He Hath Been Coronated
July 22nd 2008 18:54
By the media at least. I'm talking about Senator Obama, who's foreign trip, that was supposed to be fact-finding, has been turned into his coronation as commander in chief. An NBC anchor called it his "tour of duty," as if he's serving in the military over there. They have ignored statements he's made that imply he sets policy, as if he is already setting foreign policy.
I'll step back a bit. How many nightly news anchors have gone on John McCain's trips? If you guessed zero, nada, or zip, you're absolutely right! How many are with Obama? ALL THREE! Each of them promised an exclusive on one night of the trip. I agree with Rush that they are treating this guy like a messiah. I heard an absolutely hilarious clip of him instructing the press with him, during his press conference, on how they should be asking him questions, what they should be questioning him about and how loud they should speak. His campaign is directing the press corps on how to cover him and they are eating it up!
From Rush's show this morning, an Obama quote as accurate as I can remember it: "The security situation has improved, but we don’t know if the political solution I put forth in January 2007 would have worked. Much of the credit can be given to Sunni leaders changing their allegiances and the Sadr militia standing down.”
Oh? Not to our military? Yes, the Sunnis turned against their militias and Al-Qaida and other insurgents because of their oppressive governance. They were forcing Iraqis in the towns they controlled to live strict Islamic code, when they didn’t even do that under Saddam. But when those insurgents were driven out, who did it? Yes, the Iraqis helped but it was the US forces, through the surge, that took advantage of this ill-will and drove them out. Far be it for Obama to give them credit.
The Sadr militia stood down? Are you kidding me? Does he really think they just laid down their arms for political reasons? They were crushed in Basra. The mainstream media stopped covering it after the fighting turned against the Sadrists, but the fact is that with the US suppression of them in other areas, the Iraqi army, with US support, was able to force the Sadrists, nationwide, to put down their weapons and turn them in.
And the first part about his plan would have worked is part of the liberal mindset that since they are all SOO SMART, their ideas are always better than the actual performances. How many times have we heard them say, “If we had sent all those Iraq troops to Afghanistan instead, we would have Osama by now.” Really? They know for a fact that he would not have escaped through rough wilderness terrain and mountains into Pakistan and been protected by local sympathizers like he is now? They know we would be so much more successful than the Soviet army that was in Afghanistan for all those years? Could liberals be right? Maybe, but it is arrogant to state it as a fact, because I have never heard them say it in a way that makes room for it failing. I’ve always heard it stated as if there is no doubt about it. We would have Osama, they are 100% sure we would have succeeded. It’s the same arrogance they accused President Bush of when they said he assumed too much in the initial invasion of Iraq.
The thing about this arrogance is it’s easy. They can assert it about things in the past because they’ll never be proven wrong. “My political plan was never tried,” is stated as if it would have worked, in the context of other over confident statements, but it never has to be tested. Here’s another quote from Obama about what al-Maliki said during their meeting:
"He wants to retain as much flexibility as possible," Obama said. "What I emphasized to him was ... if I were in his shoes, I'd probably feel the same way. But my job as a candidate for president and a potential commander in chief extends beyond Iraq." AP Article
See that last sentence. Arrogant. He thinks that as a candidate, he carries the ability to negotiate and set policy. He is a Senator. He only has the responsibilities and authority of a senator. If, God forbid, he is elected President, then he can talk to the Iraqis (who may have a different leader after the FREE elections they get to have in December thanks to the U.S. Military) about flexibility and policy. He doth presumeth too much. PRESIDENT Bush has already worked with the Iraqis to negotiate a withdrawal horizon. A horizon is something that is flexible and can move according to conditions. Obama is the one that STILL, according to his own words last week, wants to set a timetable. A timetable is not flexible.
McCain will stay flexible. Obama will show his stripes as the most liberal member of the Senate in is his short time there.
The military began sending troops home today, reducing down from the surge. It was planned all along, before Obama won a single primary, as long as conditions on the ground allowed it. PRESIDENT BUSH’s commanders are succeeding and the surge is working and troops are coming home. The media is giving Obama the credit, helping him portray it as a result of his candidacy and that it is his policy.
For months the Bush administration has been pressuring NATO to send more troops to Afghanistan and working to do that themselves once the surge success allowed it. Yet Obama goes there and says that’s what we need to do, and the media again portray it as if it’s a new and improved strategy.
Don’t let them get away with this. Don’t let the Obama campaign use the media to coronate him. Do the research yourself. Read other sources besides the mainstream media’s web pages, especially anything AP or Reuters. Especially not Reuters. Read the Wall Street Journal opinion and news pages. Read. Don’t take my word for it. It won’t take you long, with honest searching, to find that the emperor has no clothes.
