Thursday, May 29, 2008

Obama caught in another lie

Another gaffe from the ignoramus. Does he know ANYTHING?

Barack Obama has admitted he was wrong to say his uncle helped liberate the Nazis' Auschwitz concentration camp, after Republicans said Soviet troops freed the camp. Senator Obama's campaign said the candidate meant to say that his great-uncle, Charlie Payne, had helped liberate a part of the Buchenwald camp, not Auschwitz.

"Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. Mr Burton said Senator Obama's great-uncle served in the 89th Infantry Division that entered Germany in 1945 and on April 4 overran Ohrdruf, a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp. Senator Obama had made the Auschwitz reference in a Memorial Day speech on Monday.

More than 1 million people, mostly Jews, were killed at Auschwitz, an extermination camp in Poland. Buchenwald in Germany was mainly a forced labour camp, where some 56,000 people are believed to have died.

"I had an uncle who was ... part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps," Senator Obama said. "And the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."

The Republican National Committee quickly pointed out that the Red Army had liberated Auschwitz in 1945, not American forces.


Change You'll Have to Pay For

Here's one "change" presidential candidate Barack Obama apparently believes in: higher prices. Witness his letter last week urging President George W. Bush not to submit the U.S.-South Korea free-trade agreement to Congress for ratification. Mr. Obama's objection, as stated in his letter, is that the deal "would give Korean exports essentially unfettered access to the U.S. market and would eliminate our best opportunity for obtaining genuinely reciprocal market access in one of the world's largest economies." In other words, ordinary American consumers would get too good a deal.

For an idea of how good, look at automobiles, about which Mr. Obama professes particular concern. The free-trade agreement would eliminate America's 2.5% tariff on most Korean car imports. Even better, it would phase out the 25% tariff on pick-ups and light trucks. Overall, the Korean trade deal would boost the U.S. economy by $10 billion to $12 billion.

Mr. Obama thinks this benefit to U.S. consumers isn't worth the risk that South Korea might not live up to its promise to eliminate its own 8% tariff on U.S. autos and cut its bewildering array of nontariff barriers, such as arcane safety standards. This despite the fact that the deal includes enforcement provisions if Korea backtracks.

On the record so far, Mr. Obama is the most protectionist U.S. presidential candidate in decades. In February he inserted a statement opposing the Korean trade deal into the Congressional record only days before securing the endorsement of the powerful Teamsters union. He also opposes the U.S.-Colombia pact, and he has called for rewriting Nafta - unilaterally if Canada and Mexico don't play along. Mr. Obama's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, told Canadian officials this was all for primary show, but the candidate is backing himself into a political corner should he win the White House.

Mr. Obama is promising change you can believe in. But on trade, it is closer to the status quo Americans will be paying for.


Obama Too Scared to Visit Troops in Baghdad

McCain challenged Obama to accompany him on a visit to Baghdad in a joint visit for true evaluation on the progress we are making there, but Obama is too scared he will see something outside the lines of his pre-conceived notions of failure. He obviously doesn't want to find a reason not to surrender.
John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more `Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.

Curt at Flopping Aces calls Obama out on his B.S. rhetoric of uniting both parties when he can't even arrange to meet the troops with his Republican contender. No doubt the Maverick painted Obama into a corner on this one, and Obama decided the least damage would be done by appeasing to his anti-war base and remaining in his ignorant bliss of surrender. The left are trying to spin it as some kind of genius move, but its a predictable, typically pathetic weasel move we have come to expect from the coward.

Allah Pundit:
If they're worried about the military giving them a dog-and-pony show, the answer isn't to decline the trip but to counterpropose a more comprehensive trip than even McCain's suggesting and turn it into a real fact-finding mission. Don't spend two hours looking at charts with Petraeus. Take four or five days; go to Basra and Mosul. If they simply can't suspend campaigning for that long, send a joint team of advisors from both sides. He won't do it because he's afraid of what he might hear, which goes back to a point I've been making ever since the Jamil Hussein saga: The left would have you believe Iraq hawks can't admit that any aspect of the war might be going badly, but the opposite has always been more nearly true.


McCain crushes Obama's foreign policy direction like an eggshell

Today John McCain employed everything but brass knuckles and a two-by-four on Barack Obama's egregious attempts at "foreign policy"
"Senator Obama said the war was lost. Senator Obama said we had to have a specific withdrawal as soon as possible which would have been chaos, genocide, increased Iranian influence; Al-Qaeda restoring much of their strategy; Shiite-Sunni conflicts and we would have to come back." "We are succeeding. Every indicator showed that the surge strategy has succeeded. Senator Obama was wrong in wanting to surrender. And, I will never surrender."

You gonna put some ice on that?
"Senator Obama has consistently offered his judgment on Iraq, and he has been consistently wrong. He said that General Petraeus' new strategy would not reduce sectarian violence, but would worsen it. He was wrong. He said the dynamics in Iraq would not change as a result of the 'surge.' He was wrong. One year ago, he voted to cut off all funds for our forces fighting extremists in Iraq. He was wrong. Sectarian violence has been dramatically reduced, Sunnis in Anbar province and throughout Iraq are cooperating in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and Shi'ite extremist militias no longer control Basra -- the Maliki government and its forces do."

Now that's gonna leave a bruise.
On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of McCain's closest friends, suggested on CBS' "Face the Nation" that the two travel to Iraq together. Asked about the idea today, McCain said sure. "Sure it would be fine. I go back every few months because things are changing in Iraq," he told the Associated Press in an interview. "I would also seize that opportunity to educate Sen. Obama along the way."

McCain also used the opportunity to criticize Obama for not visiting Iraq since 2006. "If there was any other issue before the American people and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly," McCain said. "He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq."

Medic! We've got a bleeder! Add these mistakes to the lengthy list of Obama boners and you could have a McCain TKO before the race has even begun.


Another Jew-hating advisor

Zbig is of course Polish and antisemitism has long been rampant in Poland

A story on Zbigniew Brzezinski from the Telegraph:
Mr Brzezinski said "it's not unique to the Jewish community - but there is a McCarthyite tendency among some people in the Jewish community", referring to the Republican senator who led the anti-Communist witch hunt in the 1950s. "They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonising. They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel." Although Mr Brzezinski is not a formal day-to-day adviser and stressed he doesn't speak for the campaign, he said that he "talks to" Mr Obama. He endorsed the Illinois senator, lauding him as "head and shoulders" above his opponents. He said that he was the only candidate who understood "what is new and distinctive about our age". In turn, Mr Obama has praised Mr Brzezinski as "someone I have learned an immense amount from" and "one of our most outstanding scholars and thinkers".

I have no doubt that Obama's staff will rush forward to declare, as they have before, that Brzezinski is only a informal adviser. But the question remains why Obama has had a retinue of advisors (both formal and not) like Brzezinski, McPeak, and Malley who hold views so antithetical to Obama's supposedly unassailable record and views on Israel. You can understand how rational voters, Jewish or not, would conclude that something is amiss and wonder why Obama does not disassociate himself entirely from these people. But no, those Jews are just hung up on Obama's name and the phony emails about Obama's Muslim upbringing. That must be it.



No comments: