May. 10, 2008 at 15:18
by BrendaBee
I am always trying to correct misunderstandings about history that crop up more often than they should. This of course is a consequence of the schools beginning in the 1960's to teach "social studies" instead of History. As a result we have two generations who know more about how the local sewage treatment plant operates than how the government operates. A generation who believe there was no intelligent life on Earth before they came on the scene. This is not to put younger people down, it is merely a sad fact that they have been cheated of vital information. Youth has always been arrogant and felt their elders were "behind the times" and "just didn't understand". My Dad could tell you I was absolutely horrid in my arrogance. But aside from that I do think there are those out there who do care what went down in the past and will appreciate a short history lesson.
I had started a post on this same subject, but haven't yet finished. So am passing on a post sent to me by a friend (Dallas W) about the statement Barack Obama made in his NC victory speech that shows his incredible and dangerous lack of knowledge of history. Please read. BB
************************************************************************************
In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon.
In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."
That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.
I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy , headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan , headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.
FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.
Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.
Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam , which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.
When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece , ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea .
Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.
Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.
"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America 's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"
That view was supported by New York Tim es columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs ," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."
It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.
The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well.
History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it's dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said:
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Apr. 11, 2008 at 15:18
by BrendaBee
I did not write this. It was e-mailed to me by a friend. I am posting on my blog to share with you all because it says what I would say if I could express myself as well. BB
I did not write this but it speaks volumes . I give a Hat tip to Chuck Jones , a former school mate for sending this . dpw
**********************************************************************************8
After long and serious thought, I have decided to endorse Senator John McCain for President.
I have always voted for the person and have not voted for anyone because some political party was telling me who I should vote for.
We all know the choices by now and, that said, I do believe that the process of selecting a chief executive is deeply flawed. The words "money" and "special intersts" come to mind, among many others.
Here's the way I see it:
Barack Obama, you are a fine public speaker. You are also an extremely liberal Senator from the State of Illinois , which has a long and rich history of political corruption of the first magnitude. You are indeed a child of that system.
You have finally insulted my intelligence far beyond my capacity to tolerate your insults. It has nothing at all to do with your skin color. As a matter of fact, it would be so COOL to finally have an African-American for President. What a great statement that would be to the entire world that we are indeed the greatest country on earth ! But, unfortunately, General Colin Powell is not running, and YOU are NOT the man for this job !
Barack baby, you want me to believe that you have never heard the sermons of your own pastor, the Right Reverend "God Damn Ame rica" Jeremiah Wright. It is a matter of record that this has been your church for over 20 years. It is a matter of record that you were married there by this very pastor, and that your children were baptized there. The good Reverend saw fit to visit Khadafy in Libya with you and to give a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, of all people. We have all now seen excerpts of his sermons all over the airwaves by now. And you have publicly stated that this man IS your "spiritual mentor".
BUT, your pastor is NOT the reason I am NOT voting for you. His words were disturbing enough, but it is your own HUGE church congregation, seen jumping, hooting and howling to his words in the background that disturb me the most. And please don't tell me you attended church there and never once heard a "discouraging word" in the 20 years you attended there. Don't tell me, that in addition to the good reverend, that you are now not having anything to do with all those other people seen hooting and howling out in the audience in the background of his fiery tirades.
Even Oprah Winfrey got disgusted and walked out. I am no Oprah fan, but still she did the right thing.
Now YOU look me in the eye and ask me to believe that you never heard such language in all the years you attended there ! This is like me telling you that I attended dozens of Klan rallys and never once heard the "N" word. Yep. And Bill Clinton "did not inhale".
Yes, Mr. Obama, we all have friends who have said stupid things that embarrassed us, but NOW you have asked me to believe something that is so incredibly stupid that you are telling me that I am just stupid enough to believe you. THAT is the main reason that I will never vote for you. I am deeply sorry, that in a county teeming with enormously talented African Americans who would make a good President, that the political system has cho sen YOU. You are a pathetic and plastic excuse for an American, who will not even salute the Flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. God forbid you ever get near the Oval Office.
Now, did I mention Bill Clinton ?
AH YES ! This brings us to MRS. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, who this candidate really is, in spite of all the other names she may care to call herself. This "feminist" piece of work of course would like to be referred to as MS. and we all know who wears the pant suit in that family.
