Did you know that American deaths are the lowest ever in the Iraq war?

Bet you didn't did you. You would think that would be news worthy, yet it isn't reported.

Well no worries my friends and ignorant Liberals, I'm here to help.

With Troops already coming home you should see some more come home in another month or so. Peterus will be taking over Afghanistan then so imagine that being done right too. Thank God Barack Obama and the far left loons didn't have their way.

This is great, violence down, Iraqi's up, and all thanks to the quote "failed" strategy as Barrack said wouldn't work, but would make things worse.

What an idiot that guy, but what can you expect from a man that had 143 days of experience and plus all those years as a community leader lol....Some try to call him a professor even thought he in fact was nothing but an underling aid. Anyways

Thanks troops for making it a better place. Thanks McCain for supporting the surge that has deliver victory for us In the M.E., And most of all thank you Barack Obama and your ideology for pretty much Guaranteeing a real American hero is elected President,

John McCain.

So Obama didn't visit the troops over seas because he couldn't get a photo op out of it. That is messed up and shows what judgment he has. The Black hawk down guy quote about it, is below check it out and read my opinion of what it all means.

At first Obama said

they thought it would be seen as political,

really Obama? Your whole trip was planned to be political, that's why the stop was planned along with everything else. What part of the trip wasn't political? 

Some one at their camp must have thought it was a lame excuse too, because then

Obamas Camp said:

well actually the Pentagon wouldn't let us.

But really they would let him come, they just didn't let him bring all the camera's,Yeah the Military has this thing where they just let you come in and meet with everyone with out the staffers, and press everywhere. You are supposed to visit the troops because you want to not because you can exploit them

Michael Durant, A member of the black hawk down incident had the same revelation as most about this:

"I have spent time at Ramstein recovering from wounds received in the service of my country, and I'm sure that Senator Obama could have made no better use of his time than to meet with our men and women in uniform there. That Barack Obama believes otherwise casts serious doubt on his judgment and it calls into question his priorities."

-Michael Durant

Well said Mr. Durant, Obama did make sure to go to the gym over seas, he just couldn't see our wounded troops because their would be no camera to get credit....Kind of says alot about him, his party and his ideology, doesn't it.

 After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.

• Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

• Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.

• From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.

• For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.

• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

• During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers - but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

Obama’s breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain’s. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama’s shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.

YOU CAN NOT DENY IT, If Im wrong let me know, I will graciously apologise and correct myself. If this is all true then maybe yuo should reevaluat your position and do it as fast as Obama did his

"Barack...he's talking down to black people...telling n—s how to behave."

Yeah thats the qoute beign reported, so not only did rev Jackson say he wants to cut off Obamas jewels but he also said on that hot mic, Obama is telling Nigg_as how to live.

This Im guessing wont bother many liberal people, but since when was it ok to say that word?

Rev Jackson was one of th strongest voices against the guy who played Kramer on sienfeld for saying the same word.

You know what i say screw Rev Jackson the mans whole life is based on exploiting blacks less fortunate than him and he wants to keep it that way.

You can not defend Rev. Jackson, and if you do then you are no better than Hitler.

Bako Sup out

Recently Obama has the object of Satire in the New Yorker and he said it was

"I know it was The New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it," Obama said. "But you know what? It's a cartoon ... and that's why we've got the First Amendment."

Pretty good statement right? he doesn;t like being the the satire but whatever...then this

Obama has spent the better part of the past 18 months debunking false Internet rumors that he's Muslim and defending his patriotism. He's Christian, but Obama said he's been derelict in pointing out how hurtful these attacks are to Muslim Americans.

These fallacious e-mails and The New Yorker cartoon are "actually an insult against Muslim Americans," he said. There are "wonderful Muslim Americans" across the country, Obama said, and "for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate."

"It's not what America's all about," he said.

Whats an insult is my dear Obama is your camp shunning Muslim women from appearing in your pictures at a recent event because they were "wonderful Muslim Americans"

Whats insulting is not this satire that clearly is making fun that people mis characterized you as a radical, what insulting is that you look at everything as PR and despite two Americans that support, you denied their praise because of a calculated analysis about what people think. That you have no ideology that a poll can topple.

Obama and his camp don't just do things because he believe its right he does them to get the most votes. He also changes at will to whatever will suit him no matter who it hurts offends, or dis-allusions.

