|
My
wife was down at the pool earlier and overheard neighbors, very
nice but uber liberal people, ask another "Don't tell me you're one
of the 20%?"
"I'm probably part of 20% of something, which group are you talking about?"
"The 20% who still think Bush has been a decent president."
At this point MoSup announced it was time for her to leave, wanting no
part of a lib Bush-bash. Ignoring her, Mr. "maybe I'm 20%" verified his liberal standing by noting that it
"sure will be nice having someone like Obama in the White House, who can "at least
speak."" That was just a bit more than MoSup could
take.
She: "I guess you haven't been listening to him when he's been forced to speak extemporaneously"
He: "What?"
She: "I said, you obviously haven't heard him when he's taken off message."
He: "Yes I have."
She "No. Obviously you haven't."
He: "Yes I have .... " (Doppler fadeout as she walks away.
 When
she related this story, I wondered if she'd asked him how many of our
57 states did he think Obama would take?, but she hadn't.
Anyway, these folks don't qualify as Obama cultists, since they've
voted
for the wrong guy in every election since I've known them.
They're Liberal elitists. Even if
they were aware of what an empty suit Obama is, and there is nothing
that would persuade them of this truth, it wouldn't matter. But
not every goof Obama
makes is a laffer, like him acknowledging the dead people in his
"Veterans Day"
audience on Memorial Day this year. Some have far reaching
consequences.
I don't know if you're up on this, but I think it's central to Obama's
make-up. Last week the press went crazy with glee over Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's stated desire for US troop withdrawals.
Here's how Obama opened his New York Times (My Plan For Iraq") the next day.
|
| “
|
The call by Prime Minister
Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops
from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment
to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long
advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the
security interests of the United States. |
” |
However, as Captain Ed pointed out that same day, the BBC was reporting that Maliki's
speech had been mis-translated. Far from the Iraq government adopting Obama's position,
just the opposite is true. The BBC article goes on to warn ...
| “
|
But when Mr Obama visits
Baghdad, as he is expected to later this month, he is unlikely to find
that the Iraqi government is quite as set on demanding deadlines for US
withdrawal as he would like to think. |
” |
Far from it. Maliki
knows that Iranian backed insurgents can't wait for the U.S. to leave,
and that his government isn't quite able to keep things together
without us. The Man Who Would Be President, then, went off half-cocked
with a policy statement based on bad information. But here's where I
took real interest ...
 Four days after the world found out about the faulty premise
of Obama's position, Elisabeth Bumiller, in the New York Times, blithely ignores that fact while
touting "The Three Hundred." who will be "on the spot this week as Mr.
Obama is planning to make his first overseas foray" to Iraq.
| “
|
Unlike George W. Bush,
who entered the presidential race in 2000 with scant exposure to
national security issues, Mr. Obama has served since his election to
the Senate in 2004 on the Foreign Relations Committee and has had a
running tutorial from aides steeped in the issues. His campaign says
that he is well prepared and that he often alters and expands on the
talking points provided to him by his foreign policy advisers. |
” |
I'm going to throw
up. Mr. Expert, with 143 days of experience in the United States
Senate, made a major policy faux-pas based on "bullet-point"
answers provided by the same number of foreign policy gurus as Sparta had to hold back the hordes of
Iranians at the Battle of Thermopylae. How -- Hollywood!
Like everything else about Mr. Obama, a left-wing dunce who needs
cue cards to zip his fly.
|
|