MS. Clinton, (sugar), it is just as depressing to realize that there are dozens of women who would also make great Presidents. But, unfortunately, the horrible state of the selection process has selected YOU. Ms. Clinton, I'm sorry, b ut you could not tell the truth if we waterboarded your worthless ass !
Still you play the role of the "embarrassed but dignified noble wife". What utter malarky ! I am not voting for you for a world of reasons, but the main one is the same as not my voting for Senator Obama. You persistently insult my intelligence. It COULD be conceivably possible that you did not know about Monica Lewinsky, extremely remote, but possible if we stretch our imaginations a bit. But you turn around and then ask me to believe that you also did not know about Paula Jones and the legion of other women who were chewed up and spit out by your lecherous excuse for a husband. Puleese turn off this broken record !!!
But let's set aside your hubby's flagrant pecadillos. The real reason I will never vote for you is that I don't think the country can su rvive EIGHT MORE YEARS of Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Sandy Berger stuffing his socks with classified intelligence, Janet Reno's goon squad, and the myriad other corruptions that seem to stick to you like your ugly face. So our former President can't keep his dick in his pants. The REAL issue is that he committed perjury under oath when he lied about it and the pathetically-attempted coverup that followed. Like you, he is totally incapable of telling the truth. He could not do it if you tortured him, and in voting for you, we would get the BOTH of you, all over again. The same folks who could have taken out Osama Bin Laden over 3,000 dead Americans ago !
And please stop telling me that you have "8 years of experience" to lead us. You were the freakin' first lady already, not the Commander in Chief. Jeez ! The sum of your "experience" is that of the most worrisome and incompetent meddling in the history of the White House. You even cursed your pitiful staff and the Secret Service agents who were and still are unfortunately charged with risking their lives to protect your worthless, thieving hide, and all at the expense of other people who have to work for a living.
Your single pathetic platform is to finance the illegal drugs, alcoholism and bad habits of the very lowest and most irresponsible freeloaders in America and to then "garnish the wages" (your own words) of every law-abiding and hard-working American to pay for it. This disaster you refer to as "Universal Health Care". Where have you been the last 30 years ? Did you not see that socialism is a failure wherever it has been tried ? Did you not notice that the Soviet Union has collapsed since it gave no re ward to those who worked the hardest for the fruits of their own labors to pay for those who will not ??
It is interesting to see all the dead bodies that you and your hubby have left in your wake. Suicides, mysterious deaths, cover-ups that make Richard Nixon look like a rank amateur. The utter contempt and unbelievable arrogance of some of your strongest supporters, most notably the recently resigned and disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzer, the epitome of hypocritical and malevolent arrogance gone wild, one of your most ardent, wealthy and powerful political supporters. A man the news media refuses to admit IS a "super delegate" in your own political machine, a fine example of your own "adopted" state of New York . No wonder you moved there to run for Senator ! The environment there is perfect for the likes of you !
Yes, I would vote for a woman, but I will NOT vote for YOU !
Which leaves us with Senator John McCain.
John, you are a flawed man. You are a bit old, a bit looney, and you have a notoriously bad temper. This perfectly qualifies you, in my humble opinion, to lead us for the next eight years. I WANT your trembling hand on the nuclear button.
Think about it.
We have Kim Jong IL, Chavez and Ahmadenijad all running around like lunatics, threatening America and threatening to plunge the world into nuclear Armageddon. We have Putin and the Chinese blustering and rattling their sabres at us. I want John McCain in the Oval Office and I want him to be really pissed off at all these other nut jobs around the planet.
John, once you are elected, I want you to go into the Oval Off ice and throw one of your perfect FITS. Jump up and down and throw something through a plate glass window. Rip the drapes down and foam at the mouth a bit. And I want the whole thing on camera so that Ahmadinejad can see it. I want ALL of these "world leaders" to lay awake at night and to break out in a cold sweat every time they think of messing with the United States of America .
I want the nuclear button sitting right next to the alarm clock on your night stand. I want pictures of this to be sent to Iran , Russia , China , Venezuela , Cuba , Libya , Syria , Pakistan , and those other assholes in the sheets, the Saudis.
