John Hinderaker: Obama's Dishonest Op-Ed

[audtatious]

July 14, 2008 | John Hinderaker

In this morning's New York Times, Barack Obama published an op-ed on Iraq that presumably previews his "major speech" on the subject tomorrow. Even by Obama's standards, the piece is breathtakingly dishonest.

Obama admits that he opposed the surge, and the attendant change in strategy and tactics, that have brought us close to victory. But he somehow manages to twist his being wrong about the surge--the major foreign policy issue that has arisen during his time in Congress--into vindication:

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge. Actually, however, Obama opposed the surge not because of those "factors" but because he thought it would fail. He said, on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground. On March 19, 2007, on the Larry King show, he said:

[E]ven those who are supporting -- but here's the thing, Larry -- even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference. On May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:

And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we're on in Iraq is working, I do not. On July 18, 2007, on the Today show, he said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now. On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration's new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there. In short, Obama bet the farm on his prediction that General Petraeus and the American military would fail. He was as spectacularly wrong as John McCain was spectacularly right. But his op-ed somehow twists this history into vindication on the theory that Afghanistan has deteriorated, the Iraq war has been expensive, and Iraq's political leaders "have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."

Let's start with the last point. Obama completely fails to acknowledge the remarkable political progress that has resulted from the surge, as manifested by the fact that the country's largest Sunni bloc has rejoined the government, and the U.S. Embassy reports that 15 of the 18 benchmarks of political progress that were set by Congress are now being met. Those benchmarks were set precisely for the purpose of measuring the "political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge," yet Obama fails even to mention them.

Still more dishonest is Obama's failure to acknowledge what would have happened if his policy prescription, precipitate withdrawal regardless of military conditions, had been followed: chaos, sectarian violence, possibly genocide, a resurgent al Qaeda in control of part of Iraq, with Iran possibly in control of other areas of the country. This would have been a foreign policy disaster, yet Obama, with vague references to cost and Afghanistan, claims vindication!

As to al Qaeda--the elephant in the room--Obama simply dissimulates:

Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. That's not what Osama bin Laden (Iraq is where the "Third World War is raging”) or Ayman al-Zawahiri (Iraq is "the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era”) say. Al Qaeda summoned jihadists from around the Muslim world to go to Iraq to fight American troops, declaring that this effort is the central front in their war against civilization. Those jihadists have been devastated by American armed forces, who have thereby scored what may, with hindsight, turn out to have been the decisive victory in the war against Muslim extremism. Obama denies all of this in a single sentence, without citing any evidence whatsoever.

Finally, Afghanistan: Obama would have us believe that he urged defeat in Iraq because he was so firmly committed to victory in Afghanistan. Once again, he misrepresents the record.

In fact, Obama has never supported our troops in Afghanistan. On the contrary, he said on August 14, 2007--less than a year ago--that our forces there are mostly committing war crimes:

We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there. Obama has been so uninterested in Afghanistan that when he went to Iraq and other countries in the Middle East with a Congressional delegation in January 2006, he skipped the opportunity to continue on to Afghanistan, which was taken by others who made the trip with him, including Kit Bond and Harold Ford. And, in an embarrassing gaffe, Obama claimed on May 13, 2008, that we don't have enough "Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers" in Afghanistan because they are all being used in Iraq. Obama thereby demonstrated the intellectual laziness and incuriosity that characterizes his campaign: they don't speak Arabic in Afghanistan, and, anyway, interpreters are drawn from local populations, not shipped around the world.

Worst of all, far from being committed to victory in Afghanistan, Obama voted to cut off all funding for all of our military efforts in Afghanistan on May 24, 2007 (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181), thereby seeking to bring about defeat there as well as in Iraq. His current effort to portray himself as a wolf in sheep's clothing on Afghanistan is a complete fraud.

It is possible that at some point in American history there may have been a major politician as dishonest as Barack Obama, but I can't offhand think of such a miscreant.

