” “Though the Rammstein visit had been planned for days, Obama senior strategist David Axelrod said that that Pentagon notified an Obama military advisor only yesterday or the day before that he should not come. The Pentagon ‘viewed this as a campaign event and therefore they said he should not come,’ Axelrod said. Obama has been at the base in previous overseas trips. He visited with troops–even played basketball–when he touched down in Kuwait during the Iraq and Afghanistan leg of his swing.” (Lynn Sweet, “Pentagon Tells Obama Not To Visit U.S. Troops At German Base Because It Would Be Too Political,” Chicago Sun Times’ “Sweet” Blog, http://blogs.suntimes.com, Posted 7/25/08)

· “The [Military] Official Said ‘We Didn’t Know Why’ Th e Request To Visit The Wounded Troops Was Withdrawn. ‘He (Obama) Was More Than Welcome. We Were All Ready For Him.” (Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube, “What’s Not On Obama’s Schedule…” MSNBC’s “First Read,”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com, Posted 7/24/08)

· Military “Prepared To Accommodate Obama’s Traveling Press And Campaign Staff At The Passenger Terminal At Ramstein Air Base.” “Morrell said the U.S. military was prepared to accommodate Obama’s traveling press and campaign staff at the passenger terminal at Ramstein Air Base, the U.S. Air Force base in southern Germany where Obama’s plane had been cleared to land.” (Michael Finnegan And Peter Spiegel, “Obama’s Cancellation Of A Military Hospital Visit Leaves Unanswered Questions,” Los Angeles Times’ “Top Of The Ticket” Blog, 7/25/08)

· Defense Department Press Secretary Geoff Morrell: “Sen. Obama is more than welcome to visit Landstuhl or any other military hospital around the world. … But he has to do so, just as any other senator has to do so, in his official capacity. It is not acceptable to do so as a candidate.” (Michael Finnegan And Peter Spiegel, “Obama’s Cancellation Of A Military Hospital Visit Leaves Unanswered Questions,” Los Angeles Times’ “Top Of The Ticket” Blog, 7/25/08)

· Defense Department: “But The Pentagon Certainly Did Not Tell The Senator That He Could Not Visit Landstuhl.” “Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters later Friday the Pentagon did not explicitly say Obama should not visit the base, but was concerned with whether his capacity there would be one of a presidential candidate, not a senator. ‘We do have certain policy guidelines for political campaigns and elections. And what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in those situations. But the Pentagon certainly did not tell the senator that he could not visit Landstuhl,’ Whitman said.” (Alexander Mooney And Sasha Johnson, “Pentagon Was Concerned With Obama Visit To Hospital,” CNN’s “Political Ticker” Blog, 7/25/08)

· Obama Campaign Explanation “Didn’t Square With The Defense Department Explanation.” “On Obama’s flight from Berlin to Paris, Gibbs offered more details. Around July 15, the Pentagon approved Obama’s visit. But military officials later invoked a rule on political activity at military bases and questioned whether it would cover Obama’s visit, Gibbs said. Obama spokesmen said they were seeking clarification on what the rule is. Gibbs also declined to speculate on why the Pentagon did not cite the rule until Wednesday. That account, however, didn’t square with the Defense Department’s explanation. The Pentagon said it informed the Obama campaign on Monday that he and his Senate staff could visit Landstuhl, where wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan are treated, but that no press would be allowed.” (Michael Finnegan And Peter Spiegel, “Obama’s Cancellation Of A Military Hospital Visit Leaves Unanswered Questions,” Los Angeles Times ‘ “Top Of The Ticket” Blog, 7/25/08)

· The Pentagon Reportedly Informed Obama That He And His Senate Staff Were Permitted To Visit Landstuhl, But “No Press Would Be Allowed” In Military Base. “The Pentagon said it informed the Obama campaign on Monday that he and his Senate staff could visit Landstuhl, where wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan are treated, but that no press would be allowed.” (Michael Finnegan And Peter Spiegel, “Obama’s Cancellation Of A Military Hospital Visit Leaves Unanswered Questions,” Los Angeles Times’ “Top Of The Ticket” Blog, 7/25/08)

