Just Goes to Show Obama the FLIP-FLOPPER

CatnHat

(669 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Feb-16-08 06:00 AM
Original message

Just Goes to Show Obama the FLIP-FLOPPER

I saw on another thread, how back in 2002 Obama denounced the Iraq War;
2 years later this is what he said in his own words on the Meet the Press:

Obama: In My Defense, That Lie Was Expedient

On "Meet the Press" this week, Barack Obama offered an explanation for his
shifting opinions (and his revisionist recollection of those opinions) on
the Iraq War, without displaying so much as a glimmer of comprehension that
what he said about himself was terribly incriminating.

Contrary to the Congressional newbie's untestable "I would've voted against
the war" assertions, Obama was singing a different tune a few years ago.

MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give
a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton's campaign will say since
you've been a senator there's been no difference in your record. And other
critics will say that you've not been a leader against the war, and they
point to this:

In July of '04, Barack Obama, "I'm not privy to Senate
intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know," in terms of
how you would have voted on the war.

And then this: "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq
and George Bush's position at this stage."

That was July of '04. And this: "I think" there's "some room for
disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war."
It doesn't seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you
left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have
voted for it.

SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a
guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a
nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for
the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a
strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq.

The Senator has no observable interest in refuting the glaring inconsistency
or trying to nuance it away. He genuinely seems to believe that
illustrating the a-principled, purely political motivations behind his
fairweather war support somehow acquit him.

The extreme brevity of Obama's experience in national politics has, to date,
been more blessing than curse, as it's given him an opportunity to invent a
pro forma pre-2005 voting record that appeases current public sentiment,
then insist on its hypothetical authenticity and the deeply principled
beliefs behind it.

So now we're left to wonder - is Obama's eternal, unshakable, principled
objection to the war fictional? Or is it real, but apparently so flimsy
that he was willing to publicly disavow it while he was auditioning for a
transfer from Springfield to Washington in 2004? Logically, those two
options would seem to be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

It can't be neither and it can't be both.

Either option involves not only opportunistic bloodlust, but deceit in the
course of electioneering.

Since Obama is once again stumping for a political promotion,
shouldn't we assume that during this period, his rhetoric is similarly
calculated and his principles similarly manufactured?