- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next Page »
The Incremental Revolutionary
Hillary Clinton says Obama's ethics reforms left too many loopholes, and points to one that does seem especially ridiculous: though the new law prohibits lobbyists from paying for meals at restaurants, it doesn't stop them from throwing lavish parties where members of Congress stand up while they eat. Yet Clinton herself was one of 20 Democrats who rejected the Office of Public Integrity idea. "She thought it would add an additional layer of unnecessary bureaucracy and would further politicize the ethics process," says Clinton spokesman Jay Carson.
Any candidate who runs as a reformer is bound to attract close scrutiny of his own ethics. Chicago newspapers have published extensive stories about Obama's ties to Tony Rezko, a fund-raiser and developer who is under indictment for fraud. In 2005, Obama bought a house in Chicago. On the same day, Rezko bought the plot of land next to it, and later sold Obama a slice of his plot so the senator could expand his yard. At the time it was widely reported that Rezko was under investigation by the U.S. attorney for allegedly shaking down firms that wanted to do business with state agencies. There is no evidence that Obama gave any political favors to Rezko. He voted against some of Rezko's business interests as a state senator, and gave thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Rezko to charity. Obama has called the deal with Rezko "a boneheaded mistake."
At times, what Obama might call pragmatism can look like a simple loss of nerve. When he was running for the U.S. Senate in 2003, Obama filled out a questionnaire for the Illinois chapter of the National Organization for Women in which he stated his opposition to the president's Patriot Act. "Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act," he wrote. "I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal that addressed in a much more limited fashion the legitimate needs of law enforcement in combating terrorism." In a speech to the American Library Association, he called for the Senate to rewrite the law to keep "Big Brother" from "peering over our shoulder." Yet when the Patriot Act came up for renewal in 2005, Obama compromised and voted alongside 88 other senators to reauthorize the law, even though the new version had only "modest" changes. "The compromise is far from perfect," he said. But it was good enough.
Bill Clinton has been especially outspoken about Obama's position on the Iraq War. The former president is frustrated that Obama has been able to make the case that his judgment against the war on Iraq is worth more than Hillary's experience. Last week he challenged the media for not focusing on what he suggested was an Obama flip-flop. "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I have ever seen," he said about Obama's position on Iraq.
By Clinton's account, Obama said in 2004 that he wasn't sure how he might have voted on the war had he been in the Senate at the time of the vote. The truth is more complicated. The statement Clinton refers to was made by Obama during the week of the 2004 Democratic convention. Obama was there to give the keynote speech in support of the nominee, John Kerry, who had voted to support the war. Obama now says that he was in an awkward spot: he didn't want to undermine or embarrass Kerry, so he chose his words a little too carefully. Obama told The New York Times: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." Clinton left out what Obama said in the very next breath: "What I know is that from my vantage point, the case was not made."
By late last week, as the glow of the New Hampshire victory was beginning to fade, Clinton appeared to regret his angry remarks about Obama. He seemed concerned that it was being taken the wrong way by African-Americans, a key Democratic constituency. Bill called Al Sharpton's radio show to express his regret at any misunderstanding. "There's nothing 'fairy tale' about his campaign. It's real, it's strong, and he might win," said the former president, emphasizing that he only meant to highlight what he still regarded as inconsistencies in Obama's Iraq position.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/02/2008 8:21:46 PM
Comment: Nins: Why are you peddling BS trotted out by a pack of leftwinged rags? General James Simmons,not only did not cancel such a display,but produced it before reporters of several news services including CNN,NBC,Agence France Presse,REUTERS,the AP,ABC,and others on Nov.17,2007. Indeed,why would Iranian Supreme Council Member Ayatollah Khamenei agree that such arms were indeed,flowing to Iraq in his Nov.18,2007 meeting with Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq? You are presenting only half-truths with regards to Irans nuclear program. The IAEA not only acknowlages that Iran is making enriched uranium,but as late as last month,acknowlaged that Iran was ''only two years away from a nuclear weapon.Perhaps less.''[Remarks,Muhammed El-Baradei June 20,2008,AL-ARABIYA]. The IAEA recognizes that Iran now has plutonium,along with its acknowlagement that its large numbers of centerfuges ''could produce enough material for one bomb in six months to one year'',hence El-Baradeis newest worries. At this moment,Iran refuses to allow full inspections by the IAEA.
Posted By: Nins @ 07/02/2008 7:17:20 PM
Comment: Why did the US military cancel a news conference where they were going to display the "Iranian" weapons they found in Iraq? Because there WERE NO IRANIAN WEAPONS to display. Here are links supporting the fact that the weapons found in Iraq did not come from Iran:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_05/013695.php
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/fire_next_time.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html
NOT TO MENTION that the Untied States itself has had a notable role in arming the insurgency. When the US dissolved the Iraqi Army, that flooded Iraq with weapons. More recently the Pentagon admitted that it had lost track of a third of the weapons distributed to Iraqi security forces in 2004-05, totaling 190,000 assault rifles and pistols that are currently on the streets of Iraq. The British paper that published this article got it's information straight from the US Government Accounting Office's public website: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pentagon-admits-190000-weapons-missing-in-iraq-460551.html
Ask yourself, why would America want to pretend that Iran is pushing weapons in Iraq, when actually WE (the USA) has flooded Iraq's streets with weapons? Because Bush wants to declare war on Iran, and just like the fake "WMDs" in Iraq, he needs something to frighten Americans, so he comes out with this BS about Iran killing US soldiers in Iraq. He has also said that Iran is making nuclear weapons, but recent inspections have found NO EVIDENCE of nuclear weapons in Iran. JUST LIKE how repeated inspections found NO EVIDENCE of WMDs in Iraq. The reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN inspectors and nuclear experts at the Institute for Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) all agree that Iran DOES NOT have nuclear weapons. The IAEA report states that Iran only has "low enriched uranium, not the highly-enriched uranium necessary to produce a bomb." The ISIS reports states "It is important to note that they do not encompass the full scope of work required for a comprehensive nuclear weapons program. Missing is theoretical work on nuclear weapons, uranium metallurgy, and the development of a neutron initiator." http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/2008/iaea_report_on_iran.htm#_ftn9
In case you think the idea that Bush wants to bomb Iran is reactionary, you should know that John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, recently told FoxNews that he can "definitely envision Bush bombing Iran before he leaves office." By bombing Iran, Bush makes it more likely McCain will be elected. But can the US Treasury, can the US economy stand more war? Even if we could afford it, we don't have the manpower in uniform. You know what that means: draft and conscription. Vote for McCain. Watch your children come home in body bags. Watch America go into a Great Depression.
Posted By: dking312 @ 07/02/2008 2:26:23 AM
Comment: You goofy silly, folks who still act and look like dinosaurs in our space age.
You people who can't get off of that.