· Barack Obama “Would Not Have Been Able To Address The Media Or Make Any Campaign-Related Statements.” “A memo sent out Wednesday from Undersecretary of Defense David Chu explained that Obama’s visit to such a military facility would be limited under these circumstances. Obama would not have been able to bring any of his campaign staff — only one Senate staffer and security. He also would not have been able to address the media or make any campaign-related statements.” (”Obama Camp: Visit To Troops Would Have Seemed Too Political,” Fox News, 7/25/08)

· Before His Thursday Speech, Barack Obama Went To The Ritz Carlton To Work Out While In Berlin. “Still, Obama, just like George W. Bush in the 2000 election, managed to squeeze in his workout time despite a heavy schedule of high-level meetings with government officials and his big speech at the Siegessule, or Victory Column, around 7 p.m. Berlin time. ‘4:49 p.m.: Obama enters the luxury Ritz Carlton hotel wearing a T-shirt, black sweatpants and white trainers — apparently to work out in the hotel’s gym. He kept up the campaigning on the way there, smiling and waving at tourists and other onlookers,’ the breathless Spiegel ticker reported.” (Jill Zuckman, “Barack Obama Gets A Workout At Ritz Gym,” Chicago Tribune’s “Swamp” Blog, http://www.swamppolitics.com , Posted 7/24/08)

· After His Thursday Speech, Barack Obama Joined His Campaign Staff And The Press Corps For A Martini At A Berlin Restaurant. “After the speech was over, the candidate, in a celebratory mood, joined his campaign staff — and the press corps traveling with him — for dinner and a very dry vodka martini with olives at a downtown Berlin restaurant.” (Karen Tumulty, “Obama Urges Unity In Berlin,” Time, www.time.com, 7/24/08)

· Barack Obama Said That He Was Going To Have Some “Down Time” In Berlin And That He “Would Love To Tour A Little Bit.” “Obama noted that in a break from his whirlwind schedule, ‘we’ve got some down time tonight. What are you guys gonna do in Berlin? Huh? Huh? You guys got any big. plans? I’ve never been to Berlin, so…I would love to tour around a little bit.’” (Jake Tapper, “Obama On Tonight’s Berlin Speech: “A Crapshoot”,” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, Posted 7/24/08)

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approve this message.

###

Trackback URL

RSS Feed for This Post155 Comments »

Comment by SFK | 2008-07-26 20:30:14

He could have worked out in a gym at the hospital with recovering wounded–gotten his exercise and talked to troups at the same time. The military did its own press shots of him in Iraq and Afghan–bet that would have happened at the hospital too. Guess that martini was more important.

Comment by Mr Flibberly | 2008-07-26 20:37:36

Perhaps he doesn’t want the bad press of hanging out with damaged soldiers to find they get stop lossed 3 months later?

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 21:13:03

Perhaps he didn’t want them to see how fake he is. He hasn’t got a heart to show (just a rubber pump and a recorder repeating the words change). He probably doesn’t want to tell him that he is sending them all directly to Afghanistan.

 

Comment by SensibleWomanNOTforBO | 2008-07-26 22:26:20

Probably. Without his own entourage following, surrounding, and distracting him he wouldn’t have been able to use the excuse, “Just a minute, Sweetie, we’ll get to that in a minute.” when asked any questions.

 

Comment by beebop | 2008-07-27 06:06:24

Probably just to go to Afghanistan … you know, the country whose concerns are covered by the committee he’s been too busy touring …. oooops, campaigning to convene? You’re shameless, aren’t you?

Comment by Patrick Walker | 2008-07-27 13:26:49

Technically, Obama’s subcommittee is European affairs, which indirectly would cover NATO relations, which would in turn lead to discussions of NATO involvement in Afhganistan.

The key here, whether or not you believe the full committee chair, is that Obama didn’t even *try* to have any hearing … ever.

 
 
 

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-07-26 21:27:25

Let’s face it. The Ritz has a nicer gym. He could get a massage, hang out in the sauna, order a smoothie and some hot tea.