July 15, 2008

McCain's Remarks on Iraq and Afghanistan

John McCain
 

I'm here today to discuss with you several issues that worry you and most Americans, our slumping economy, job loss, rising gas and food prices, and what we need to do to get our economy growing again, create jobs and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. But there is another urgent issue I want to address before I take your questions, which I know concerns you because brave Americans are risking their lives right now to deal with it.

Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy -- a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.

Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America's enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home. Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy.

Although the situation in Iraq is much improved, another test awaits whoever wins this election: the war in Afghanistan. The status quo is not acceptable. Security in Afghanistan has deteriorated, and our enemies are on the offensive. From the moment the next President walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions about Afghanistan.

Senator Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan. It is by applying the tried and true principles of counter-insurgency used in the surge -- which Senator Obama opposed -- that we will win in Afghanistan. With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory.

That strategy will have several components. Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades. Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them. But sending more forces, by itself, is not enough to prevail. In the 18 months that Senator Obama has been campaigning for the presidency, the number of NATO forces in Afghanistan has already almost doubled -- from 33,000 in January 2007 to about 53,000 today. Yet security has still deteriorated. What we need in Afghanistan is exactly what Gen. Petraeus brought to Iraq: a nationwide civil-military campaign plan that is focused on providing security for the population. Today no such integrated plan exists. When I am commander-in-chief, it will.

There are, of course, many differences between Afghanistan and Iraq, which any plan must account for. But, as in Iraq, the center of gravity is the security of the population. The good news is that our soldiers have begun to apply the lessons of Iraq to Afghanistan -- especially in eastern Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are concentrated. These efforts, however, are too piecemeal; the work of innovative local commanders, rather than a strategy for the entire country. In particular, the U.S. needs to reengage deeper in southern Afghanistan, the Taliban heartland.

One of the reasons there is no comprehensive campaign plan for Afghanistan is because we have violated one of the cardinal rules of any military operation: unity of command. Today there are no less than three different American military combatant commands operating in Afghanistan, as well as NATO, some of whose members have national restrictions on where their troops can go and what they can do. This is no way to run a war. The top commander in Afghanistan needs to be just that: the supreme commander of all coalition forces. As commander-in-chief, I will work with our allies to ensure unity of command.

A successful counterinsurgency requires more than military force. It requires all instruments of our national power, and that military and civilian leaders work together, at all levels, under a joint plan. Too often in Afghanistan this is not happening. And we need to build the same kind of civil-military partnership that Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker have forged in Iraq, supported by the best talent in the U.S. government and the resources necessary to prevail. Unity of command is also a principle I will bring to Washington. Too often, even as American soldiers and diplomats cooperate in the field, their superiors back home have been squabbling. Last year, the Bush administration appointed a war czar, responsible for both Iraq and Afghanistan. This was a step in the right direction. But Afghanistan is sufficiently important that a separate Afghanistan Czar is needed. I will appoint a highly-respected national security lea der, based in the White House and reporting directly to the President, whose sole mission will be to ensure we bring the war in Afghanistan to a successful end.

Everyone knows the United States increased the number of its soldiers in Iraq last year. What's less well known is that the Iraqis surged with us, adding over 100,000 security forces to their ranks. It's time for the Afghans to do the same. The Afghan army is already a great success story: a multiethnic, battle-tested fighting force. The problem is, it's too small, with a projected strength of only 80,000 troops. For years, the Afghans have been telling us they need a bigger army, and they are right. We need to at least double the size of the Afghan army to 160,000 troops. The costs of this increase, however, should not be borne by American taxpayers alone. Insecurity in Afghanistan is the world's problem, and the world should share the costs. We must work with our allies to establish an international trust fund to provide long-term financing for the Afghan army.

We also need to increase our non-military assistance to the Afghan government, with a multi-front plan for strengthening its institutions, the rule of law, and the economy in order to provide a sustainable alternative to the drug trade. Getting control of narcotics trafficking is central to our efforts in Afghanistan. Alternative crops must be able to get to market and traffickers must be arrested and prosecuted by enhanced Special Courts. We should agree on specific governance and development benchmarks with the Afghan government, then work with them closely to ensure they are met.