On the domestic front, poor John did try and reach across the aisle to the opposition in a desperate effort to compromise and to get the Congress to do something. You may not agree with his efforts, but at least he TRIED. For all his efforts, all he got handed to him was his head in a basket. The liberals are pissed at him and the conservatives are pissed at him. Just my kinda guy.
I predict that John will select Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Good choice. I want a Jew whose memory of the Holocaust is still fresh in his mind and who is royally pissed off at all of these towel-headed morons in the Middle East to be the next in line if something should happen to John. Shalom, Vice President Joe. One heartbeat from the Oval Office.
Finally. John McCain knows on a most personal level what it is to suffer horrible torture for years and to see others die, right in front of you, for their love of America . When you ask him about it, he will tell you that what he did was "nothing special". Even more incredibly, he states that ANY American who truly loves his country would do exactly the same as he did in that situation. You and I will have a hard time be lieving that, but the real point is that John McCain believes that about the "average American", and that, dear friends and neighbors, is why I will cast my one poor ballot for on election day for John McCain--warts and all.
God Bless America ,
A Concerned Citizen
3 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Mar. 18, 2008 at 19:32
by BrendaBee
I was, and am still, a strong fighter for civil rights as you who read my blog know by now. But I have for several years now been bothered by the inequality between the races that I have watched develop since the mid 1970's when most of the laws assuring equal treatment of all races, sexes and religions had been passed. Blacks somehow changed the rules and the reasons we were all fighting for equal rights leaving Whites like me baffled and concerned. It seemed they were not content to be "equal", but had to go beyond and become segregationists themselves. Whites and Hispanics and every other make or model could not in any way exclude Blacks from their associations, but Blacks could exclude all others from their organizations and clubs.
Every legislature whether state or federal has a Black Caucus. An organization exclusively for Blacks and no one else need apply. Here in Greensboro we have the Pulpit Forum made up of Black ministers. We have the Simkins PAC, which is a political action group exclusively for Blacks. And there are several other organizations that are made up of only Blacks and which Whites or Hispanics are excluded. These exclusively Black organizations are to be found all over the country.
Now I am not saying these organization should not exist and neither am I saying that they are wrong to exist. However I am saying that I KNOW that if any exclusively White or Hispanic organization should be formed there would be screams of racism against the organizers and probably law suits would be brought against the members for discrimination.
But far worse than these all exclusive organizations are the Black people who openly denounce the United States and all races with what coming from any other person of another race would be denounced and banned as racist. The KKK can not openly gather or march, and certainly do not get the favorable press coverage that these blatantly racist Black individual get. As stated I am a long time civil rights advocate who worked with Blacks very early in the movement, who met Martin Luther King and heard his message directly from him and who fought for and got the laws passed that would assure all races were treated equally. (These laws did not change attitudes because that is an impossibility, but they did make it possible for anyone suffering discrimination to bring the matter before the courts for redress.) As this same civil rights advocate now grown old I am disheartened and dismayed that racism has taken on another color and it is now the Black man who is practicing racism against all others.
This year 2008 AD we have a Black man who is running for president and who is winning hearts and votes all over the country. I have listened to Barack Obama and have been impressed with him. I don't agree with his views, but the man is, I believe, worthy of being President of the United States if elected.
Picture my dismay to find that this very intelligent, well educated, well off, trusted Black man, who has enjoyed all the rights and privileges that being a citizen of the United States can offer to any of it's citizens, is a member of the church of a virulently racist Black minister. A minister who spews out what can only be term as "hate speech" with impunity. Speech that no White minister would be permitted. In fact, speech and words that no White person of any calling could use without being arrested and charged with a crime. Yes, "hate speech" is a crime when spoken by any race but the Black race. And Barack Obama, the first Black man to run for the presidency who has a good chance to be nominated by his party, is a long time member of this minister's church.
I will let Cal Thomas speak for me from this point:
Barack and the Bigot
By Cal Thomas
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
"In his several explanations and denunciations of his longtime pastor, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama asks us to believe that he never heard any of the sermons in which Rev. Jeremiah Wright denounced and asked God to damn America. Neither was he present, he says, for Rev. Wright's message in which he said America got what it deserved on 9/11 because we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II and have bombed other countries. He apparently also missed the one about how America created AIDS. The implication appears to have been that it was a plot to wipe out blacks, since the disease disproportionately affects African Americans.