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 21:39:23

Maybe he has some friends waiting for him in the locker rooms.

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-07-27 11:47:02

The German blogger girl cooing about how manly he was was a bit over the top.

 
 

Comment by HRocks | 2008-07-26 23:02:04

Obama could’ve visited the gym at Ramstein, got a massage there, a smoothie, swam in the pool, used the sauna, spoken with GI’s or had a few selected to keep him company, accomodations could’ve been made, just no cameras or press. What’s the biggie? He doesn’t like the American Military!

 
 
 

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 20:31:13

Obama is a horrible man. Oh, did I say man, I meant baby. He won’t go see the troops unless the images are plastered all over the news but he is happy to work out at the gym and have everyone take his picture. Disgusting maggot. How is he even a candidate? Oh, I remember, because the DNC rigged the primary. Well, you reap what you so.

 

Comment by Mr Flibberly | 2008-07-26 20:35:50

Hey,

At least Obama didn’t stand on a aircraft carrier and shout: “Mission Accomplished”.

Also with all this talk about war and troops it seems strange that the US isn’t actually legally at war.

Is it war? Is it the great not-war to end all not-wars?

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 20:42:38

Don’t justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Bad behavior is bad, period. Bush was wrong, so what? He isn’t running for president. Stop trying to divert attention from the atrocious behavior demonstrated by Barack. He didn’t care about the troops. He doesn’t care about the troops. He only cares about himself and his image. He is despicable.

 

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 20:44:44

Oh, and by the way, declarations of war are no longer made. Duh. If we took your approach we haven’t been at war since World War II. Get real. We are at war, there was a declaration for the use of force. Obamabots are not reading up on things that they are talking about.

Comment by Mr Flibberly | 2008-07-26 20:54:27

Duh. If we took your approach we haven’t been at war since World War II

Well Duh! Last time I checked there was one country that started most of them as well and had the biggest state funded arms industry on earth, but pledged to hate socialism!

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 21:02:55

The United States didn’t start the Korean War, the Soviet Union and North Korea did.

The United States didn’t start the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese did by attacking ships and hurting American interests.

The United States didn’t start the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein did by invading Kuwait and attacked our interests.

The United States didn’t start the war in Bosnia.

The United States didn’t start the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban and its harboring of Osama Bin Laden did.

The United States didn’t start the war in Iraq per se, Saddam Hussein did by violating the agreement formulated after the first Gulf War. The agreement stipulated that a state of war may commence if it were broken.

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 21:04:38

By the way, the United States doesn’t own the arms companies, it does business with them. China owns its arms companies. Get real. Boeing doesn’t just work for the government, it makes planes for the Saudis, etc. Most defense contractors make military equipment for many countries. Your argument is bogus.

Comment by Mr Flibberly | 2008-07-26 21:11:08

From wikipedia:

The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world’s military spending

Which according to you gets spent buying puppies and love bombs as opposed to funding US (and allied) arms companies?

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 21:14:59

You stated that it is government-owned. It isn’t. It is private enterprise making weaponry that the government purchases. Your argument about socialism falls flat.

Comment by Mr Flibberly | 2008-07-26 21:25:43

No I never stated the companies were government owned. I suggested it was socialism. They may technically be private companies but they are restricted in competing in an open market because their markets are restricted.

A (hypothetical company) Bland Widget Inc. can sell it’s widgets to any person world wide and makes money where ever it is competitive, much of that money coming from world wide governments because they have a mighty need for widgets. Super Big Nasty Nukes Inc. is heavily restricted to who it can sell to because the US government (whilst not owning the company) will steal it’s assets if it sells to the wrong person. Most of it’s contacts are with the US government or it’s allies.

Not quite state socialism but something so close to a rose probably still smells just as sweet :-)

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 21:35:11

Look up socialism. What that is is regulation, something you lefties love. Besides, do you want Super Nasty Nukes selling nukes to super nasty terrorists countries? Certain items sold by the companies are restricted for export, i.e. secret technology, nuclear weapons, etc. Besides, we couldn’t allow the sale of nuclear weapons anyway. These companies are free to sell rockets, airplanes, satellites, etc. That isn’t socialism. Socialism would be if the government owned Nasty Nukes and told them how many airplanes to make for domestic airlines, how much they should pay their employees, etc.

