Wednesday, August 05, 2015

Barack and the White House lies

So today Barack Obama, US President, is supposed to give a big speech and sell the Iran plan -- or try to.

You know, the one any thinking person would have been working on already.

But pretty had to go to Kenya first and he had to do this and he had to do that and he had to . . .

Whether you are for the deal, against it or neutral or just sick of it already, it is clear yet again that Barack is not up to the job.

He wants to be president . . . when he wants to be.

That he's lost Charles Schumer in the Senate is pretty much a given now.

So maybe instead of traipsing around the world next time you have a limited amount of time to sell a deal you supposedly want to go through, you cancel your fun and games, roll up your sleeves and get to work?

John Kerry can't sell the deal.

The American people find him cold and standoffish.

That's due to his performance at State.

He's lost Congressional allies (believe it or not, Senator John McCain may be Kerry's biggest supporter in the Senate today) because of his fits and tantrums when he appears before Congress -- which ticks off Democrats especially if they're in the Senate and had to endure his lectures about how one behaves during a hearing -- his past lectures before he became Secretary of State.

Joe Biden can't sell the deal -- more due to grief he's been dealing with than anything else.

But Joe loses his son and Barack expects Joe to sell the deal while Barack jet sets around the world.

And now Barack's supposedly ready to work the proposed plan -- for the first time since his disaster at the VFW -- and he's going to try to do what he did at the VFW -- compare opposition to the Iran deal to support for the Iraq War.

It did not go over at the VFW.

Those remarks received a tepid, at best, response.

Now he's trotting them out again.

And the press will continue to enable the little tyke who never grew into big boy pants despite six years and counting in the White House.

They'll act like Barack had been consistent on Iraq before in the White House.

Let's drop back to the January 9, 2008 snapshot when Socialist Matthew Rothschild, then still posing as a Democrat publicly, felt the need to lash out at Bill Clinton for rightly noting the little tyke's Iraq reputation was a "fairy tale:"

It is a "fairy tale."  We've used that term and many others to describe the lies about 'anti-war' Bambi.  The New York Times?  I believe we last noted Bambi telling them he didn't know how he would have voted in the January 4th snapshot: " Obama tells Monica Davey (New York Times, July 26, 2004) he doesn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate.  Two years later, he's telling David Remnick (The New Yorker) he doesn't know how he would have voted."  


He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

"But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."        

What would I have done?

I don't know.

But today he'll yet again be all knowing and magical and thrilling -- for the press.

Not for the public.

Speaking to Remnick:

I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test. 

Didn't know what he would have done then.

Today, he knows.

Today, he's sure.

Today, he's restarted the Iraq War (yet again) but no one will point that out.

Or that his year's worth of executing a so-called 'plan' has been a failure with the Islamic State still in charge of Sinjar, Mosul, Falluja, etc.

But today, he'll insist that those who pushed for war with Iraq are again wrong.

Not him, he's never wrong.

Not in his eyes, right?

He promises Tim Russert on national television that he'll serve his full Senate term and doesn't but no one calls him a liar.

He brags about removing US troops from Iraq and then sends them back in but no one calls him a liar.

No one in the press.

Which is why today, he's going to try to sell a plan by slamming others.

It's past time he made a case for the deal with Iran to the American people.

But that's apparently beyond the work he's capable of doing or willing to do.

So instead we'll get to yet again see the bitchy side of Barack.

And after awhile, people have to wonder if there's anything worth praising about the plan if the only way to sell it is to attack those opposed to it?

Great speaker or communicator?

Yeah, just one more press lie.

 The e-mail address for this site is