Other church members must have told Obama what Rev. Wright said, or he could have viewed the sermon on the church's Website. It appears many others besides just Rev. Wright share this point of view. If one looks at the video, church members are standing, shouting approval and applauding. This is not one man speaking for himself. From the reaction, one can fairly conclude he is speaking for most, if not all, of the congregation. But not for Barack Obama, he says.
US Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) listens to a question from the audience during a campaign stop in Plainfield, Indiana March 15, 2008. REUTERS/Frank Polich (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)
A statement issued by the church last Sunday accused critics of attacking "the legacy of the African-American Church." That is like excusing racism in some Southern white churches 50 years ago because of a "legacy" of bigotry. Hate from a preacher - black or white - can never be justified."
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Feb. 29, 2008 at 23:34
by BrendaBee
The following is a survey sponsored by the Republican National Committee and offered thru Townhall.com You might want to take a few minutes to take it and let those in power know how you feel. BB
 |
Dear Friend,
 You are invited to take a National Policy Survey called the Congressional District Survey.
The National Republican Congressional Committee is conducting this nationwide grass-roots project as a critical part of our efforts to rebuild and strengthen the Republican Party by getting more Americans, like you, involved.
To take this survey, please click here now.
As we approach the all-important 2008 Presidential election it is crucial that we act today to make sure the Republican Party is listening, and is focused squarely on, the top priorities of the American people.
That is why it is important you make your voice heard by completing the Congressional District Survey today!
We need to know your personal views on many of the most important issues facing our politically divided nation: the economy, national defense, America's tax system, health care, Social Security, illegal immigration, government spending, and much more.
After the analysis of the Congressional District Survey survey is complete, it will be presented to President Bush, the Republican Party Leadership and all of our Republican candidates running for office in 2008. You will also receive an exact duplicate copy this report.
To make sure you receive your copy, please click here today to make your voice heard by completing the
Congressional District Survey.
The Congressional District Survey ends on Friday, March 7th so please make sure to take the survey as soon as possible to ensure you receive the report that will be delivered to President Bush.
Thank you for helping with this vital project. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Tom Cole, M.C.
Chairman
National Republican Congressional Committee
P.S. Your chance to respond to the Congressional District Survey will end in one week so please make sure to click here today to make your voice heard. Thanks again for helping us with this project.
|
 |
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Jan. 7, 2008 at 11:04
by BrendaBee
Again I copied the entire FactCheck.org article on the Democrats debate in New Hampshire. I find I prefer reading these articles and the difference between what they said and the truth rather than listening to the actual debates. This way I find out what they said and what the truth is at the same time. It also gives me a fair idea of the character of the candidate. It was the FactCheck.org article on Romney and Huckabee that turned me off to Romney (I never even considered Huckabee). I put the full article on my blog as they are easily located for my reference under the category Politics. I am happy to share them with you or you can just by pass since none but this brief opening is yours trulys opinion (and I know how much my readers value my opinion!) BB
***********************************************
N.H. Debate: The Dems' Turn
January 6, 2008
When the going gets tough, the tough get misleading.
Summary
During the Democratic portion of the Jan. 5 New Hampshire debate:
1) Obama claimed we are "back where we started two years ago" in Iraq. Actually, all indicators of violence show dramatic improvement compared with two years ago.
2) Clinton repeated a misleading claim that the 2005 energy bill was "larded with all kinds of special interest breaks" for the oil industry. Actually, the bill resulted in a net increase in taxes on the oil industry, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
3) Obama stated that U.S. medical care costs "twice as much per capita as any other advanced nation," which is incorrect. U.S. spending is double the average, but not double that of all others.
4) Clinton said there is no reason that U.S. troops should be in Iraq "beyond today," but she has also conceded that she might keep combat troops fighting there for years.
5) Richardson said the price of gasoline in New Hampshire is at a record high. It's close, but lower than he said, and lower than it was a few weeks ago.
In the analysis section we note further misstatements and twisted facts, and we find that Clinton was close to the mark when she criticized Obama for shifting positions on the USA Patriot Act.
Analysis
The Democratic debate took place on the same stage at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire as the just-completed Republican version and had the same moderators: ABC's Charles Gibson and WMUR's Scott Spradling. There were only four participants: Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
Improvement in Iraq
Obama vastly understated the improvement in the security situation in Iraq when he said:
Obama: We saw a spike in the violence, the surge reduced that violence, and we now are, two years later, back where we started two years ago. We have gone full circle at enormous cost to the American people.