Besides, with all the crazies in the world, how would you like for the government to get weaponry? Oh, or are you one of those people that thinks we should defend ourselves with sticks or plead with terrorists not to detonate dirty bombs?

Comment by Mr Flibberly | 2008-07-26 21:50:49

something you lefties love

So I’m a leftie? Funny, because I thought I was making an argument for a free market, but according to you the market for some things can’t be free:

Besides, we couldn’t allow the sale of nuclear weapons anyway

And for the record your statement:

These companies are free to sell rockets, airplanes, satellites, etc

Is patently false. I’m pretty sure that even domestically you need some pretty heavily government approval to sell most of these things (and in the case of satellites to even sell high res images to the wrong parties)

I’m willing to concede that the world would be a chaotic unknown place if these restrictions weren’t made, but to make these government restrictions and then use government funds to flood the restricted market is highly questionable (and if socialism isn’t the closest metaphor to whats going on that I think fascism is the only other contender).

Amd I’ve just Godwined the thread, yet still stand by my statement.

(Comments wont nest below this level)

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 22:04:57

No. Lefties always argue over the size of our military, blah blah blah. I like free markets when it comes to consumer goods but when it comes to machinery that could destroy cities, maybe there should be some regulation.

I don’t think you need government approval to purchase an airplane. People purchase them all the time. Companies purchase satellites all the time. Even if you do need government approval, its mostly to make sure you aren’t purchasing the equipment for nefarious purposes. Satellites need rockets to get into space, thus they sell rockets.

As for flooding the restricted market, so. We need equipment to protect the country. The military needs the equipment. If the government purchases it what is wrong with that? Besides, maybe the government needs to spend a little more. We have ancient aircraft falling apart in the air, is that what you want? Out here in Tucson, the DM base is filled with ancient airplanes needing to be repaired because the government is too busy paying Jojo’s welfare and can’t afford to replace them. The purpose of government, regardless what the lefties want you to believe is to:

Ensure domestic security
Ensure domestic prosperity
Ensure domestic liberties

Not give people free stuff. The security thing is where the defense contractors come in. I think we agree on more then we disagree but I think you are more of a Libertarian than a left. Anyway, I don’t we are going to agree on the military.

 

Comment by Mr Flibberly | 2008-07-26 22:24:54

The purpose of government…is to:
Ensure domestic security
Ensure domestic prosperity
Ensure domestic liberties

Domestic security: government has invaded two soverign nations in the last 7 years, killed more civilians than the forces they are opposing in both countries and only succeeded in helping their economies when they have encouraged local drug lords. Some how this helps stop crazy suicide bombers rather than encourage them. (I won’t even bother getting into the state sponsored torture)

Domestic prosperity: Created a housing loan bubble via federal legislation, prolonged the bubble by using citizens money to bail out corporate interests. The dollar is now worth 50% less against most other currencies than 10 years ago.

Domestic liberties: The government has routinely spied on US citizens without warrant and passed retro active immunity to justify the process.

And how is any of this about Obama, Hillary or McCain? Because while Obama may be slightly less ingrained in the political system that creates it… It seems that they’re all up their heads in crap.

 

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 23:13:52

The government fail to do something right, oh wow. That is so unusual.

First off, whenever you have a war, you usually invade sovereign countries.

Bubbles occur all the time. This is one of those things that happens. It started with the the repeated busts in the 1800s, continued to the stock market crash in 1920s, then the post-World War II glut, and the dotcom bubble burst. Hindsight is 20-20 and no one expected the housing market to burst so badly. I hope that your prognostication machine is patented so that we can use it in the future.