Just as we have worked over the past 18 months to stabilize Iraq by bringing together its neighbors, this kind of diplomacy is just as important for Afghanistan. The violence there has many causes, but chief among them is the fact that Afghanistan is treated by some regional powers a chessboard on which to pursue their own ambitions. I will appoint a special presidential envoy to address disputes between Afghanistan and its neighbors. Our goal must be to turn Afghanistan from a theater for regional rivalries into a commons for regional cooperation.

A special focus of our regional strategy must be Pakistan, where terrorists today enjoy sanctuary. This must end. We must strengthen local tribes in the border areas who are willing to fight the foreign terrorists there -- the strategy used successfully in Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq. We must convince Pakistanis that this is their war as much as it is ours. And we must empower the new civilian government of Pakistan to defeat radicalism with greater support for development, health, and education. Senator Obama has spoken in public about taking unilateral military action in Pakistan. In trying to sound tough, he has made it harder for the people whose support we most need to provide it. I will not bluster, and I will not make idle threats. But understand this: when I am commander -in-chief, there will be nowhere the terrorists can run, and nowhere they can hide.

In wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander-in-chief doesn't get a learning curve. If I have that privilege, I will bring to the job many years of military and political experience; experience that gave me the judgment necessary to make the right call in Iraq a year and half ago. I supported the surge because I believed it was our only realistic chance to reverse the disaster our previous strategy had caused, and the right thing to do for our country. And although events have proven me right, my position wasn't popular at the time, and I risked my own political ambitions when I took it. When I tell you, I will put our country's interests -- your interests -- before party; before any special interest; before my own interests, every hour of every day I'm in office, you can believe me. Because for my entire adult life, in war and peace, nothing has ever been more important to me than the se curity and well-being of the country I love. Thank you.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitic... at July 15, 2008 - 05:01:47 PM CDT

This time it is about the surge, before he said it failed and progress had not been made and credited militia's for declining violence, he now has on there the blood of our troops made it work but we still are failing.etc.

He has yet to acknowledge the great success that has happened directly from the surge, a strategy he opposed and never would have happened if he was in charge.

The only references to Iraq has to be negative for the sake of his party to save face. Why cant he just let it go and be honest to everyone.

15 of 18 bench mark met, political progress, violence down, this is all thanks to our troops and John McCain the man who was behind the surge and almost sacrificed everything so our troops would win.

Obama has never made a decision that wasn't for political advantage.

I'm glad he's going to lose in Nov.

Why do you vote Democrat? Seriously why? Has anybody got a clue?

Its worth mentioning that Obama declined public funding and following through with his  campaign promise to  the people, but only after winning the Nom against Clinton.

He beat Clinton on promises of what he was, a new politician, now we see his is not. Below was an interesting article of where he's getting all his support

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page �
OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign Internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama's Internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history � and this was all from the Internet campaign.

What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail.

Obama's Internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the Internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.

Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas Internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were "programmed" by a very sophisticated user.

While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The Internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia.

Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.

It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.

It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these Internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.

This is a shocking revelation.

We have been concerned about the legality of "bundling" contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.

I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama Internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.

If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?

I believe the Obama campaign's Internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of Internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.

For standing up for freedom through out your life

For recognizing the mistakes made in Iraq under Rumsfield and making sure the surge was reality and not just abandoning our troops overseas

Thank you for not wavering on your stances and not just joining the mob when it came to Iraq like the so called new politician Obama.

Than you for not encouraging your campaign to operate like Obama's, and staying on message and not succumbing to the politically advantageous approach of fear mongering and race bating

Oh and thank you for turning the other cheek to the ignorant liberals that interrupt your speeches, and rallies. Inappropriately standing up and screaming, the very same that ridaculed the late Tim Russert when he just did his job and asked questions.

Thanks for being a realist and not just saying whatever people want to hear, knowing you cant deliver nor would it be safe for Americans.

In General thanks for being John McCain, thanks for serving the country and not serving the radical left minority that the Democratic candidate has surrendered to.

Thank you for serving us, the United States

lol Go Jackson,

then that stupid statement he made after about how he's sorry and its a redeeming moment. lol give me a break who buys that crap he said it and gave you a good indication of what he means. 

Jackson said he want to cut of baracks balls because he talks down to Black people

Lol.

Jackson's whole pathetic life is based on the suffering of blacks in America and the last thing he wants to do is to address the problems that cause that suffering, because then the blessed old Rev wouldn't be able to scavenge off others poor fortunes and make a profit.