[rn79870]

Wow, a politician has responded to a dynamic situation during an 18 month period by rethinking his position and people call it dishonest. I'll suggest that far from dishinest, it's refreshing.

[audtatious]

By Pete Hegseth

As someone who monitors the Iraq-war-policy debate closely, I was puzzled to open the New York Times and see an oped authored by Sen. Barack Obama entitled “My Plan for Iraq.” Besides the seemingly moderate tone — and calling for an Afghanistan “surge” (an idea I agree, and one proposed by Sen. Joe Lieberman in March) — not much in the piece is new or newsworthy. In the final analysis, the oped is another dogmatic addendum to Obama’s “withdrawal at any cost” position.

In fact, just one question entered my head when I finished reading: Why now? Why would Sen. Obama — or any legislator, for that matter — write such a piece before visiting the country for himself, seeing the situation with his own eyes, and speaking with commanders and troops who actually know what’s going on?

It strikes me that only someone who is signaling no interest in consulting with commanders on the ground would spell out his “plan” for Iraq just one week before he visits the country for the first time in 918 days. Only someone who is arrogant enough to believe he always knows best would outline his Iraq policy before once meeting one-on-one with General David Petraeus.

The only conceivable answer to the question is that Sen. Obama believes he can capitalize on Prime Minister Maliki’s recent comments about a timeline for U.S. withdrawal. Maliki’s comments, important primarily because they demonstrate increased Iraqi strength and confidence, have been diluted by the fact that he didn’t actually call for a timeline after all. All withdrawal talks will be tied to conditions on the ground.

Maliki’s strong statements do provide the opportunity for withdrawal — a withdrawal based on the improved security brought on by the surge, improvements Senator Obama admits in his Times oped. What Sen. Obama fails to say there is that he adamantly opposed the surge, predicting last September on the basis of scant evidence that “It is a course that will not succeed.” Sen. Obama should admit his error in judgment in opposing the surge, and not compound that error now by once again announcing plans for Iraq without full knowledge of the facts on the ground — collecting the evidence that would enable him to develop a commonsense, conditions-based approach for troop withdrawal. Admitting mistakes, however, is something Obama does not do well.

Sen. Obama’s piece once again perpetuates the fallacious notion that the Iraqi government “has not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.” This assertion — backed up by wishful thinking — runs directly counter to reports from the ground; reports which Sen. Obama will himself receive in just one week.

Obama has said repeatedly that if congressional benchmarks are met, the hasty withdrawal he desired could be slowed. Not so now, however. Even though the Iraqi government has met 15 of the 18 benchmarks set before it by Congress — and is stamping out Sunni terrorism and Shia militia activity within its borders — this still does not constitute political accommodation, according to Sen. Obama. It seems that nothing short of a Whole Foods in every village will stop the perpetuation of this falsehood.

Underlying the Left’s persistent pessimism on Iraq is the idea, as Sen. Obama says, that our mission in Iraq should be to “end the war.” As president, this would be his first directive. This was also the prerogative of Sen. Obama — and many of his Senate colleagues — in January 2007 when the surge was proposed. Surge proponents wanted to succeed in Iraq, while Sen. Obama & Co. wanted to “end the war.” Where would we be today if “ending the war” had been the mission then? And where will we be tomorrow if it becomes the mission now?

Without the surge, which induced countless positive developments across the military and political spectrums in Iraq, Maliki would not be making the bold and promising statements he is making today, and the U.S. wouldn’t be contemplating an even faster draw down than previously planned.

Yet despite the undeniable — and transformational — progress that has been made, it looks like Sen. Obama has no plans to actually modify his Iraq stance. This would indeed be a shame.

Six weeks ago, Vets for Freedom ran two ads calling on Sen. Obama to visit Iraq for the first time in two-and-a-half years and finally meet, face-to-face, with General David Petraeus. The intent of the ads was to pressure Sen. Obama to visit the country; a trip which we believed would go a long way in moderating his position.

