As frustrating as the Obama administration is likely to be for the next four years, at least Joe Biden’s around to provide a little comic relief. Check out his latest gaffetastic adventure! It was pretty spectacular, even for him (which is really saying something.)
MAN, BIDEN IS A GAFFE WITH LEGS: during his meeting with Spain’s primer minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero in Chile yesterday, Biden thanked Zapatero for his effort… in Iraq (link in Spanish, haven’t found this detail in any English-language media).
As everybody knows, the first decision Zapatero made after his unexpected win in 2004, right after the Madrid train terrorist attacks, was to abruptly and unilaterally pull out from Iraq. So either Biden made a gaffe, or he was thanking Zapatero for angering Bush…
So either our Vice President is an absolute imbecile who has no freaking clue who our allies are in Iraq, or yeah, he was thanking the Prime Minister for giving Bush (and the people of Iraq, by the way) the proverbial finger. No matter which way you look at it, this just doesn’t look good for the VP, does it?
But at least it makes us giggle… *sigh*
For a more in depth reaction to this rather ridiculous error, check out Hot Air’s post on the subject. I’d delve into the details myself, but eh, they did such a good job at it I’m not sure I could do much better at the moment. It’s been a rough day. Thank goodness Biden’s around to lighten the mood while digging us deeper into a foreign policy ditch, right?
It can often become overwhelming, listening to all the incessant screams of the pacifist Left, as they rail against every little thing, constantly casting President Bush as a Hitler-type, calling him the worst president ever, and always chiming in at every possible second trying to convince us that every single move made in the war on terror has been an unbelievable mistake. When the opposition displays such a crazed, unending, berserk desire to rip someone to shreds, I can’t help but wonder what has caused such blinding hatred, such ridiculous zealotry, that someone could lose their entire sense of reason, leaving them incapable of rationally evaluating both the bad and the good. When someone is that drastic with their hatred, so over the top with their constant clamoring, I tend to tune them out. Because if someone is completely incapable of finding anything positive at all in such a complex situation, I’m more inclined to believe their mind has been closed by a wealth of preconceived prejudices.
It seems our world has been overwhelmed by such people. So many have been so brainwashed into such behavior that it can become downright impossible to try to look at the war on terror from an unbiased, purely subjective point of view. But when our world loses its objectivity, we’re going to sink into an even bigger pit than we already find ourselves in.
Considering all of this, imagine my surprise when I came across this article from – of all places – a British newspaper. It seems to be striving to regain at least a semblance of objectivity, taking a look at the war on terror and President Bush’s place in it from a more historical perspective, removed from the rabid clamoring of the Left as it has been desperately clawing at power for eight straight years. The article is well worth a read, as it is a single meek voice of reason trying to stand up against a sea of venomous screamers.
Never the less, its words must not be taken as scripture; objectivity must never be cast aside, of course. But still, it’s at the very least a refreshingly different tone from a surprisingly different point of view. Click here to check it out.
My friend Robert over at POW in CA has written a brilliant post about the history of General Eric Shinseki, whom Obama has recently named as the new Secretary of Veteran Affairs. The post itself is a bit long, but believe me, it’s worth it. Aside from doing a brilliant job outlining the ludicrous nature of this appointment, toward the end of the post, Robert does a brilliant job of outlining just a few remarkable liberal lies surrounding this man’s career. As a side now, please also pay special attention to the information provided about how extensively President Clinton gutted our military during the 1990s. That’s something I wish more Americans were familiar with.
So what are you waiting for? Check it out!
A lot of people have been buzzing lately about Colin Powell endorsing Barack Obama. I know I’m a couple days late on commenting on this, but I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the whole thing. I mean, it just didn’t make any sense. Have you seen the video where he explains why he chose to endorse Obama? Watch it, you have to see it:
Did you notice how most of his reasons for choosing Obama over McCain are based on misunderstandings? For instance, since when did McCain ever suggest that Obama was a Muslim? Or that Obama isn’t an American, or somehow linking McCain to that Congressman from Wisconsin, it’s ridiculous. In fact, McCain has gone out of his way every single time these issues came up to refute such statements! Eesh, Colin, at least get your facts straight.
