Obama Lies About Clapping In Energy Speech; Continues To Attack Bush For Opposing Appeasement

This may be insignificant in the larger scheme of things but it begs the questions: What is it about Barack Obama, along with Hillary and her Tuzla lie for that matter, that he feels he needs to lie about small things to make points in his speeches? Can't he make his point about energy policy without having to resort to fabricated stories about clapping? Could Hillary not make her point about experience without fantasies of darting bullets in Bosnia? Does a tendency to lie about the little things demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness on the larger issues?

Obama has lied to us before. He lied about what he knew about his pastor, trying to dupe the American people at first saying he never heard Wright say anything controversial, then later saying he did know there were controversies, and only later when political expediency demanded it did he denounce Wright. A pattern of lying is not a good thing either, folks.

Obama continues to pretend he is being attacked by what Bush said in the Knesset saying that it was a "dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days." Now here comes the clincher: "They aren't telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits. But it's not going to work. Not this time, not this year." I laugh at Obama claiming Bush or McCain are trying to fool people. What they believe is clear. It is Obama that hides his true feelings behind empty slogans. It is Obama that tried fooling us when it came to his pastor. It is Obama who has used the tactic (succesfully, might I add) of pretending to be attacked when there was no attack to begin with. He did it with a member of his own party when he went after Geraldine Ferraro for being racist. He claimed the the tapes of Wright were some sort of conspiritorial attack when what they were was his own pastor's words. He then says that he has stated "over and over again that I will not negotiate with terrorists like Hamas." Is Mahmoud Ahmadenijad not a terrorist "like Hamas?" He constantly, to the point that we're all pretty immune to it at this point, calls for Israel's destruction. This is like Hamas. But he is like Hamas in word as well as in deed. Iran is funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and Taliban elements. They are funding and supplying weapons to Jihadists in Iraq that have killed Americans. Yet Obama has said in no uncertain terms that he would talk with Iran without any preconditions. So Obama's "like Hamas" semantics are convenient, but not really logical at all. If McCain attacks him on his inconsistency, on his naivete, on his policy of appeasement, that is not fooling anyone. In fact, it is probably educating everyone.

Obama
by krs601

Tweet