Soon after, Sen. Obama announced that he would visit Iraq before the election, and we sincerely applaud his willingness to do so. As veterans, we have no desire to see Obama moderate his Iraq stance so we can say “we told you so” or call him a “flip-flopper.” We want to see him change his stance because reality demands it, and our sacrifice compels it.

Unfortunately, Monday morning’s oped calls into question Sen. Obama’s willingness to objectively review the situation on the ground and make decisions based on what’s best for our nation’s security, rather than what’s best for his candidacy. We will continue to monitor his position, as well as those of his colleagues, to ensure they reflect the facts on the ground.

[rn79870]

This is ironic. They think Obama needs to go to Iraq to see how great we are doing and how we are winning the war. On the otherhand, the majority of Americans want us out of Iraq asap.

Now, if I was a politicuian, I think it would be far smarter to offer the majority of citizens what they want than a few members of a few small groups. Sink or swim time is coming sooner or later. Why not make it sooner.

[audtatious]

What are the risks either way? Regardless of what got us to where we are, how can you justify the probable outcome of a country who is making progress being plunged into chaos? Even the Dems know this is a probability but do not care as it is now up to the Iraqi Gov to resolve (or go down in flames) and any blood would be on the Bush Administrations hands. It's a win-win for them.

[skylndrftr]

do you have any of your own opinions audtatious or just what right wing pundits feed you?

Dishonest? How bout having to 'earn' your way into talking to the candidate flying around in the straight talk express?

[audtatious]

I stress my opinion all the time.

Dishonest? How bout having to 'earn' your way into talking to the candidate flying around in the straight talk express?

What are you talking about?

[skylndrftr]

Well first of all,HR 2206 had nothing to do with 'all' funding for Afghanistan...it was an emergency funding resolution that included among other things about 6 billion for Afghanistan. According to the Congressional research Service we are going to spend approximately $34 billion there this year just from money specifically dedicated to 'Operation Enduring Freedon' not including purchasing anything that would be considered a capital investments in equipment.http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Does you wish to site any facts in support of what you posted or are you just taking him at his word?

As for the other statement,Mark Salter a senior campaign aide said (and I'm quoting here):"only the good reporters" would get to sit in the specially-configured section for interviews. "You'll have to earn it," on the day McCain http://blog.washingtonpost.com....html

I guess you could call it straight talk...and honesty...

[AZhitman]

We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.

This part makes me sick.

I'd like to see HIM distinguish between combatant and non-combatant, when pregnant women and adolescent boys are as likely to kill coalition troops as a uniformed Republican Guard...

"Air-raiding villages"? Good God, man. How painfully apparent IS your lack of comprehension of military action?

Cripes, we go to more trouble to avoid civilian casualties than ANY military force in the history of mankind. Hell, even our AMMUNITION is designed to prevent unintended harm to bystanders / non-targets (rendering it twn-fold more expensive, in fact).

Stick to Con Law, friend. You're no Commander-in-Chief.

[AZhitman]

Wow, a politician has responded to a dynamic situation during an 18 month period by rethinking his position and people call it dishonest.

It's a dynamic (and complex) matter, yet the simpleton's cry is resounding: "Pull out."

Interesting.

[AZhitman]

It strikes me that only someone who is signaling no interest in consulting with commanders on the ground would spell out his “plan” for Iraq just one week before he visits the country for the first time in 918 days.

Only someone who is arrogant enough to believe he always knows best would outline his Iraq policy before once meeting one-on-one with General David Petraeus.

These two sentences speak volumes... I've never read anything by Hegseth, but this is pretty damning testimony.

[audtatious]

Well first of all,HR 2206 had nothing to do with 'all' funding for Afghanistan...it was an emergency funding resolution that included among other things about 6 billion for Afghanistan. According to the Congressional research Service we are going to spend approximately $34 billion there this year just from money specifically dedicated to 'Operation Enduring Freedon' not including purchasing anything that would be considered a capital investments in equipment.http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Kind of depends. HR 2206 was an emergency spending bill to get funds needed for Iraq and Afghanistan along with 1.8 billion for veterans medical care and other initiatives. Voting against it can be interpreted in a way trying to defund Afghanistan in order to force us out. I do agree it is a stretch.