Civil liberties. Okay, the programs that the Bush administration has created have been a little concerning but are no worse than anything in the past. Alien and Sedition act arrested people for speaking against the administration, the Roosevelt administration had the Japanese locked up, Hoover had spies tapping into everyone’s phones and prosecuting them for crimes, etc. Targeting terrorist communications that route through the United States to prevent the perpetration of a terrorist attack seems hardly that outrageous. Some of the provisions of the PATRIOT ACT are a little extreme but still, if any of them were found to be abused, you know that the violated person would be in front of the Supreme Court faster than you could say “redress”. Heck, we can’t even keep terrorists in prison anymore because of the Fab-9.

Obama and McCain have virtually the same positions on domestic spying and surveillance. My question is:

Who do you want looking at the information, the war hero or the guy with the questionable past and ties to terrorists?

 
 
 

Comment by justme | 2008-07-27 01:26:49

Companies have an agreement not to sell to certain governments on a denied list

Iran
Iraq
Cuba
Syria etc

And quite right too who in their right mind wants to see to people who would use this ammo against us??

They do not steal assets they pull your license and guess what many would agree with that… may not put a company out of business but will certainly make sure these arms or parts are not sold to unscrupulous countries

However companies selling these parts understand when applying for a license where/countries they can and cannot sell.

Export control takes precedence in selling ammunition/parts/rockets or whatever you stated etc

USA : Biggest state funded arms industry
The government does not own the above as explained. These companies do not only supply or have its contacts are with the US government or its allies. They also supply in other areas of business.

Comment by Ferdberfle | 2008-07-27 06:17:25

You are speaking of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). They cover everything from grain to valves to computer chips to rocketry. They apply to any American company doing business outside the borders of the country or exporting any sort of goods to other countries and carry severe penalties for violation.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 

Comment by scott in jupiter | 2008-07-26 21:36:34

If you don’t like the United States of America very much, it’s pretty easy to leave.

Comment by Mr Flibberly | 2008-07-26 22:48:42

It’s alright I don’t live their anyway :-) And I still donated money to your political candidates (really!)

Comment by justme | 2008-07-27 01:32:07

Well move on don’t complain or criticize what country you in??

 

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-27 02:42:06

Andrew and Fibber,
Great discussion! Two adults, being diplomatic and SHARING ideas.
I learned from both of you and agree in parts with both of you but what I really agree with is that the two of you were actually thinking and listening to each other.
Can you imagine the kind of mayhem that would ensue if this type of debate were seen in Congress? Confusion would reign supreme!
Nice job, both of you.

 
 
 

Comment by Disgusted | 2008-07-26 21:51:48

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You do realize that anyone can put something on there right? A lot of the stuff of wikipedia is written by people who THINK they know what they are talking about. A lot like you. Did you ever notice this statement on their website?

A wiki is a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content,

Comment by Disgusted | 2008-07-26 21:52:56

that should read on wikipedia

 

Comment by Mr Flibberly | 2008-07-26 21:59:46

[citation needed]

Comment by Disgusted | 2008-07-26 22:36:37

Any idea what a citation is? I could claim Obama is a muslim and then use his book as my citation. Nice try though. A citation is a periodical, magazine, book or web page where the info came from. Even then a citation is only needed if something you say is so bizzare that it throws up a red flag.

Bottom line: Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Comment by Mr Flibberly | 2008-07-26 22:54:29

Wikipedia (or commiepedia as you imply it) relies on the consensus of editors not the amalgamation of all of them - unlike the twelve monkeys who produce this blog.

(Comments wont nest below this level)

Comment by WildChild | 2008-07-26 23:05:43

You can count to twelve eh? Outstanding. That’s two higher then the average BOBOweenie we get here.

 

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 23:18:01

Wikipedia is pretty reliable on most things. I am actually one of the administrators and have to deal with all the crap. If one sentence is even a little wrong they slap point of view errors and missing citation tags on the page. As long as the page wasn’t just created and there are no tags all over it, you can probably trust the information. Warning, political material almost always has a point of view warning attached to it and some pages have to be locked, i.e. Jesus, because of vandalism.