Mr. Ayers, yes, McCain did bring that up, and in my opinion, it’s not “negative” to bring up the truth. It’s negative when you bring up personal speculative attacks. The truth shouldn’t ever be considered a “negative attack”, that’s just ludicrous.
Oh, General Powell also doesn’t seem to be aware of the specific points of Obama’s tax plan that McCain and Palin are attacking as being socialist in nature. Either that, or he doesn’t know what socialism means. The part of the tax plan being attacked has nothing to do with taxes for infrastructure, but has everything to do with sending a tax credit to Americans who don’t pay taxes at all, funded entirely by those who do pay taxes. That’s what Obama means by his 95% of Americans will receive an “income tax cut”. The problem is, 40% of Americans don’t pay income taxes at all. That 40% is still included in the 95% that Obama mentions, because the “tax cut” is really a “tax credit” – a check from the federal government, paid for by those who do pay taxes. Obama himself has said this is a “redistribution of wealth”, and General Powell, that has nothing to do with infrastructure and everything to do with a socialist notion.
The most important issue, however, is his discussion about the Iraq war. He states clearly and unequivocally that he has no regrets about his involvement in making the case for war. Because of that, I do not understand why Barack Obama, the Democratic party, and his supporters, would even dare to accept Powell’s endorsement. Why? Because it’s contrary to the far left’s belief that the Iraq war is an “illegal war” based on “lies” about WMDs.
Before we continue, it’s important that you set aside the fact for a minute that this war was never, ever about established WMDs. Set aside the fact that in making the case for war, the WMD issue was explicitly described as Saddam’s programs to develop WMDs, not WMDs already made and ready to launch. Set aside the fact that those programs were found in Iraq, along with essential tools and components to develop weapons of mass destruction. Set aside the fact that we now know that the major “lie” the Democrats complain about – Bush mentioning Hussein attempting to obtain uranium from Nigeria – wasn’t actually a lie, but we were told it was by a Democrat who was in charge of an investigation to determine the truth about the uranium issue. Never mind that he proclaimed Bush lied about the uranium, even though he wasn’t finished with that investigation, and a year later admitted that he knowingly misled Americans with his statement just to make Bush look bad and undermine the war. That indeed, his investigation determined that Hussein was attempting to obtain uranium, but that he wasn’t as far along in that process as Hussein himself thought he was, because his underlings were lying to him to save their own necks. On this issue, our intelligence only failed as much as Hussein’s own trust in his underlings failed him.
So set all of that aside, set the facts aside, and think for a moment like a hard-core liberal. Think that the whole case for war was nothing but a big fat lie, that we were going to Iraq for oil, that there were no WMDs, and that Bush knowingly and maliciously lied about it to the American people and to Congress.
If you believe that, why would you want the man who was responsible for distributing those lies to back up your chosen candidate? Colin Powell was the one who made the case for war to the United Nations, he was the one who advised Bush throughout the whole process that led us to war; he was the one who helped make the case not only to the American people, but to Congress as well. He was part and parcel of the whole big lie that Democrats are so angry about. Why should they accept his endorsement?
It just doesn’t make any sense. The Democrats claim that they were “duped” into supporting the war, but you can’t say that about Colin Powell. Not only was he the one who made the case for war, but he was the one directly responsible for duping those Democrats! By accepting his endorsement, how does that not undermine the Democrats’ claims that the whole war was nothing but a lie? How is Powell not just as guilty as Bush? I just honestly don’t get it. How can Democrats have, at the same time, their “they lied, soldiers died” claim, yet accept the Powell endorsement saying, “the Colin Powell endorsement proves Obama has the experience and judgment to lead”? It seems like the two are mutually exclusive. How can they possibly make for pleasant bedfellows if they believe that Colin Powell was the one who duped them into an illegal war?
Or is this yet another case of politically convenient doublethink?