There was indeed a spike in the violence in Iraq during the last two years that has been receding as of late. Most recently, nearly all statistical indicators show that violence is sharply lower than it was two years ago, according to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index.
Clinton’s Oily Charge
Clinton repeated a bit of recycled bunk about tax cuts for the oil industry.
Clinton: You know, the energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it. I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare. Now we're all out on the campaign trail talking about taking the tax subsidies away from the oil companies, some of which were in that 2005 energy bill.
We’ve called Clinton on this once before. It’s true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained $14.3 billion in tax breaks, but most of those breaks were for electric utilities, nuclear power plants, alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy efficient cars and homes. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil companies was offset by $2.9 billion in tax increases. The net was a $300 million tax increase over 11 years.
Double the Health Spending? Not Quite.
Obama repeated an old chestnut about health care costs:
Obama: Our medical care costs twice as much per capita as any other advanced nation.
This is an exaggeration. The United States does spend nearly twice as much on average as most developed nations, but it is inaccurate to say that it spends twice as much as “any other.” In a 2007 Kaiser Family Foundation report comparing the health care spending of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries, the United States came in first at $5,711 per capita. But Luxembourg spent $4,611, only $1,100 less per capita than the U.S. The next biggest spender, Switzerland, spent $3,874, also far more than half of U.S. spending. France's per capita spending was $3,048, still more than half of the costs in this country. KFF noted, however, that the United States' spending was “over 90% higher than in many other countries that we would consider global competitors.”
Bring the Troops Home. Now. Sort Of.
Clinton said she sees no reason U.S. troops should remain in Iraq "beyond today," but she also has said U.S. troops could remain in some combat roles in Iraq for several years.
Clinton: So it's time to bring our troops home and to bring them home as quickly and responsibly as possible and unfortunately, I don't see any reason why they should remain beyond, you know, today. I think George Bush doesn't intend to bring them home, but certainly I have said when I'm president I will. Within 60 days, I'll start that withdrawal.
Clinton manages to say, within just a few sentences, that she'll start the withdrawal "within 60 days" of becoming president; she doesn't see why our forces "should remain beyond, you know, today"; and we should "bring them home as quickly and responsibly as possible." What does all this mean? It's really hard to say.
We noted in September, after a debate in which the candidates were questioned by NBC's Tim Russert, that Clinton has put a number of caveats on her goal of having the troops out by the end of her first term. And Michael Dobbs, who writes the Washington Post's Fact Checker feature, has assembled some of the conditions Clinton has listed that might require a continued troop presence, such as continuing counterterrorism operations, protecting the U.S. embassy, countering Iranian influence, helping the Kurds and training the Iraqis.
We take no position on whether withdrawing the troops immediately, in stages or not at all is the best course. But we do quarrel with simplistic applause lines that mask a much more complicated position, and are thus misleading.
Richardson Gasses Up
Richardson was a bit off when he mentioned the high price of gas in New Hampshire.
Richardson: And look at the price now in New Hampshire – $3.20, something like that. It's the highest ever.
The price of regular gas in New Hampshire is actually averaging $3.06 right now. And the all-time high, $3.14 per gallon, occurred in September 2005, according to the American Automobile Association. The average price in New England as a whole is currently $3.09, according to the Energy Information Administration, 14 cents less than it was in September 2005.
Clinton vs. Obama
Clinton took direct aim at Obama, her chief rival at the moment, by portraying him as a flip-flopper, and she connects fairly solidly:
Clinton: You've changed positions within three years on, you know, a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate and now you have changed. You know, you said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it. You said that you would vote against funding for the Iraq war; you came to the Senate and you voted for $300 billion of it.
Clinton is correct to say that Obama opposed the Patriot Act during his run for the U.S. Senate. She's relying on a 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire in which Obama wrote that he would vote to "repeal the Patriot Act" or replace it with a "new, carefully crafted proposal." As for whether or not he would have voted against it when it was first proposed in 2001, Obama said in October 2004 that he wasn't sure:
Obama: I like to think that, had I been in the Senate, I would have cast the second vote against the Patriot Act. ... But this is how much I admire Russ Feingold: I can't guarantee it. I say that I would have voted against the Patriot Act. But I wasn't there in the pressure of that moment – so shortly after Sept. 11 and with anthrax being mailed into Capitol Hill.
