Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
March 02, 2008
Obama and his 2003 Vote:Lacking Intelligence
Clarice Feldman
These days Obama cannot remind us enough that he voted against authorizing force in Iraq and Clinton authorized it. As Tom Maguire joked of Obama's response to Hillary's latest red- phone- ringing- in-the-White-House-at- 3 am.- advertisement:"Obama's response we have only heard about ten thousand times - if the phone rings at 3 AM we can be sure that he won't invade Iraq in 2003."
But earlier on --in an interview in November 2006--he was more candid about what separated his and Hillary's votes on this important issue--She knew more about the matter than he did:
[Question:] Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton,
politically?
[Obama:] You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she's the most disciplined-one of the most disciplined people-I've ever met. She's one of the toughest. She's got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she's somebody who's in this stuff for the right reasons. She's passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it's not clear to me what differences we've had since I've been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I'm always careful to say that I was
not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test. (Emphasis supplied.)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/obama_and_his_2003_votelacking.html
He's responsible for what his aides fill out. Yes they do, anti-gun ownership is definetly a liberal position. Anti-capital punishment liberal position, pro-abortion liberal position, favors universal healthcare liberal position should I go on or do you get the point.....
I believe it is well established anti-capital punishment is a left leaning position.
Lmao...he stated in this interview probably the only reason he voted against the war in Iraq is because he wasn't privy to the intelligence. He said that had he been privy to the intelligence he could have voted for approval of the war. I know, I know he didn't explictly say that but that is what is implied.
Wait, Obama is a liberal? What a surprise! However, he is not "far-left".
Perhaps is not the same as probably. He said that it was a possibility, NOT that it probably happened.
And its not " I wouldn't have invaded Iraq" either....LOL
Thank you, Thank you....wouldn't that make the statement "I wouldn't have invaded Iraq" contradictory?
Not at all. The statement is assuming knowledge that he knew then. He isn't saying that under no circumstances, no matter what happened, no matter what he thought he would invade Iraq. He was saying that what he knew at the time told him not to invade Iraq. If you change the factors, of course he might arrive at a different conclusion. This is true of everything.
You voted for Bush twice, and continue to cheerlead for him.
So your judgement on who is, or is not, a good leader can be laughed off and dismissed out of hand.
And you "shipmate" are able to post nonsense like that still. You can thank GW Bush!
I think most reasonable, non-partisan people would disagree with you.. He has blasted Hillary, Edwards, or anybody that voted for the war in Iraq for not exercising good judgement....then on the other hand says that if he had the intelligence they had he might have voted the same way.. It's hypocrisy at best...
We are a people defined by common sense, after all. We don't turn the county's survival over to rookies.
What lying bullshit. You did just that to George and look at what a mess he has made. You annointed a president who never left the united states. Wait, he may have visited Tijuana to get drunk.
The article is way over the edge on Barrack being that far left. But then again the right is now in the attack and lie mode. I have to admit that they do that very well.
Did you know Barack is a Muslim? It's all over the right wing blogs.
They WERE wrong and he WAS right. Whether he might have acted differently if things were different is irrelevant since you just don't know.
They WERE wrong and he WAS right. Whether he might have acted differently if things were different is irrelevant since you just don't know.
Hugh Hewitt is a notorious NeoCon who voted for bush twice, and is probably one of the 29% who still think bush is doing a good job.
So both HIS and your judgement on who could be a good leader can be laughed off with extreme prejudice.
How many of those 71% that oppose Bush actually have a real educated reason to disapprove of him? How many of those people are politically aware? How many are influenced by liberal feel-good talking points? Bush has not hurt America despite what the liberals think.
But Dreams is pretty raw, and very revealing. Every political commentator should read it. I'll be posting on it for the next few days, but it showcases the source of Obama's appeal: Senator Obama walked the civil rights' activist and community organizer's walk. He knows the underclass. He tried, in a very real, very committed way, to improve their lot.
He believes.
Barack Obama is a man of the left --the hard left ,the uncompromising left. His passion is real, not feigned, and the intensity of his campaign volunteers is to be expected as a result.
But he is far, far from the mainstream of American politics, and as the electorate learns this, I expect they will become exceedingly cautious about handing the country's future to a man only three years into the D.C. swirl --exactly the same time he spent as an "organizer" on the South Side of Chicago. He didn't "know" Chicago after three years, and he doesn't know D.C. --or the world-- now.
Senator Barack is, in short, a rookie. The sort of rookie the fans love, then turn against, realizing he isn't up to the job. The sort of rookie that makes huge mistakes, which while merely disappointing on the football field, are deadly on the field of international conflict.
Senator Obama is Jimmy Carter, without the experience. Carter, without the United States Naval Academy education.
He's going to win Texas and Ohio on Tuesday, and lose to John McCain in November.
We are a people defined by common sense, after all. We don't turn the county's survival over to rookies.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/60aff20a-06a1-497d-b60d-f0e663b31ecd
Do you want this "Rookie" leading our country?
Awwwwwwwwww... how cute. You get the Jay Leno email, too?
Bush has been a nightmare ....
Which historians? Those "historians" at Bob Jones university? Historians like Karl Rove or Dick Cheney? Or are you just pulling shit out your arse....for a change...
You better hope an historian doesn't write a piece on Bush using real facts and info - he'll go down as one of the five worst presidents in history, if not THE worst...