As for me, I’m not surprised by Colin Powell’s endorsement, although I am a bit disappointed in him. He could have at least had the common courtesy to notify John McCain of his endorsement, and I would have hoped that he could have at least gotten his facts straight in explaining why he chose to endorse Barack Obama. It leads one to wonder, was he just uninformed or is he playing a political game? Personally, I find it incredibly hard to believe that Colin Powell is ignorant and uninformed about either of the candidates’ campaigns. That only leaves one very disappointing option; a genuine American hero is participating in a political game to further mischaracterize not only John McCain and his campaign, but the entire race for the White House. It saddens me that a man I once had immense respect for is sinking to the level of attempting to confuse voters by jumbling the facts. I know Colin Powell is smart enough and aware enough to solidly explain his true intentions for supporting Barack Obama. Therefore it’s very disappointing that he’s chosen to instead rely on misleading statements and outright falsehoods.
As always, I’m fine with whoever anyone wants to support, so long as that support is based on research and solid fact. When that support is instead based on mendacious ephemera, I have a hard time understanding or respecting it.
Like most interested voters, I watched the presidential debate Friday night with great interest. One moment surprised me, however, as the debate seemed to turn into a game of ‘me too, me too!’ over – of all things – bracelets.
When John McCain was asked about the war in Iraq, he mentioned a bracelet that was given to him by the mother of a soldier who was lost in Iraq. He spoke about how much this meant to him, how he wore this soldier’s bracelet every day, and it reminded him how important it was that he ensure this soldier’s death would not be in vain.
In response to McCain, Obama said, “I’ve got a bracelet too.” After a bit of fumbling and a moment to look down at the name inscribed on the bracelet, Obama said that it was given to him by the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, another soldier who tragically lost his life in Iraq. Obama claimed that Mrs. Jopek had given him the bracelet saying, “Can you please make sure that no other mother is goin’ through what I’m goin’ through?”
Here’s the exchange:
(Sorry it’s from Fox News, I know some of you won’t like that. I didn’t record the debate so I couldn’t upload my own copy, I was stuck with whatever was available on YouTube. Regardless, there aren’t any talking heads to skew it, so it shouldn’t matter.)
While both candidates of course have the right to wear whatever bracelets they wish, unfortunately Mr. Obama has completely mischaracterized Mrs. Jopek’s intentions. Not only that, but he has utterly disregarded repeated requests by the family that he not wear the bracelet or use it for political purposes.
According to Mr. Brian Jopek, ex-husband of Ryan Jopek’s mother, Tracy, “she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan’s name.” He went on to say, “she wasn’t looking to turn it into a big media event” and “just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself.”
As far back as March of this year, Mr. Jopek was asked about Obama’s use of their son’s name, and how he and his wife felt about it. In talking with a local Wisconsin radio show, Mr. Jopek mentioned that he had been surprised to see Obama wearing the bracelet and mentioning Ryan’s name repeatedly while on the campaign trail, despite his wife personally requesting that Obama not use the bracelet politically, both when she first gave him the bracelet and again afterward when he continued to mention her son.
(You can listen to that radio show here, it’s at about ten minutes into the program.)
During that interview, Mr. Jopek stated that his ex-wife has shied away from responding to any questioning about Obama’s use of their sons name, “Because she is a Barack Obama supporter and she didn’t want to do anything to sabotage his campaign.”
Since Obama has again gone against the wishes of the Jopek family, this time mentioning their son on the largest national stage possible, Mrs. Jopek is again being hounded by reporters despite her wish to stay out of the limelight. She confirmed to the AP that she asked Obama not to mention their son, but again, her wish not to upset Obama’s campaign came forward. She said that she was “satisfied” with the way in which her son was mentioned, and refused to say anything negative about her chosen candidate.
Personally, I find this absolutely appalling. It’s disgusting to me that Obama has taken advantage of the good will of his own supporter – a grieving mother who has lost her son in a time of war – by mischaracterizing her intentions in giving the gift of a bracelet representing the memory of her lost son, and repeatedly denying her request that he not turn her son into campaign rhetoric for political gain. This is beyond low, and yet again, is being mostly ignored by the main stream media.
NewsBusters.org has a good article about this situation, available here. As far as I can tell, NewsBusters seems to be fairly even – they attack inaccuracies in both campaigns evenly, as well as bias in either direction amongst the main stream media.