(Feingold's was the lone Senate vote against the USA Patriot Act in 2001.)
When it came time to reauthorize the law in 2005, though, Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In December 2005, then-Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) brought the bill up for a vote, and Obama said on the Senate floor that he would vote against ending debate – a position equivalent to declaring a lack of support for the measure. He followed through and voted against the motion, and the Patriot Act reauthorization bill sat dormant until 2006. Then in February of that year, Obama said on the floor that he would support the Patriot Act's reauthorization. When First brought the bill to the floor again in March 2006, Obama both voted for cloture and for the Patriot Act reauthorization conference report, sending the bill to the president. He also later supported a bill with additional amendments to the Patriot Act, including some civil liberties protections.
Clinton, by the way, followed exactly the same path on the 2005 bill, from speaking in opposition to voting for it.
Clinton vs. Obama, Part II
Update, Jan. 7: We did not include the following section in the story when we posted it last night because we were promised additional information by the Obama campaign. We now have that material and can assess the charge by Clinton.
The second part of Clinton's quote in the section above, which tars Obama with flip-flopping on the war in Iraq, refers to his position on an $87 billion war funding supplemental bill that came to a vote in 2003. In a speech to the New Trier Democratic Party in Illinois in November of that year, he said he would have voted against it. Specifically, he told the crowd:
Obama: Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said "no." I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.
Four years later Obama attempted to add context to his New Trier remarks in this May 2007 interview on ABC’s "This Week," saying he supported $67 billion of the $87 billion since that money was directed to the troops:
George Stephanopoulos: But back in 2003, you were against supplemental funding for the war. You gave a speech where you said I would vote against the $87 billion.
Obama: That is true. … And the reason was because I was trying to establish a principle at that time and I said this at the time that for us to be giving $20 billion in reconstruction dollars in a no-bid process where money could potentially be wasted was a problem. But what I also said at that time was that the 67 billion that was needed for the troops was something that I would gladly vote for and I've been consistent in saying that as much as I think this has been if not the biggest then one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in history, I want to make sure that our troops who are on the ground who perform magnificently aren't caught in the political cross fire in Washington.
It’s true Obama had made the distinction, but we were unable to find any evidence that he made it in his New Trier speech or that it was as detailed as he claims. Neither the Obama campaign nor the New Trier Democrats could provide a transcript. He did make this distinction in an October 2003 NAACP forum, according to this report from The Hyde Park Citizen, a local Illinois paper:
Hyde Park Citizen: Obama said he would put more money toward the troops, but not rebuilding Iraq. "We need to make sure that every dollar that is spent in Iraq is spent at home," he said. "We could have had our allies paying for [their] building process and contributing to the troops."
But Obama has since voted in favor of Iraq war funding, as has Clinton, on at least 14 separate occasions. Those bills have included a number of line-items ranging from funding for Iraqi reconstruction – the type of funding Obama said he would vote against – to unrelated activities such as tsunami relief and Hurricane Katrina recovery.
The Obama campaign argues that Obama’s support for war funding has been contingent on the money being attached to a troop withdrawal timetable. This has been true for a majority of his most recent votes in 2007. But his earlier votes, dating back to 2005, came with no such caveat, and we found only one occasion prior to 2007 when Obama voted against a motion to push forward funding for the war. But that vote was immediately followed by one in favor of the underlying bill.
Score this one for Clinton, though it's not a home run.
A Billion Here, a Billion There...
During the debate, three of the four Democrats gave different totals for the cost of the Iraq war (Clinton did not proffer a number).
Obama: It has cost us upwards of $1 trillion. It may get close to 2 (trillion dollars).
Richardson: ... the $570 billion that we've spent on this war.
Edwards: $600 billion dollars and counting.
Richardson was closest when he said the U.S had spent $570 billion, but he was still over by, oh, about $120 billion. According to the Congressional Research Service, spending on the Iraq war through FY 2007 was $448.6 billion. Edwards was farther off when he said $600 billion. That figure is closer to the amount spent on all military operations, including Afghanistan ($608.8 billion) Or the amount that has been requested for Iraq through the next year ($606.9 billion.)
