Borat Hussein takes another one in the..................HA ha!!!
Posted on 03/03/2008 6:21:03 AM PST by jdm
Barack Obama effusively praised the record of Jay Rockefeller after receiving a glowing introduction from the West Virginia Senator yesterday. Rockefeller called Obama “brilliant” and talked about what a great commander-in-chief Obama would make despite having no military experience nor any time on committees than handle military affairs during Obama’s three years in the Senate. Obama then complimented Rockefeller on his vote against the war — which proves that Obama isn’t as brilliant nor as ready as Rockefeller imagined:
Obama criticized Clinton expressly for failing to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, a report available at the time of her October 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. “She didn’t give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won’t even admit that her vote was a mistake - or even that it was a vote for war,” Obama said.
“When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong,” Obama said.
He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and had voted against the war resolution.
Rockefeller, who is now chairman of that committee, endorsed Obama on Friday and campaigned with him on Saturday.
Rockefeller called Obama “brilliant” and “well grounded” and prepared to take the reins as commander in chief.
Forget being commander-in-chief — Obama couldn’t even be researcher in chief at the Senate web site. If we look at the 2002 vote on the authorization to use military force in Iraq, we see Jay Rockefeller’s name in the “yea” column, not among the nays. He cast the same exact vote as Hillary Clinton, which was to support the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein.
In fact, Rockefeller didn’t just passively vote “yea” in the Senate. He gave a speech on October 10, 2002, prior to the vote, exhorting his colleagues to support the AUMF and the invasion of Iraq. In that speech, he made it clear that his vote would be in support of war, if it came to that:
Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail. That is the core issue, and whether we vote on it now, or in January, or in six months time, that is the issue we all have to confront.
War, if it comes to that, will cost money I dearly wish we could use for other domestic priorities, to address the very real needs that West Virginia and other states face in this tough economy. But ultimately, defending America’s citizens from danger is a responsibility whose costs we must bear.
How does a “brilliant” candidate make such a huge error? The very point that Obama wants to make is that his judgment is somehow superior to Hillary Clinton’s — and John McCain’s — despite having almost no experience in national office and none at all in any kind of executive leadership position. Yet here he is, trying to use Rockefeller as an example of better judgment, and it turns out that Obama couldn’t be bothered to do a minute’s worth of research first.
Is that the kind of judgment and brilliance that America can trust in a crisis? When the phone rings at 3 am in the White House, do we want the person answering it to make decisions without actually knowing what the facts are first?
Hillary Clinton’s team pointed out the error to local reporters, but don’t expect her to be able to use this. It only underscores her support for Saddam’s removal, which in a rational arena would be a point in her favor. It’s another brick for John McCain to use in the general election, if he chooses to use it as yet another example of the callowness of his likely opponent.
Oh, how the idiots rush to pat one another on the back. Well, I guess they have to get their moment of fame in this life before they meet their Creator and realize just how stupid they were.
Inept! I can not imagine two candidates more unsuited for the presidency than the bozos Clinton and Obama. Unbelievable!
Either Obama didn’t know, didn’t care whether he was right or not, or just went with the moment and lied.
Not good, any way you slice it.
but not a surprise.
IIRC, Rockefeller was the one, and the ONLY one at that time, that claimed Iraq was an “imminent threat”
Agreed.
Brilliant? Can Obama say MED-VE-DEV?
Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV on the Senate Floor On the Iraq Resolution
October 10, 2002
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
snip
But this isn’t just a future threat. Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.
snip
There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!
Ruh roh!
Obama-lama-ding-dong *PING* !!!!
They both whiffed on the Medvedev question from Russert. Remember when Bush got labeled an idiot when he failed Andy Hiller’s “Pop Quiz” in 1999?
You know how you listen to the ‘sound’ of a lot of rock music without really being able to understand the lyrics?
That’s the mob’s reaction to Obama’s speeches. It’s “all sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Watching Obama is a bit scary...I would not have believed someone so inept and unqualified would have made it this far.
If there were a White House H.R. department and a job qualifications for president were posted, Obama’s and Clinton’s resumes would go straight to the trash can. I really do fear for our country when I see how far these two idiots have come in this election.
We need video on this. Anyone?
My take on all this is that we are witnessing the first afirmative action presidential campaign in history. We have two candidates who got to where they are because of gender and race, not for anything they have done, which is the definition of affirmative action.
Obama’s wife was whining about her negative experience at university - my take is she also is an affirmative action product. She got into Yale, or whatever ivy leage school it was, because of her gender and race and soon found herself unable to keep up academically and in general had a miserable experience knowing she shouldn’t be there. Thomas Sowell has written about this and I suspect Michelle Obama is a perfexct example of affirmative action failing, once again.
Now we have the possiblility of having the first president of the US a product of affirmative action...GOD help us if this comes to pass.
You’re right, except that it was Princeton she was whining about in what passed for a thesis. Now she has a job paying over $300,000 a year doing “community outreach” for Chicago hospitals. Affirmative action all the way.
I recalled it as one of the over-rated ivy league schools.
As inarticulate as she is and how she continually sticks her foot in her yap, I don’t get the impression she is particularly bright and my guess is she was wiffled through school with gift grades so the U could wave their quota numbers around. The entire lot of them are the product of continual free passes.
Bookmarking to send to RUSH!
mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.