I'll step back a bit. How many nightly news anchors have gone on John McCain's trips? If you guessed zero, nada, or zip, you're absolutely right! How many are with Obama? ALL THREE! Each of them promised an exclusive on one night of the trip. I agree with Rush that they are treating this guy like a messiah. I heard an absolutely hilarious clip of him instructing the press with him, during his press conference, on how they should be asking him questions, what they should be questioning him about and how loud they should speak. His campaign is directing the press corps on how to cover him and they are eating it up!
From Rush's show this morning, an Obama quote as accurate as I can remember it: "The security situation has improved, but we don’t know if the political solution I put forth in January 2007 would have worked. Much of the credit can be given to Sunni leaders changing their allegiances and the Sadr militia standing down.”
Oh? Not to our military? Yes, the Sunnis turned against their militias and Al-Qaida and other insurgents because of their oppressive governance. They were forcing Iraqis in the towns they controlled to live strict Islamic code, when they didn’t even do that under Saddam. But when those insurgents were driven out, who did it? Yes, the Iraqis helped but it was the US forces, through the surge, that took advantage of this ill-will and drove them out. Far be it for Obama to give them credit.
The Sadr militia stood down? Are you kidding me? Does he really think they just laid down their arms for political reasons? They were crushed in Basra. The mainstream media stopped covering it after the fighting turned against the Sadrists, but the fact is that with the US suppression of them in other areas, the Iraqi army, with US support, was able to force the Sadrists, nationwide, to put down their weapons and turn them in.
And the first part about his plan would have worked is part of the liberal mindset that since they are all SOO SMART, their ideas are always better than the actual performances. How many times have we heard them say, “If we had sent all those Iraq troops to Afghanistan instead, we would have Osama by now.” Really? They know for a fact that he would not have escaped through rough wilderness terrain and mountains into Pakistan and been protected by local sympathizers like he is now? They know we would be so much more successful than the Soviet army that was in Afghanistan for all those years? Could liberals be right? Maybe, but it is arrogant to state it as a fact, because I have never heard them say it in a way that makes room for it failing. I’ve always heard it stated as if there is no doubt about it. We would have Osama, they are 100% sure we would have succeeded. It’s the same arrogance they accused President Bush of when they said he assumed too much in the initial invasion of Iraq.
The thing about this arrogance is it’s easy. They can assert it about things in the past because they’ll never be proven wrong. “My political plan was never tried,” is stated as if it would have worked, in the context of other over confident statements, but it never has to be tested. Here’s another quote from Obama about what al-Maliki said during their meeting:
"He wants to retain as much flexibility as possible," Obama said. "What I emphasized to him was ... if I were in his shoes, I'd probably feel the same way. But my job as a candidate for president and a potential commander in chief extends beyond Iraq." AP Article
See that last sentence. Arrogant. He thinks that as a candidate, he carries the ability to negotiate and set policy. He is a Senator. He only has the responsibilities and authority of a senator. If, God forbid, he is elected President, then he can talk to the Iraqis (who may have a different leader after the FREE elections they get to have in December thanks to the U.S. Military) about flexibility and policy. He doth presumeth too much. PRESIDENT Bush has already worked with the Iraqis to negotiate a withdrawal horizon. A horizon is something that is flexible and can move according to conditions. Obama is the one that STILL, according to his own words last week, wants to set a timetable. A timetable is not flexible.
McCain will stay flexible. Obama will show his stripes as the most liberal member of the Senate in is his short time there.
The military began sending troops home today, reducing down from the surge. It was planned all along, before Obama won a single primary, as long as conditions on the ground allowed it. PRESIDENT BUSH’s commanders are succeeding and the surge is working and troops are coming home. The media is giving Obama the credit, helping him portray it as a result of his candidacy and that it is his policy.
For months the Bush administration has been pressuring NATO to send more troops to Afghanistan and working to do that themselves once the surge success allowed it. Yet Obama goes there and says that’s what we need to do, and the media again portray it as if it’s a new and improved strategy.
Don’t let them get away with this. Don’t let the Obama campaign use the media to coronate him. Do the research yourself. Read other sources besides the mainstream media’s web pages, especially anything AP or Reuters. Especially not Reuters. Read the Wall Street Journal opinion and news pages. Read. Don’t take my word for it. It won’t take you long, with honest searching, to find that the emperor has no clothes.
| 70 |
| Vote |
Comment by jon
Orble News
Urban Hint
Blog Adviser
Jon's Bookmarks
Debate Battle
Orblepedia
Orble Notes
Sydney WeekendNotes
You may also need to add the email address admin -at- orblemail.com to your address book in order to receive Orble admin emails in the future.
Thanks,
Jon.
(Orble Admin)
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief