« John McCain. Glory in the Cause of War | Main | Another Nostalgia Video from John McCain for America's Honored Heroes »

Obama Lies Again

It's beginning to look like Barack Obama, at times, just can't stop himself from lying. He lied about when he knew of Reverend Wright's controversial sermons, and now he's back in the headlines again because he still can't put down the lie about Senator John McCain's statement regarding "100 years in Iraq" (emphasis is mine, reporting is ABC News).

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., glossed over his past distortion of Sen. John McCain's, R-Ariz., position on Iraq while appearing Wednesday on Hardball's "College Tour."

"John McCain got upset, I think today," Obama told MSNBC's Chris Matthews, "apparently because I repeated exactly what he said, which is that we might be there for 100 years if he had his way."

First, what McCain said was that we might have a 100 year presence in Iraq, as we've had in Korea - and Obama to his credit has, in a rare, unguarded moment of occasional honesty, admitted that:

At the end of the exchange Obama admitted that he understands McCain is talking about the Korean style bases and not a hot war like Iraq, "Well we've been in South Korea for 50 years and he's used that as an example as George Bush has and that is decades and we're spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq right now.

More recently Obama has, however, turned to not-so-subtle shadings of the truth - uhm, oh heck. He just started lying...

"When it comes to foreign policy, John McCain says he wants to fight a 100-year war--a hundred years, as long as it takes," channeling outrage from the crowd.

Look how many times Obama has been caught in the same lie. It's such complete and utter BS. Obama has distorted and flat-out lied on this issue -- repeatedly -- and yet he can't put down the lie.

While there are occasions when Obama has accurately characterized McCain's support for keeping a U.S. troop presence in Iraq out of harm's way, Obama's comments on MSNBC overlooked occasions (such as Feb. 9 in Bangor, Maine) when he explicitly accused McCain of having said that "he wants to fight a hundred year war."

Is Barack addled? Exhausted? Unable to keep track from one lie to the next?

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.4/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.4/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (11)

The smear against McCain - which is finally being mentioned by some MSM outlets who retain some slight sense of shame for covering Obama's butt for so long - is a useful diversion, even if he is called upon it.

Like a comment thread troll, he is trying to change the subject instead of addressing the topic at hand (Wright right now, soon to be Rezko again). If he gets into a little back-and-forth about McCain, and ends up having to apologize, it's no big deal, of course. His media fan club will portray him as a heroic figure, unafraid to admit his errors, and completely ignore his evasion of Wright/Rezko questions.

This cycle may be Old Media's Last Stand, testing to what extent they can still control the flow of information.

And somehow - this guy's the best possible choice for President?

Along with Hillary, who is now saying she never told Bill Richardson that Obama couldn't win? Does that woman have ANY concept of the differences between truth, lies and Mary Sue style fantasies?

(Info on Mary Sue stuff - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue)

Seriously, guys here in the Blue supporting your 'team' - I know you've invested hearts and souls into this, this... whatever. (Certain obscene military phrasings come to mind having to do with cotius in clusters, but that's as may be.)

But ... do you really, really think - when push comes to shove - that either Obama or Hillary would be a good President?

That they can set aside the partisanship that's been so diligently cultivated (with generous heaps of 'fertilizer' from the media) if elected and actually lead the entire country? That after spending years demonizing the other side, they'll actually embrace it? (Frankly, I don't care about campaign rhetoric. Campaign promises are so much waste paper after the first week in November. Have I seen any willingness to work with the other side from these two in the past? No. This worries me.)

When it comes to actually leading - Obama can't take a hard stand on anything, (which makes you think he's gonna be a pushover as President on foriegn and domestic problems) and Hillary can't tell the truth.

And they're the best ya got? REALLY?

What about the middle? What about the right? What's in it for ME, the independent voter who's looking on with a sick feeling of horror and disgust at the choices being presented? Who will vote based on what I think is best for the COUNTRY, not what's best for any Party, or what the candidate is promising me?

WHY should I vote for either of them?

Lee Ward:

"Seriously, guys here in the Blue supporting your 'team' - I know you've invested hearts and souls into this, this... whatever. (Certain obscene military phrasings come to mind having to do with cotius in clusters, but that's as may be"

Believe it or not, JLawson, some votes don't matter. Yours is one of them. Democrats will take the White House in November, and it doesn't take a 100% plurality to do so.

If there are still any conservatives out there who think that either party gives a crap about them, wake up and smell the coffee. No one cares about you and your concerns for representation. The people who represent your ideological squat screwed the country for eight years while putzes like you cheered them on.

Who gives a crap about your electoral concerns? Haven't you noticed that every candidate who voiced a similar sentiment was laughed off the political stage?

Doesn't that tell you anything?

And yet you come 'round here insulting us and wondering out loud how long it will take before someone cares about your petty needs?


"Seventy-eight percent of respondents said the country was worse off than five years ago; just 4 percent said it was doing better."

Surrender, JLawson, you're clearly outnumbered.

"And yet you come 'round here insulting us and wondering out loud how long it will take before someone cares about your petty needs?"

It's an insult to point out your candidates would likely make good used car salesmen, but lousy leaders?

It's an insult to ask if these two horribly flawed candidates are the BEST the Democrats have to offer? If I'd just dissed Obama, you'd be all happy about that. I'd be your buddy, 'cause you hate him. But I dare not diss Hillary also? Yeah, I can see how it would be an insult to ask if these are the best.

I ask if they can set aside partisanship to lead - and this is your reply? Thanks for reaching out to the uncommitted!

"Who gives a crap about your electoral concerns?"

Democrats should. But they don't - neither do their supporters. That's very clear now. Thanks for explaining that.

I was not attempting to goad you, by the way. I'm serious in my questions and I was hoping for rational answers - or at least tolerant ones, about why I should vote Democratic.

You've sure given me something to think about on that, and I thank you.

Lee Ward:

Ahh, JLawson plays the 'righteous indignation' card, how appropriate. Here's what I found offensive:

"(Certain obscene military phrasings come to mind having to do with cotius in clusters, but that's as may be.)"

Go 'coitus' yourself, JLawson, for characterizing good ol' political disagreement as anything other than the democracy in action. Democrats may disagree and may argue, but quit expecting us to rally around 'your' needs - it ain't gonna happen.

Clinton has no inclination to rub salve on Republicans who might be wounded through the election of a Democrat and installation of a progressive agenda, and although Obama claims to be the great uniter I wouldn't count on that for a 'cluster coitus' second.

"Democrats should. But they don't - neither do their supporters. That's very clear now. Thanks for explaining that."

Why? Why should we? What have you conservatives done for anybody besides the rich for the last 8 years? Why should we cater to your needs?

Excuse my honesty on this issue... but it's the truth. Why should we care about serving a conservative agenda?

Obama lied - so to you, he's disqualified himself. I can agree with that.

Hillary lied - but THAT'S not okay to say. Democrats have a fantastic record of promising yet never delivering - witness the 2006 elections.

Why do you think they're going to do anything different if they get elected again?

"What have you conservatives done for anybody besides the rich for the last 8 years?"

Are you counting anyone to the RIGHT of you as a conservative? Or do I have to have other qualifications - like holding a steady job? Or having a combined family income that puts us into the hated 'rich' category of $75k+ annual income? Maybe being a military veteran, of 23 years? Oh, wait - I actually disagree with self-styled tax-the-rich 'PROGRESSIVES' - I must be a conservative!

I don't consider myself 'conservative' - I throw out Democrat and Republican pleas for money alike. I look for who I think is the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation.

You don't think Obama is it. You think Hillary is.

What I'm asking is WHY do you think that? WHAT do YOU think the 'progressive' agenda is going to do for the country? WHERE do you think the money is going to come from to pay for everything the Dems want to accomplish? WHY do you think they'll actually DO it, considering their past record?

Lee Ward:

Conservatives don't have any difficulty wasting billions -- no, make that BILLIONS of tax dollars over the Iraq quagmire, but want to pinch pennies when it comes to a child's education, or making health care affordable and attainable for all, all the while shoving $4 a gallon gasoline down the tailpipes of Americans rather than investing in alternative fuels that just might someday reduce our dependence on that stinking Iraqi oil in the first place.

We Democrats are going to change that, and the money will come from shutting off the spigot that is feeding Dick Cheney's war machine, and directing those streams towards investing in Americans instead of investing in American corporations.

The fact that the conservative voice has been silent -- 1000% silent -- throughout George Bush's little spending spree shows that the conservative plank over taxes and spending is just a hammer with which they choose to deny decent, hard-working, less fortunate Americans with things like a decent home, and a future for their children.

"Or do I have to have other qualifications - like holding a steady job?"

Judging from the extent to which the Democrats are out-fundraising Republicans these days, us folks are making enough money to kick you folks out of the White House, so feel free to cast aspersions over relative incomes.

Besides, I never said conservatives were rich, only that they favor the rich in their mistaken belief that if they let the stockholders of Wal-Mart lord over them, corporate America will appreciate it sooo much they just might give them a 20 cents per hour raise next year. I know a lot of lower and middle class conservatives who bought into the Republican agenda only to see their dreams (and incomes) stagnate.

Those days are ending, and there is no reason for the Democratic agenda to be concerned about the welfare of the American politicians and the conservative agenda that systematically screwed the American Dream into the ground for the last 8 years, nor for the American voters who put and kept those idiots in power for the last 8 years either.


Lee Ward:

No problem, stop by and make clusterf*ck jokes about Democrats anytime.

Don't buy into the meme that Obama's handwringers are pushing -- that the battle between Clinton and Obama is somehow weakening or reducing our chances to win the election in November. That's just a ploy to attempt to get superdelegates to pull the trigger and commit, and thereby end Clinton's chances for the nomination.

The Obama-licking press dutifully repeated it for a while, but when Clinton's camp started pointing out that all they were accomplishing was disenfranchising and discouraging voters in those states with upcoming primaries then Obama quickly lied and denied he had anything to do with it.... but suddenly it's quieted down now that Barack declared Clinton could continue to run until June 3rd.

We Democrats are so lucky we have a magnanimous, god-like leader like Barack who now is actually going to listen to and talk to the voters in those remaining states now.... instead of declaring their votes and opinions and concerns didn't matter.

Praise Obama! Praise Obama! *cough cough...


Well, we at least agree on ONE point, Lee! Have a good evening - hope you aren't in the path of any storms coming up!

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

I'm in Northern California -- where the girls are warmer... and the sun is shining this weekend.

You have a good weekend, and my apologies if I come on too strong. It's my nature...


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.