Obama doubled the numbers when he said, "It has cost us upwards of $1 trillion. It may get close to 2 (trillion dollars)." He is most likely citing the work of the Democratic majority's staff on the Joint Economic Committee that attempted to estimate the "total economic cost" by calculating the "shadow cost" of the war, an estimated figure that accounts for the loss of cash flow, interest and available capital to the American taxpayer.
Ode to the Patient's Bill of Rights
John Edwards claimed to have been one of three authors of the Patient's Bill of Rights. Clinton pointed out that it never became law. Everyone said that Bush killed it.
Edwards: What we did – and I didn't do it alone, don't claim to have done it alone – but I, Senator McCain who was here earlier, Senator Kennedy, the three of us wrote the Patient's Bill of Rights, the three of us took on the powerful insurance industry and their lobby every single day of the fight for the Patient's Bill of Rights and we got that bill through the United States Senate and got it passed.
Clinton: You know, Senator Edwards did work and get the Patient's Bill of Rights through the Senate; it never got through the House. ... We don't have a Patient's Bill of Rights.
Edwards: Because George Bush – George Bush killed it.
Clinton: Well, that's right, he killed it.
Edwards is correct that he was a prime mover behind the bill. And Clinton is right in saying it never became law. But Bush wasn't the only executioner. The Republican majorities in the House and Senate never entered serious negotiations to resolve differences between the Senate's bill and the much weaker version that passed the House.
Richardson Recycles
Richardson repeated some of his dubious boasts yet again, and he's waited long enough on one of them that he's almost right: "I've created 80,000 new jobs. ... I've insured kids under 12 in my state. I've improved education." In fact, New Mexico hasn't yet seen the 80,000 job gain that Richardson has been boasting of for more than a year, starting at a time when the rise during his term in total nonfarm employment in the state was only 68,100. As we said in August when we first exposed this falsehood, Richardson will eventually be right. But not yet. As of the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures released last week, the state had gained only 79,400 jobs since the month before Richardson took office.
And while it's true that New Mexico teacher salaries have gone up and some test scores have improved a bit, the reading scores for eighth-grade students have actually fallen since Richardson took office. The state remains near the bottom in all student test categories.
Return to Sender
A couple of statements were so wildly off-base that we’re wondering if the candidates simply made verbal typos. Still, we feel obliged to correct the record. One of these flubs was by Edwards, when he said that he "saw a projection just a week or so ago suggesting that America could lose as many as 20 [million] to 30 million more jobs over the next decade." Maybe he was referring to certain categories of jobs, because the U.S. is expected to have a net gain in jobs overall – almost as many as Edwards says we'll lose. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total employment is expected to increase from 150.6 million in 2006 to 166.2 million in 2016, or about 10 percent. Things are somewhat bleaker in the manufacturing industry, where BLS predicts that 1.5 million jobs will be lost by 2016. While bad, that's actually not as bad as the 3 million manufacturing jobs that BLS says we've lost between 1996 and 2006.
Update, Jan. 7: After this article appeared, the Edwards campaign contacted us to give the source for his statement. The senator was referring to a projection by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal group critical of reduced trade barriers, that between 18 percent and 22 percent of today's jobs "could potentially be offshored," meaning sent overseas. The report stressed, however, that of these "potentially" lost jobs only a fraction were likely to be lost, in fact. And the report made no attempt to balance lost jobs against those gained in U.S. industries that export goods or services.
The other statement involved Richardson, who said that "there's been a proliferation of loose nuclear weapons, mainly in the hands of terrorists, that could cross presumably a border." But neither the FBI nor the CIA nor the National Threat Initiative has found evidence that terrorists currently have nuclear weapons.
– by Viveca Novak, with Brooks Jackson, Justin Bank, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller and Lori Robertson
Sources
Obama at New Trier. 21 Mar. 2007. The Politico (via YouTube). 6 Jan. 2008.
ABC "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" Guest: Barack Obama. 13 May 2007. Transcript. Federal News Service.
Sen. Obama Promised to Support Repealing PATRIOT Act, Then Voted to Extend It. 6 Jan. 2008. Hillary Clinton for President. 6 Jan. 2008
Illinois NOW Questionnaire for Senator Barack Obama. 10 Sept. 2003. Illinois National Organization for Women [via ABC News]. 6 Jan. 2008.
