Obama faked 2002 Anti-War Speech for Ad: New Book

American Thinker ^ | 8-7-08 | Rick Moran

[smoothsailing]

Return to the Article

August 07, 2008

Obama faked 2002 Anti-War Speech for Ad: New Book

Rick Moran

Why this is coming out now in Jerome Corsi's new book The Obama Nation is a mystery since you would think that Hilalry's crack research team would have vetted every single ad Obama put out during the primary campaign.

But the fact is, an ad run by Obama during the primaries featuring a supposed snippet of his anti-war speech in Chicago in 2002 is probably faked. That's because no one can find any video of the speech anywhere. All that exists is a small snip of audio. This from none other than the liberal NPR:

The speech was given at an anti-war rally on Oct. 2, 2002.....Jessie Jackson was the main speaker.  Obama's speech went mainly unnoticed. He had not yet announced his run for the Senate, although now he claims he risked his political career.  Of course we know that there was NO risk in running against Alan Keyes, all Obama had to do was breathe..

The speech was given at an anti-war rally on Oct. 2, 2002.....He had not yet announced his run for the Senate, although now he claims he risked his political career.  Of course we know that there was NO risk in running against Alan Keyes, all Obama had to do was breathe..

Gonyea says....."In an age of YouTube there is no video of the speech and only a snippet of audio. The Obama campaign has reenacted the speech in a campaign AD they are now running."

If there is no video available it would seem the entire Obama anti-war speech on which he is basing his Ad campaign may be faked.  In fact the entire speech could be distorted.

And this from the same website's Morning Dispatch

 Even in this era of YouTube and camera phones, a recording of Obama's speech is all but impossible to find. The Obama campaign has gone so far as to re-create portions of the speech for a television ad, with the candidate re-reading the text, with audience sound effects.

Contemporary accounts don't even mention Obama - an insignificant state senator at the time (so much for putting his political career on the line for opposing the Iraq war in a district so far to the left, Che would win in a landslide). But since this report is from last March - a report by a mainstream news outlet - why this is the first we're hearing of Obama faking an anti-war ad.

Just more evidence that Obama is not what he appears to be and that the press will go a long way to cover that fact up.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

Ed adds:

Corsi points out that there is no record of Obama's anti-war speech-no video, no audio, no written record. Instead, his speech was simulated after the fact in a  sound studio much later-complete with phony crowd sounds. He said during the primary campaign that he was in the midst of a US Senate campaign when he made the speech-making it seem as if it was a bold, risky move on his part- an act of courage. Not true-he gave the speech in  Nov. 2002. He did not announce his run for the Senate until Jan. 2003

Posted at 11:08 AM | Email | Permalink
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/obama_faked_2002_antiwar_speec.html at August 07, 2008 - 12:46:06 PM EDT

[Carley]

Reading Corsi’s book now.

I suspect that the Klintonoids were so sure of winning they did very little digging into the One.

Am sure many dem voters are having regrets but I can never forget her despicable comment about not dropping out because June was the month RFK was assassinated.

God help this country if a dem is elected President.

[Grut]

Interesting. A few too many ‘mays’ and ‘maybes’ for comfort, though. We’ll have to wait on further developments to see if it has real substance.

[CaliGirl-R]

You know how Hillary said McCain brings a lifetime of experience and obama has a speech made in 2002? Is this the speech she is talking about? See I thought he made his big splash on the scene in 2004 at the Dem Convention and was thinking Hillary meant his 2004 speech when she said that.

[pabianice]

I’m shocked! SHOCKED!

[Verginius Rufus]

The anti-American left claims Bush went to war in 2003 because of oil. Corsi's book shows the connection between Tony Rezko and an Iraqi billionaire (Nadhmi Auchi) who is a cousin of Saddam Hussein and who wired $3.5 million to Rezko shortly before Obama's sweetheart arrangement to buy his dream house.

Obama could be more corrupt than the Clintons (although my guess is not since they had such a head start).

[lucky american]

A picture of what he looked like in 2002 and a picture of him today. 6 years can take it’s toll on your looks.