Does you wish to site any facts in support of what you posted or are you just taking him at his word?

Why are you sounding pissy and defensive? It's posted up for discussion. Should I go through each article or news story and proof it or edit out the parts I don't necessarily agree with prior to posting them here? I don't think so.

As for the other statement,Mark Salter a senior campaign aide said (and I'm quoting here):"only the good reporters" would get to sit in the specially-configured section for interviews. "You'll have to earn it," on the day McCain http://blog.washingtonpost.com....html

I guess you could call it straight talk...and honesty...

You missed some of that quote which is in the link you provided. The full quote was:

"McCain senior aide Mark Salter quipped this morning that "only the good reporters" would get to sit in the specially-configured section for interviews. "You'll have to earn it," he said."

FWIW, here is a definition of quip: "A clever, often sarcastic remark; a gibe. See Synonyms at joke."

So, he made a joke about it. Sounds horrible.

[skylndrftr]

I don't think anything kind of depends when you say "voted to cut all funding for afghanistan" and in fact he didn't do anything close to that. The appropriate thing to do here would be to withdrawl or disavow that article because the main point is untrue.

You could argue its semantics, but its not its absolutely willfull on Hindertaker's part because hes a leiing sack of crap.

I'm not sounding pissy and defensive I'm just pointing out that the article you posted is dead flat wrong and you might want to consider your source of news given in the future given that you have been so handily and completely misled.

as for the Salter thing you can call it a quip or you can call it truth masked as a joke. I for one doubt he was actually joking as the press is already complaining that their access to him has gone down

[96Qowner]

Thanks for posting substance, Matt - it really beats vapid "quips".

The point of the thread appears to be Obama's long-standing quit-at-all-costs rhetoric and how, suddenly, now that Iraq seems to be growing peaceful and stable, he's claiming that he was right. I've always wondered how people could misinterpret such a firm stand. Obama has always wanted to quit - it's all he's ever said he wanted. Someday soon, we'll be able to pull our combat troops out of Iraq, but it won't be because we just quit.

"Air-raiding villages"? Good God, man. How painfully apparent IS your lack of comprehension of military action?

Shades of John Kerry and his accusations from Vietnam?

[rn79870]

Thanks for posting substance, Matt - it really beats vapid "quips".

The point of the thread appears to be Obama's long-standing quit-at-all-costs rhetoric and how, suddenly, now that Iraq seems to be growing peaceful and stable, he's claiming that he was right. I've always wondered how people could misinterpret such a firm stand. Obama has always wanted to quit - it's all he's ever said he wanted. Someday soon, we'll be able to pull our combat troops out of Iraq, but it won't be because we just quit.

Shades of John Kerry and his accusations from Vietnam?

Obama's plan isn't for a immediate withdraw from Iraq. Although, that may be the smartest plan, it isn't his plan.

Additionally, many of the pro-war members here, and I believe you fit that description too 96, fail to accept that perhaps the US doesn't know what is best for their country. Is it too far fetched to allow them (the Iraqi people) some say in what they get? What if they want us out, do we leave or do we pursue our "we know what's best for you" attitude?

The irony is that Obama's plan is very close to that plan suggested by the elected President of Iraq. Let's pay a little more attention to his wishes than those of our generals.

Interesting: From thinkprogress.org.According to one recent poll sponsored by the U.S. government, 45 percent of Iraqis support the insurgent attacks against coalition troops and a majority of Iraqis oppose having the U.S.-led multinational force in the country, and feel less safe with foreign troop patrols in their neighborhood.

[96Qowner]

All I ask is that you acknowledge that Obama has always wanted to quit.

