Obama’s ‘Facts’
By Don | August 6, 2008
At a campaign event in Ohio, Obama told the audience that he is confident that he can win the war on words.
From ABC News' Jake Tapper.
One man in the audience during the town hall asked Obama how he would fight the war of words.
"Our politics has gotten so – ah – nasty – that’s the word I was looking for," said Obama. "But not just nasty, also cynical and manipulative, right? Where we say things that we don’t mean.
"So John McCain says ‘Barack would rather lose the war to win an election’ – he just said something like that," Obama continued. "You know, despite the fact that if we had followed my recommendation not to go into the war in Iraq we would have about an extra trillion dollars to rebuild our economy, we would have been on the path of energy independence, we would have finished the job in Afghanistan and gone after al Qaeda.
"So I’m happy to have a battle of words because I’ve got facts on my side," he concluded. "I’ve got truth on my side! I fear no man when I’ve got truth on my side!"
I am sure that many voters want to know exactly what those facts and truths are.
3 Comments | Post a Comment
“lying and inconsistencies” Roger that!
Knowing all of this, why does BO not publish his BIRTH CERTIFICATE which he says he found years ago?
i think that Barck Obama is doing the right thing by running for president becasue he is not only representing the black people but he beleives that we can make a change, and with his help we can do it all.
August 7 at 2:55 pm | #1 | Link
????
If we had followed my recommendation not to go into the war in Iraq we would have about an extra trillion dollars to rebuild our economy
????
Funny.
1. He was not the only one who was against the war. If what BO said was the requirement for the next President, I would then vote for the leader of the Anti-War Movement sponsored by the world federalist United Nations just few months after 9/11.
2. He was not even a Senator yet. Given his recent flipflopping in major issues, he would also do what almost every Democrat (including Hillary) did. Join Republicans in giving Bush the mandate to go to war.
3. If he is really what he says he is (i.e., couldn’t compromise his principles against peer pressure), BO should have not voted for the continuing funding of the War in Iraq since 2006. Funny, he couldn’t even prove his resolve in a much lighter issue such as the FISA Bill.
4. Thinking beyond the meaning of BO’s word, then I would conclude that everything that he said while in Iraq was just a press release for campaign and nothing more. He’s only proving how neophyte he is.
5. Early 2008, I like and prefer BO over Hillary and I am leaning for Dems. After a while, I have realized that this man has nothing to offer at all. His campaign is running based on the blame game, without clear vision of the future. His solar, wind, etc. are not new - they are originally from the mouth of VP Gore. Solving gas price problem NOW has nothing to do with the War at all. For me, the Cost of Bush War (some say unnecessary) is just the same with BO’s legislative bills like Global Poverty, AIDS, etc. Yes, they are different in the context but their outcomes are the same: a burden to American economy.
Conclusion: BO is top candidate in terms of lying and inconsistencies.
IF BO IS TRULY HONEST TO HIMSELF, WHY DIDN’T HE RUN AS INDEPENDENT IF HIS BATTLECRY WAS AGAINST THE WAR! FACTS INDICATE THAT BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SUPPORTED THE WAR. MIXING HIS HOLINESS WITH THE CO-SINFUL DEMOCRATS IS A BIG HYPOCRISY IF ONE TRULY VALUES THE WORDS OF BO.
As an independent, I am now convinced to vote for McCain this coming November. Period.
Nb: I am speaking to the author. I don’t give a damn on others’ opinion. In short, my comments are not for anyone’s annotation except by the author. To the rest of partisan bloggers, stay away from my viewpoint.