{ An Autopsy of Democracy }

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Obama in context

Saw a clip on several news stations of Obama "backtracking" and sounding faltering and eating his words about Iraq vs. Pakistan, etc. Did you see it? What a JOKE that Obama is, huh?

Unless you watched the debate (I did not), I'm guessing you saw the same tiny little clip taken out of context as I did.

Well, here's the whole segment:

Interesting, isn't it.

(If you listen closely, you can easily hear the audience voicing their shame and disgust with Obama's cowardly flip-flopping mushy-mouthed words, and their love and support for Hillary.)

There is absolutely no way this lousy editing was anything except deliberate -- and as far as I'm concerned, isolating that 5-second clip is exactly the same as lying. (Maybe not libel, but close.)

Ah, the "Liberal Media"...

Here's a suggestion for all you Obama-bashing bastards: Ask this question to all the candidates (of both parties): "If you had actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets holed up in those mountains [between Afghanistan and Pakistan] who murdered 3,000 Americans and who are plotting to strike again, and President Musharraf would not act, would you?"

I would like them all to go on record as saying, "No, absolutely not. That is naive and irresponsible. ... And furthermore, if I DID do anything, I want to assure you that I would be willing to use nuclear weapons, even in a first strike against a nuclear country, regardless of whether that action violates the NPT and could well lead to WWIII if not Armaggedon itself. Now THAT'S what a responsible leader would do."

That is what I would like to see.

And then I would like these media liars (who clearly have learned next to nothing from their complete and utter failure in the lead-up to Iraq) to stop repeating White House propaganda about Iran, and to at least acknowledge what our own military on the group are reporting in Iraq: there is no evidence that the government of Iran is aiding the insurgency in Iraq; Iran is helping to STABILIZE Afghanistan, whose president said as much publicly); the democratic freedom-loving government in Iraq who love so much continues to establish closer relations with Iran; meanwhile the vast majority of the "foreign fighters" in Iraq are from SAUDI ARABIA -- with whom we have just agreed to provide another $20 Billion in armaments.

Does anyone even care that "President" Musharraf is not an elected official, but rather a dictator who took power as a general in a military coup? Guess not. (In order to qualify as a "dictator" in the U.S. media, apparently you have to have the support of around 60% of your population, like Chavez.) Does anyone care that the Pakistani ISI supported the Taliban in the first place and helped bring them to power? Nah -- that's ancient history. And anyway that's WAY back then, when we were on the terrorists' side...

Having said all this, I DO think that destabilizing Pakistan would be a bad idea. But military action there, or in Saudi Arabia, or any number of other countries I could name, at least makes some sense -- the OPPOSITE is true of Iraq or Iran.

(But, you know, that's only if you actually believe this government gives a shit about stopping terrorism.)



| |

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?