Fred Barnes calls him “the hottest figure in American politics.” He was invited by Pastor Rick Warren to attend a conference against AIDS, where he was dubbed the “Elvis” of Washington, D.C. But if our media would take the time to analyze what he says, rather than roll out a red carpet for him wherever he goes, Senator Barack Hussein Obama might be exposed as an expert in political doubletalk.
AIDS is a good example. It’s easy to be against AIDS. But it takes political courage to question why $200 billion has been spent on the disease (and why promises for cures and vaccines have not been fulfilled) and why other health problems affecting many more people get shortchanged for federal funds through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Fair Foundation has documented how the federally-funded NIH finances AIDS research with tens of billions of dollars more than a variety of health problems that affect millions more people, including diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and heart ailments.
The adulation bestowed on Obama by the national media has become almost too much to take. No matter what he says, it is presented as dramatic and inspiring. One expects to read a review of him walking on water. If anybody ever needed any more evidence of a national liberal media bias, this was it.
But before he is installed as emperor, shouldn’t our media ask a few elementary questions, such as what exactly he stands for?
Take Iraq, for example. We went back and analyzed two of his major speeches on Iraq, as well as a statement he made on the situation there. The content suggests that he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
His recent November 20 speech, “A Way Forward in Iraq,” began, “Throughout American history, there have been moments that call on us to meet the challenges of an uncertain world, and pay whatever price is required to secure our freedom.” Yet Obama was not talking about Iraq. Instead, he called the U.S. policy of promoting democracy in Iraq and the Middle East an “ideological fantasy.”
Having said that he opposed the war in the first place, he now favors “a phased redeployment of American troops from Iraqi soil.” But he doesn’t provide any details. In fact, he voted against the Kerry amendment to require a redeployment of troops from Iraq. So he wants to have it both ways.
“Let me emphasize one vital point:” Obama says, “any U.S. strategy must address the problem of sectarian militias in Iraq.” But he provides no details.
In a November 22, 2005, speech, he talked about meeting wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. “They were proud of their service,” Obama said. He said he spoke to a sergeant from Iowa “who had lost one of his legs but was working vigorously to get accustomed to his prosthetic leg so he could return to Iraq as soon as he could.”
But Obama is tired of the fight. While he admitted that he has “neither the expertise nor the inclination to micro-manage war from Washington,” he said he wanted to “reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq.” He also called this “a limited drawdown of U.S. troops.” He had wanted this “drawdown” to begin by 2006. Now he wants the “drawdown” in 2007.
Next week he may have a different position. But don’t expect the media to notice.