 

Comment by Disgusted | 2008-07-26 23:47:25

That may be true Andrew, however many many many pages have warnings on them stating that, No citations have been used in this entry, please help us verify this info ( or something similar ) . Data is old. Scientific facts are out dated. Wikipedia is not a reliable resource PERIOD. “Wikipedia is pretty reliable on most things” says it all. They also omit facts that they don’t want “out there”. Sorry but anything that can be edited by the general public is not a valid reference. I am sure they TRY to do the best they can. But UH NO.

 

Comment by justme | 2008-07-27 01:45:44

12 monkeys I would be careful if your the 13th !! You never know what being at #13 may bring…

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Comment by Angry Michelle | 2008-07-26 21:07:23

but pledged to hate socialism!

You said it Flipperly

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 21:10:29

Stop agreeing with bogus arguments. Point to one government-owned defense contractor and I’ll eat my words.

 
 

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-07-26 21:34:35

Which country started the most wars? You mean the declared wars? Wars of US French and Indian War (7 Years War) American Revolution War of 1812 Indian Wars (1817-1898) Mexican War Civil War Spanish-American War World War I (The Great War) World War II Korean War Vietnam War Grenada Invasion 1983 Persian Gulf (Desert Storm) Current War with Iraq - Iraqui Freedom.

Then there were the undeclared wars such as the undeclared Naval War with France, under Adams, and the War with the Barbary Pirates under Jefferson.

I bet the Whiskey Rebellion still burns you up.

And how many of these were fighting the tyranny of socialism?

Dumbass.

 

Comment by yttik | 2008-07-26 21:48:11

Flibberly is correct, we haven’t been “at war” since WW2. Congress didn’t authorize “war” with Iraq, they authorized diplomacy and inspections backed up with the threat of military force as a last resort, at the discretion of the president.

This is important, because since WW2 Congress has avoided taking responsibility for declaring war. Our founders intended Congress to be the ones who took resposnibility for going to war, probably realizing that if 435 people were willing to comit to war it was probably necessary and justified. Much more so then leaving it to the discretion of one president.

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-07-26 21:55:16

As many times as Obama has accused Hillary of voting to go to war with Iraq, he seems to have missed this finer point. He said the Iranian Revolutionary Guard resolution was authorization for war before he changed his tune at the AIPAC luncheon. No wonder he voted wrong six times in the IL Senate - “pressed the wrong button” or he just can’t understand the legislation he’s voting for. Great. Let’s vote for this idiot.

 

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 22:09:18

Congress does this so that if things go bad they can blame the president and if things go well they can take credit. They should have just declared war. The violation of the UN agreement was justification. Congress is just full of wimps and weaselword people.

 
 
 
 

Comment by bemused | 2008-07-26 20:46:44

If he could stage this tour, he would be sure to notice a “mission accomplished” opportunity.

 

Comment by PS | 2008-07-26 21:01:51

No, he just gave a speech in Berlin as pres…I mean citizen of the world.

 

Comment by don tufts | 2008-07-26 22:34:50

no he just turned his back on low income members of his state senate district because they could not help his ambitions.

 

Comment by wry | 2008-07-27 00:01:12

So I didn’t vote for Bush and I’m not voting for Obama. Simple as that.

 

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-27 00:10:03

Hey!
You’ve been using moral equivalence for an excuse for Barry’s dishonorable behavior long enough tonight. Barry is irrefutably a documented liar, fraud, and all around narcissistic fool. You have no responses to these accusations because they are public domain. Your only defense is to try to marginalize Barry’s opponent.
Well, to my memory, the only guy to make a success out of saying, “I know you are, but what am I?” was PeeWee Herman.
Granted that PeeWee and Barry use the same barber and tailor but sir, I’ve seen PeeWee Herman. And your boy Barry, is no PeeWee Herman!

 

Comment by beebop | 2008-07-27 06:04:05

You cannot possibly defend someone who managed to travel thousands of miles to meet with foreign dignitaries and addressed a crowd of non Americans in Berlin but couldn’t rouse himself to spend an unscripted hour with wounded soldiers? Or am I totally misreading your post? Or are you as callow as he is?

 
 

Comment by RunningDogLackey | 2008-07-26 20:45:15

If he had visited the troops — even privately, without staff — you would have attacked him for ignoring the Pentagon’s rules and trying to use our wounded warriors as campaign props.

This is a silly game. I’m glad it will be over in August.

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 20:49:07

The Pentagon did not forbid him from meeting with the troops. He decided not to go because he couldn’t bring the media with him. No photo ops, no bama. Get your facts!!! NOBAMA!!

Comment by Mr Flibberly | 2008-07-26 21:04:49

Obviously under a sane election process photo op’s might be the kiss of death, but every primary candidate from both parties has tried to manipulate media events… From Hilary getting a coffee, to McCain staging a press conference right before Obama’s speech.

Fact is (in terms of poll data and if done right) they work. Why would a presidential candidate not use them?

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 21:08:35

So because everyone does something it is right? Wasn’t he supposed to be the new candidate practicing the new politics? Guess he is just a regular old candidate who tries to trick Americans. Then again, he isn’t just a regular candidate, he is an obnoxious presidential pretender that conducts foreign policy while not even president. He should be in jail for violating the Logan Act. Fauxbama is a jerk.

 

Comment by Angry Michelle | 2008-07-26 21:10:52

Check out the word LOGIC next time you write.

 

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-07-26 21:37:05

The point is why would an antiwar activist running for President not care enough to visit the wounded soldiers?

Comment by Seattle Moss | 2008-07-26 21:44:31

How is he anti-war?
Obama wants to fail in Iraq and then have wars in Afganistan and Pakistan.

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-07-26 21:46:29

Sarcasm. You know me better than that.

 

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 21:47:35

Obama wants to stage a global coup and crown himself emperor. Oops, some vomit burned my throat. He is nasty and has bad plans for America. Bush is stupid, Obama is evil and knows what he is doing.

 
 
 

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-27 00:19:11

Moral Equivalence is the hideout of cowards and fools. It also tars you with the brush of Marxism as you have just subscribed to the philosophy that ‘the ends justify the means.’
It means that, even though you don’t have sense to understand this, that you declare open season on yourself. ‘Ends justifying means’ indicates that you support stopping at nothing to achieve your goals.
What is good for the goose becomes better for the gander.
You fools never consider the consequences of your actions.

 
 
 

Comment by bemused | 2008-07-26 20:49:33

How would it have been using them if he did NOT use any military photos? After all, so far there is very little documentation of him but plenty of people willing to believe. So if he went in a spirit of caring (you know, visit the sick? like a Christian witnessing by actions?) and forewent the photo ops altogether, that would have been his best tactic.

 

Comment by MIDem | 2008-07-26 20:56:54

Obama is a punk. That is why he didn’t go.

 

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-07-26 22:00:58

The Pentagon doesn’t have rules against visiting the troops without cameras. We already thought he was a shameless, pandering media whore for making a big to do about visiting Europe and giving speeches when he never held a meeting with the Atlantic Alliance. And he never visited Europe while chairing that Foreign Affairs subcommittee. Then he belittled Hillary’s years as First Lady, calling her meeting the heads of state of 82 different countries “tea parties.” Well, what is talking about your vacation plans with the British PM then?

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-27 00:21:57

Is there any way to find out if any of the wounded guys are from Illinois?

 
 

Comment by no waffles aka drkate | 2008-07-26 22:28:13

no finally he would have done his job as a senator and maybe he’d understand the humility he should carry.

 

Comment by justme | 2008-07-27 01:49:19

Does that mean you won’t be here after Aug???
When the nom goes elsewjere you will be licking your wounds

 

Comment by justme | 2008-07-27 01:52:17

Good so you wont be here after Aug??

that’s right you will be in the corner licking your wounds.. or is it the pay runs out ALL FREEBIES STOP TOO?

 

Comment by beebop | 2008-07-27 06:11:55

August? Don’t you mean November? New to this, aren’t you?

