Thursday, March 20, 2008

Barack is now completely bogged down in "old politics"

Where once Barack focused on "hope" and all of that, now he is completely bogged down in the kind of negative "old politics" that he claimed that he was opposed to. Now we are at a stage where every day he appears to be unable to resist engaging in smear tactics. He did it again in a speech today where he says:

Now, at that debate in Texas several weeks ago, Senator Clinton attacked John McCain for supporting the policies that have led to our enormous war costs. But her point would have been more compelling had she not joined Senator McCain in making the tragically ill-considered decision to vote for the Iraq war in the first place

The truth is, this is all part of the reason I opposed this war from the start. It's why I said back in 2002 that it could lead to an occupation not just of undetermined length or undetermined consequences, but of undetermined costs. It's why I've said this war should have never been authorized and never been waged.

Barack knows that his characterization of Hillary is incorrect, but he continues to mischaracterize her and himself, anyway. Worse, he takes a big leap and tries to associate Hillary with McCain's policies. Wow. Barack has no shame. He is a classic "old politics" politician. Maybe he looks "cleaner" and uses more flowery rhetoric, but his tactics are as old and stale as the worst that America has to offer.

Here are the facts:

  1. Hillary never voted "for the Iraq war." The authorization in 2002 was: 1) for "military force", but not necessarily war or even invasion per se, 2) the "authorization" placed primary emphasis on pursuing diplomatic efforts and strengthening of weapons inspections. Hillary's words at the time clearly show that she was voting for the latter.
  2. The U.S. Senate congressional record shows that Hillary's was opposed to going to war with Iraq and would accept it "only as a last resort." For Barack to suggest that Hillary was not opposed to war with Iraq is simply spinning and deceit on his part.
  3. Hillary never "joined Senator McCain." There was no such collaboration as Barack suggests.
  4. Barack was not in the U.S. Congress in 2002. Not there! What he said or did in the state senate of Illinois is neither here nor there in a discussion of national politics. So, this implication that he has some kind of lofty political or moral claim over Hillary as far as what was happening in the U.S. Senate and Congress in 2002 is complete nonsense.
  5. There is no question that Hillary was in fact opposed to invading Iraq in 2002. You can read her views in her own words on the floor of the U.S. Senate from the congressional record.
  6. Put simply, for most Democrats the vote in 2002 was not "a vote for the Iraq war" and was not a vote to "authorize war". Sure, a lot of people think of the vote that way, and sure a lot of people are unhappy about the results, but is spin on their part. For Barack to talk now as if it was a vote "for war" and an authorization "for an invasion" and an authorization "for war"  is revisionist history. Go back and read the authorization itself rather than trust in Barack's misrepresentation of it.

The politics of 2002 were a lot more nuanced than Barack is willing to admit. The simple truth is that when it comes to politics in Washington, Barack is way out of his league, and his claims about Hillary are way out of line.

Barack and his supporters -- his cult -- are engaged in a classic, "old politics" smear campaign. Plain and simple. And obvious. I am quite disappointed that so many people are falling for it.

And if there is any lingering belief that Barack is "above old politics", Barack seems determined to prove such a belief wrong, on a daily basis.

What this proves is that Barack is not out to make America a better place to live, but is simply personally seeking raw, naked power. He is no saint, but simply another sinner.

-- Jack Krupansky


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home