Now, that plan is completely irrelevant. Obama's campaign staff is furiously working to massage that stance into something that suits what ended up happening. Matt posted the articles and editorials about how silly it looks. It's quite a reach.

[skylndrftr]

Your makign an assertion based on flat out incorrect information...stop talking crap.

[audtatious]

I don't think anything kind of depends when you say "voted to cut all funding for afghanistan" and in fact he didn't do anything close to that. The appropriate thing to do here would be to withdrawl or disavow that article because the main point is untrue.

Emergency funding means they need to money to continue figthing in Afghanistan. Deny the funding and you are effectively "cutting funding" for Afghanistan.

You could argue its semantics, but its not its absolutely willfull on Hindertaker's part because hes a leiing sack of crap.

You forgot to add "IMO" to that.

I'm not sounding pissy and defensive I'm just pointing out that the article you posted is dead flat wrong and you might want to consider your source of news given in the future given that you have been so handily and completely misled.

You are sounding pissy and defensive. I posted an article for discussion and you call it all crap. That's fine, we get the point.

as for the Salter thing you can call it a quip or you can call it truth masked as a joke. I for one doubt he was actually joking as the press is already complaining that their access to him has gone down

You forgot "IMO" again

[audtatious]

Obama's plan isn't for a immediate withdraw from Iraq. Although, that may be the smartest plan, it isn't his plan.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16896534/"Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday U.S. combat forces should be out of Iraq by spring 2008 to end “a foreign policy disaster,” "

[rn79870]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16896534/"Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday U.S. combat forces should be out of Iraq by spring 2008 to end “a foreign policy disaster,” "

Nice spin Matt. In response to my quote re: Obama's plan on leaving Iraq you pull an Obama quote from January 2007 out of your hat. Seems he's consistently wanted to get out.

But, to look at the matter further, what has GW done in the 18 months since Barak made that statement to get us out of Iraq?

[audtatious]

Interesting: From thinkprogress.org.According to one recent poll sponsored by the U.S. government, 45 percent of Iraqis support the insurgent attacks against coalition troops and a majority of Iraqis oppose having the U.S.-led multinational force in the country, and feel less safe with foreign troop patrols in their neighborhood.

That's nice and all but the majority of attacks in Iraq have been against the Iraqi police, military and civilians.

[audtatious]

Nice spin Matt. In response to my quote re: Obama's plan on leaving Iraq you pull an Obama quote from January 2007 out of your hat. Seems he's consistently wanted to get out.

It's the first one I came across

He has stated in the last couple years the above, 2010 and now that he will adjust his policy based on what is happening in Iraq but then he will turn around and say he will "stick with his timeline" which means he does not intend to adjust his policy based upon what he sees during his visit or by what Petraeus has to say. Guess which ever one makes you happy would be what he is going to do.

But, to look at the matter further, what has GW done in the 18 months since Barak made that statement to get us out of Iraq?

Finally listened and brought on the surge. The last of those troops will be out by the end of the month and Petraeus will outline the strategy and more troop withdrawals in September as long as things continue to improve.

[rn79870]

I would also like to comment on the misguided notion that winning in Iraq will be determined from the decline (cessation?) of the attacks on our troops there. Did you happen to notice that 28 Iraqi civilians (it was 23 or 28 IDR) were killed in Iraq within the last few days. Do those people count in the "reduced fatalities" goal?

Of course, the two Islamic factions have been fighting for 1400 years, so maybe we're never going to resolve that issue.

My point being that there may be a win for us, but not for the Iraqi people.I suppose it's a little late to look at that issue.

[audtatious]

I would also like to comment on the misguided notion that winning in Iraq will be determined from the decline (cessation?) of the attacks on our troops there. Did you happen to notice that 28 Iraqi civilians (it was 23 or 28 IDR) were killed in Iraq within the last few days. Do those people count in the "reduced fatalities" goal?

I've never made such a notion. IMO we need to ensure they (iraqi Gov) are capable of at least attempting to fend off attacks against themselves and their civilians.