 
 

Comment by Angry Michelle | 2008-07-26 20:45:27

Barack Obama’s broken promise to African village

He told the assembled press, local politicians (who included current Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga), and students: “Hopefully I can provide some assistance in the future to this school and all that it can be.” He then turned to the school’s principal, Yuanita Obiero, and assured her and her teachers: “I know you are working very hard and struggling to bring up this school, but I have said I will assist the school and I will do so.”

But the Evening Standard has heard that the promises he made to help the school as well as a local orphanage appear to have been empty.

Principal Obiero, 48, tells us: “Senator Obama has not honoured the promises he gave me when we met in 2006 and in his earlier letter to the school. He has not given us even one shilling. But we still have hope.”

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23520981-details/Barack+Obama%27s+broken+promise+to+African+village/article.do

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-07-26 21:39:30

He wouldn’t be the first person to break a promise to an African village, either. Still excited about Obama’s global poverty tax? I bet as much of that promised money will make it to the villagers as the South Side saw of Rezko’s housing subsidies. What a fucking crook.

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 21:42:14

It wasn’t the poverty act I knew.

Obama is a jerk. Making promises to poor kids just for political points, then throwing them under the bus when he no longer needs them. I want Obama under the bus.

 
 

Comment by Hope | 2008-07-26 22:53:17

Well, at least the African school in poverty still has ‘HOPE’.

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-07-26 23:40:19

What would we ever do without you, Hope?

 

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-27 00:25:04

Just when I’m sure I can’t loathe this man any more, something new comes up. Does this man even have a soul?

Comment by beebop | 2008-07-27 06:15:10

In a word? No.

 
 
 
 

Comment by econsmed | 2008-07-26 21:06:14

is anyone else having trouble loading this video? did the obots get to youtube?

 

Comment by Bill Dupray | 2008-07-26 21:06:18

You probably saw this already, but here is my take.

Main Stream Media Ignoring PUMAS

There is an 800 lb. donkey in the living room and it is kicking over the furniture. MSM can’t ignore it forever.

http://patriotroom.com/?p=623

Comment by Dawnelle leóna del puma | 2008-07-26 22:25:57

I HAVE GOOD NEWS (for some)

The PUMA radio show tonight had a special guest. A super from CALIF.

THEY are paying ATTENTION to us!!!

THEY are passing around a petition

THEY only need 300 signatures

he didn’t go any further but hinted that it is being DONE as we sit here!

HILLARY will get her name on the ballot with the 300 signatures

THEY are (perhaps) not as DENSE as we have imagined!!

I heard it myself. Of course this guy could be filled with AIR too but he sounded really straight up.

sharing

THERE IS HOPE

AND IT’s NOT OBAMA

 
 

Comment by wodiej | 2008-07-26 21:13:41

It is pointless to attempt to reason with a Kool Aid drinker. Obama went to the gym because he doesn’t give a rats ass about anyone but himself. His devoted fans and worshippers will find that out soon enough.

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 21:16:54

Obama looks like he is dying of AIDS or some other wasting disease. He should have went to the buffet, not the gym.

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-07-26 21:40:58

Thank you! I haven’t said it before, but that is why I suspect he hasn’t released his medical records. He caught AIDS in some limo.

Comment by Andrew | 2008-07-26 21:45:38

You think so too? Man he looks disgusting. I can no longer look or listen to him. The crap coming out of his mouth makes me nauseous but his lanky skeleton body pushes me over the edge. Maybe he does have AIDS. Maybe he is bulimic. I don’t know, but the last thing he needs is more weight loss. He needs a large dose of protein. He could take steroids too, he has no balls left to shrink.

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-07-26 22:02:58

Jesse Jackson was being way too kind.

 

Comment by Darryl | 2008-07-27 14:19:30

He is fasting, a muslim tradition.

 
 

Comment by We Will Remember in November! | 2008-07-26 22:56:04

First the birth certificate, the limo and sinclair, now he has AIDS. Folks this is NOT helpful. Obama will fall because he is not qualified to be POTUS, plain and simple.
Writing about lost BCs, sinclair and AIDS is not going to make it out of the blogsphere. And for the most part, this blogsphere that I like and visit 4 times a day at a minimum, is a huge ECHO chamber. Most people don’t even know about the