Also since  serious black candidate is running the year when Dems shouldn't lose, he probably pisst that the nom went to Barrack Hussien Obama, a man that is the most unqualified to be pres ever, and has serious race, moral, and character issues. That and he lost when he ran lol

Hmm, nope I can vote for him

Barack Obama’s Changing Positions
Everyone’s Been Listening To Him

ARLINGTON, VA – Today, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement concerning Barack Obama’s statement that those accusing him of changing positions “haven’t apparently been listening to me”:

“Since becoming his party’s presumptive nominee, Barack Obama has changed numerous positions and will continue to change his stances as he puts politics ahead of principle. From growing our economy to securing our nation, Barack Obama has proven his rhetoric to be nothing but empty words and broken pledges that are at odds with his left wing partisan record. Barack Obama is wrong: everyone’s been listening and still nobody knows what Barack Obama truly believes.”

Today, Barack Obama Said That Those Accusing Him Of Changing His Position “Haven’t Apparently Been Listening To Me.” “Asked by a voter about accusations of flip-flopping, Democrat Barack Obama dismissed the notion Tuesday that he has been shifting stances on Iraq, guns and the death penalty to break with his party’s liberal wing and court a wider swath of voters. ‘The people who say this haven’t apparently been listening to me,’ the likely Democratic presidential nominee said in response to a question at a town-hall style event.” (Liz Sidoti, “Obama Denies Shifting To Reach Political Center,” The Associated Press, 7/8/08)

CHANGE #1: Despite Pledging To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq Immediately, Barack Obama Now Says He Would “Refine” His Policy After Listening To The Commanders On The Ground

In July 2008, Barack Obama Said He Will Continue To “Refine” His Iraq Policy. Obama: “I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed…And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.” (Jeff Zeleny, “Obama: Open to ‘Refine’ Iraq Withdrawal Timeline,” The New York Times’ “The Caucus” Blog, http://thecaucus.blogs.nyti..., 7/3/08)In The Primaries, Barack Obama Committed To Withdrawing Troops From Iraq Regardless Of The Advice He Received From Commanders On The Ground. ABC’s Charles Gibson: “And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, ‘When he is’ — this is talking about you - ‘When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that.’ So you’d give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?” Obama: “Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That’s not the role of the generals. … Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I’ve given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)

CHANGE #2: Despite Pledging To Accept Public Financing, Barack Obama Has Reversed His Position And Opted Out Of The System

Barack Obama Has Declined Public Financing In The General Election, Calling It A “Broken System.” “In a web video emailed to supporters, Obama asks his supporters to help him ‘declare our independence from a broken system.’ Of course, it’s not so much a broken system that explains why he’s passing on the FEC’s $80+million. He will easily raise more than he could ever get in public funding.” (Jonathan Martin, “Obama Opts Out Of Public Financing,” The Politico’s “Jonathan Martin” Blog, www.politico.com, 6/19/08)

In Response To A Midwest Democracy Network Questionnaire, Barack Obama Said He Would Accept Public Funding In The General Election. Question: “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?” Obama: “Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Presidential Candidate Questionnaire,” Midwest Democracy Network, www.commoncause.org, 11/27/07)

CHANGE #3: Barack Obama Is Backtracking On His Support For Unilaterally Renegotiating NAFTA

During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Unilaterally Renegotiate NAFTA. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?” OBAMA: “I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.” (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)In The General Election, Barack Obama Now Says His Words Were “Overheated And Amplified.” “In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA. ‘Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,’ he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA ‘devastating’ and ‘a big mistake,’ despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.” (Nina Easton, “Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All,” Fortune, 6/18/08)

CHANGE #4: Barack Obama Is Considering Reducing Corporate Taxes Despite Having Called Corporate Tax Cuts “The Exact Wrong Prescription For America”

The Wall Street Journal Reported That Barack Obama Would Consider Lowering Corporate Taxes. “Sen. Obama’s nod to lowering corporate taxes comes as Republicans have been attacking him for proposals that would raise the cost of doing business, such as his pledge to raise the tax rate on capital gains, and his vow to increase the top income-tax rates, which are often used by small, unincorporated enterprises. He didn’t say how deeply he would cut the rate, but said it could be trimmed in return for reducing corporate tax breaks, simplifying the tax system.” (Bob Davis and Amy Chozick, “Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut In Business Tax,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/17/08)