Senate Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on the Patriot Act. 15 Dec. 2005. U.S. Senate. 6 Jan. 2008.
Congressional Record pg. S13712
Obama, Barack. Senate Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on S. 2271 - USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization. 16 Feb. 2006. U.S. Senate. 6 Jan. 2008.
Senate Roll Call Vote No. 25
"War at any Price: The total economic costs of the war beyond the Federal Budget," Joint Economic Committee. Prepared by the majority staff. Nov. 2007.
Amy, Belasco. "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11." Congressional Research Service. 9 Nov. 2007.
Major Executive Speeches: Global Initiative Nuclear Terrorism Conference. 11 June 2007. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 6 Jan. 2008.
The Worldwide Threat in 2003: Evolving Dangers in a Complex World. 11 Feb. 2003. Central Intelligence Agency. 6 Jan. 2008.
Bunn, Matthew. "Securing the Bomb 2007." The Nuclear Threat Initiative (2007): 1-188.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Retail Gasoline Prices by Grade by Formulation." EIA Web site, 6 Jan. 2008.
Oil Price Information Service, New Hampshire average. AAA, 6 Jan. 2008.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Retail Gasoline Historical Prices." EIA Web site, 6 Jan. 2006.
Jared Bernstein, Lawrence Mishel, James Lin, "Quantifying the Threat of Offshoring." Economic Policy Institute, 14 Nov. 2007.
Chinn, Lesley R. "Eleven Senate Candidates Debate Issues at NAACP." Hyde Park Citizen. 9 Oct. 2003: 44.
Senate Vote 109, 2005
Senate Vote 117, 2005
Senate Vote 252, 2005
Senate Vote 254, 2005
Senate Vote 326, 2005
Senate Vote 364, 2005
Senate Vote 366, 2005
Senate Vote 112, 2006
Senate Vote 171, 2006
Senate Vote 261, 2006
Senate Vote 117, 2007
Senate Vote 125, 2007
Senate Vote 126, 2007
Senate Vote 147, 2007
Senate Vote 172, 2007
Senate Vote 181, 2007
Related Articles
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Jan. 5, 2008 at 11:26
by BrendaBee
I have spent the last couple days pondering just what happened in Iowa. Not that I think Iowa is the place presidential candidates should be chosen because quite frankly the Iowans are more focused on the price of corn than the realities of this world as it stands today. They are far removed from major cities, coasts and ports and borders. They are therefore isolated from the real danger to the world which is the attempt of the unholy to destroy civilization, not to replace it with something else but simply to destroy what is. But aside from the clueless Midwestern mentality in that they are focused on internal matters, a definite message was sent to our politicians: even the Iowans who have been pandered to with the political push for ethanol as the primary alternative fuel, still want change from the way things have been done in Washington.
Our nation’s capital is of course the last bastion of the most accomplished con men. That is to say: sophisticated liars and thieves; the best of the best. The two men the Iowans chose to endorse do not fit this model so it makes no sense at all unless you consider that the real and only purpose for this outcome was to send a message that they see the need for great changes to be made by our government. Iowans like the rest of us are weary and disgusted with the rhetoric, partisanship and scandal that has frozen Washington. They like the rest of the country want the government to govern.
For either one of these men to be elected to the presidency would be a disaster of major proportions in a time when the world has never been smaller, and needed the most firm leadership from the only country able to give it.
Obama the starry eyed kid with no idea of what it is to lead or govern. Elected to the Senate he has spent his time on the campaign trail instead of learning the ropes. He views the world thru rosy glasses and promises paradise. A climate suited for saints, but hopelessly impossible for human beings. Washington will chew him up and spit him out before breakfast.
Huckabee the Elmer Gantry preacher and would be politician. He has waffled and lied his way across the state preaching to each audience just what they wanted to hear. Every speech he gave that I saw I could see the Bible being held high in his right hand. He and Romney have dueled each other to see which one could better outrageously enhance their records as governors and get the people to believe what they said. If elected president I promise he will end the partisanship and bickering on one level at least as the politicians in Washington join together in turning their backs and ignoring him.
What? You thought my brief silence meant that I was not going to put in my two cents worth on this topic? Huh! BB
0 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