[tobyhill]

Supposed Obama speech Oct 2, 2002
“My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.”

[tobyhill]

Just for the assumption that Obama’s speech really did occur, here's an alleged quote,

***”He (Saddam) has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity”***

This speech supposedly took place on Oct 2, 2002 but according to all published reports the weapons inspectors arrived Nov 18, 2002 but the Messiah knew what was going to happen. /sarc

***”You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work”***

Info on UN Weapons inspectors

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/18/lad.04.html

[tobyhill]

On Nov 8, 2002 UN Resolution 1441 required Iraq let the Weapons Inspectors in and On Nov 13, 2002 Iraq agreed. Obama was supposedly talking about Bush allowing the Weapons Inspectors to do their job on Oct 2, 2002.
Obama’s alleged speeches time line is all off.

[CitizenM]

Well, if not more corrupt, at least AS corrupt. The difference is he is not as practiced and clever at covering up his tracks. Obama is a nouveau con-artist, but a con-artist just the same. He has not had the years of experience to build-up a clan of loyal, dependent followers who are worried about being exposed for their crimes. He also does not have all the connections in politics to offer protection to those with whom he has had questionable dealings and associations to keep them safe from prying eyes and investigations. And he has not had as much time wielding power over others and manipulating them.

When Hillary (and Bill) state that she is more experienced than Obama, the reference is more appropriately to her sinister abilities, not her presidential capabilities! She just knows how to play the political game better.

Neither one is presidential material or good for our country, and both certainly are corrupt. The "change" that Obama brings is that he is a new-breed of political criminal who arrogantly and foolishly thinks he can get to where the Clintons are without a lifetime of practice in the arena. He is being proven wrong, obviously. There aren't many who "owe" Obama for anything - particularly political favors, jobs, money, etc. Thus he doesn't share in the protective cover the Clintons have enjoyed.

The main thing that Obama has relied upon is the race card. I can bet he felt the time was right to burst upon the scene based on the politically correct temperature of the U.S. As much as he publically states race should not be an issue, I am sure -- that early in his planning -- he and his supporters knew/felt that being the first black candidate is all that was needed to catapult him into the forefront, combined with playing on the white guilt of liberals. I mean, why has he pushed to be recognized for being the "first black..." when, actually, he is 50% white, thus the first "bi-racial presidential candidate." He could have accepted his whiteness as much as his black heritage, but being black gets him more traction with that segment of the U.S. But, he forgot that dues have to be paid, favors have to be given, and protection offered for followers who carried out subversive orders if one wants to succeed in their type of politics, no matter what color one's skin is. Obama has not accumulated that much power among his counterparts and hangers-on. His downfall will come; there will be no long history of Obama as with the Clintons who have spent years and years building their machine. Obama is the proverbial "Flash in the pan."

[smoothsailing]

Thanks for adding the info, toby. I hope this story has legs.

[tobyhill]

NPR claimed they had 13 seconds of it but the rest is somehow lost. There's no mention of Obama in the run down of speakers.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/obamas_big_2002_antiwar_speech.html

[WilliamReading]

[Verginius Rufus]

Obama has never explained how his grandfather managed to get a transfer from Patton’s army to the Red Army in time to help in the liberation of Auschwitz.

[Petronski]

The idea that it was re-created for the commercial is a kind of sleepy allegation with no legs until--UNTIL--one recognizes that with no record of the speech itself, the words spoken in the "re-creation" could have been self-serving distortions of the actual 2002 speech.

If there is no video available it would seem the entire Obama anti-war speech on which he is basing his Ad campaign may be faked. In fact the entire speech could be distorted.

THAT is HUGE.

[tobyhill]

My guess is that he did speak, for 13 seconds. The rest of his alleged speech was added in later because he wouldn't have known about weapons inspectors inability to do their jobs since they weren't even in Iraq till a month and a half later.

[smoothsailing]

That's the way I see it, as well.

[Centurion2000]

Just bought the last Obama Nation book on the shelf. And there was a lot of empty shelf space.

[smoothsailing]

Good to hear! Maybe some eyes will be opened to the phony messiah.