[skylndrftr]

Emergency funding means they need to money to continue figthing in Afghanistan. Deny the funding and you are effectively "cutting funding" for Afghanistan.

Obama voted to cut off all funding for all of our military efforts in Afghanistan on May 24, 2007 (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181), thereby seeking to bring about defeat there as well as in Iraq

im actually laughing right now. what the article said and what you said are so completely incompatable as factual statements theres probably an OSHA rule against putting them in this proximity.

OBVIOUSLY this was ABSOLUTELY emergency funding...so was the approval of several billion dollars in long term airplane purchases and the raising the minimum wage and lots of other things in that bill. There were a lot of very good reasons to vote against that bill, as mentioned above. If this funding would go so far as to 'cut off all funding' they would have put it in a seperate bill and they would have requested a lot more than $3b

Quote »You are sounding pissy and defensive. I posted an article for discussion and you call it all crap. That's fine, we get the point.[/quote]it is crap. Its biased and its partisan and its FACTUALLY INCORRECT. If I told you Barrack Obama was Jesus you would probably call me out on it too...I'm not pissy I'm not defensive, I'm amused that you believe this.

[audtatious]

ok

[AZhitman]

I think the part that sky and Bobby are missing is, no one disagrees that we're in a crap situation in the 'box.

The ISSUE here is Obamalamadingdong's persistent arrogance in his position. Don't believe me, I don't care - but even the supposedly liberal mainstream media is questioing the sanity of his remarks and his unwillingness to admit that he spoke too hastily and without knowing what the hell he was talking about.

I'm not dreaming this stuff - Hell, I was just in the can reading an article in Time magazine about it.

Getting out of Iraq is all well and good, and I don't think either candidate wants to prolong the madness. BO's camp is painting J-Mac as someone who wants troops on the ground forever, when that's just not true - He's made it quite clear... but he BO camp just wants to deflect attention ffrom the fact that their boy let his alligator mouth overload his tadpole a$$.

[skylndrftr]

Disagree AZ,

The ISSUE is that Hintler is not telling the truth. If where going to have that arguement lets do it in another thread not tainted with utterly false information passed off as fact.

Asyou may remember from the other thread, I am actually against a withdrawl at this point.

[AZhitman]

Disagree AZ,

The ISSUE is that Hintler is not telling the truth.

If that's the case, then by all means let's get the courts involved. We can't have journalists making up stuff, can we? BO's attorneys had better hit him for damages, and sue his employer and demand a retraction. It'd be an easy case to win and he'd be vindicated.

That won't happen, because he doesn't have a case...

I don't see the mistruth in the piece. I see people who don't like it, I see people wishing it weren't the case, and I see people arguing and spinning it. But no factually-reliable disproval of what I'm reading. Anywhere.

[skylndrftr]

Quote »Worst of all, far from being committed to victory in Afghanistan, Obama voted to cut off all funding for all of our military efforts in Afghanistan on May 24, 2007 (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181)[/quote]1)Obama did vote against H.R.2206

2)H.R.2206 represented less than 10% of the afghanistan funding already approved for this year. The military also had approximately $1.6b leftover from last year.

3)The main defense budget this year included no direct funding for Iraq or Afghanistan, all funding has been passed as part of 'emergency resolutions'

4)This emergency resolution contained the supplemental funding for the purchase of 1 C-130J to replace the one that was destroyed in Iraq after a forced emergency landing. The estimated delivery date of that Aircraft is 2010.

5)theres a lot more fun stuff included in this bill which I'll bet you would want McCain to vote against.

What he said about Obama voting for it is true, his statements regarding WHAT Obama voted against are utterly false. Obama is also a very public figure making the burdon of proof for libel higher. Using such an intentionally inflamatory and misleading editorial as the basis for a discussion of anyones policy is only bound to enable a stupid and pointless arguement (from both sides) not a reasonable discussion. An opinion is an opinion but an opinion based on a complete falsehood is either stupidity or being a liar