Just Last Month, Barack Obama Called Corporate Tax Cuts “The Exact Wrong Prescription For America.” OBAMA: “And his proposals, which are essentially $300 billion worth of corporate tax cuts … I think is the exact wrong prescription for America.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 5/4/08)

CHANGE #5: Barack Obama Has Changed Positions On The D.C. Handgun Ban

In June 2008, Barack Obama Said He Thought The D.C. Handgun Ban Was Unconstitutional. Obama: “It looks to me that the D.C. handgun ban overshot the runway. That it went beyond constitutional limits.” (Bloomberg’s “Taking Stock,” 6/26/08)

Obama Campaign: “Obama Believes The D.C. Handgun Law Is Constitutional.” “[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’” (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, “Court To Hear Gun Case,” Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)

During An Interview, Barack Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: “One other issue that’s of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently - I’m quoting here - ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns,’ but you support the D.C. handgun ban.” Obama: “Right.” (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)

CHANGE #6: Barack Obama Has Shifted From Opposing Welfare Reform To Celebrating Welfare Reform In A Television AdIn His Newest Television Ad, Barack Obama Touts His Role In Slashing Welfare Rolls, But Leaves Out That He Was Against The 1996 Federal Legislation That Enacted Welfare Reform. “Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul ’slashed the rolls by 80 percent.’ Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction.” (Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace, “Obama Shifts On Welfare Reform,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, Posted 7/1/08)In 1997, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Probably Not Supported Federal Welfare Reform Legislation. “‘I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare,’ Obama said on the floor of the Illinois state Senate on May 31, 1997. ‘Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems.’” (Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace, “Obama Shifts On Welfare Reform,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, Posted 7/1/08)

CHANGE #7: As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Criticizes The Administration’s Energy Policy Despite Having Voted For The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill

Barack Obama Attacks John McCain On Energy Policy, Saying He Will Be A “Third Bush Term.” OBAMA: “Make no mistake, this is an area where John McCain is offering a third Bush term.” (Thomas Fitzgerald, “Obama Knocks McCain, Says Primary Fight Not Hurting, Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/1/08)

“Obama, Of Course, Voted For The 2005 Energy Bill, Which Passed The Senate Overwhelmingly 74-26.” (Jake Tapper, “Who’s Offering A 3rd Bush Term On Energy?” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 4/3/08)

“Someone Else Who Voted Against It? The Candidate Whom Obama Says Is Offering ‘A Third Bush Term’ On Energy Policy — John McCain.” (Jake Tapper, “Who’s Offering A 3rd Bush Term On Energy?” ABC News’ “Political Punch” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 4/3/08)

CHANGE #8: Barack Obama Has Shifted Positions On Nuclear Power

In September 2007, Barack Obama Said “I Don’t Think That We Can Take Nuclear Power Off The Table”. “I don’t think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store it properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism.” (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Hanover, NH, 9/26/07)

In December 2007, Barack Obama Said “I Am Not A Nuclear Energy Proponent”. “I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Town Hall Event, Newton, IA, 12/30/07)

CHANGE #9: Obama Adviser Said Obama Was Not Opposed To An Individual Health Care Mandate Despite His Opposition During The Primary

Campaign Adviser, Kavita Patel, Said That Obama “Is Not Opposed To The Idea” Of An Individual Mandate And That The Campaign Is In Touch With Former Clinton Health Care Advisers. “Asked if Obama would be seen as reversing himself if he were to endorse an individual mandate after clashing with Clinton on the issue, Patel dismissed the concern. ‘He has not said he is opposed to it,’ [Kavita] Patel told ABC News. ‘He has voiced his disagreement with having that be a part of his health-care plan last year. But he is not opposed to the idea itself.’ Patel added that the Obama campaign is in touch with former Clinton health-care advisers.” (Teddy Davis, John Santucci and Gregory Wallace, “Obama Health Plan Could Go In Clinton’s Direction,” ABC News‘ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/26/08)

Barack Obama Argued With Sen. Clinton Saying There Is “A Different Way” To Achieve Universal Care Rather Than Imposing An Individual Mandate. Obama: “We’ve got a philosophical difference which we’ve debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it, and my belief is the reason that people don’t have it is not because they don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it.” (Barack Obama, CNN/Univision Democrat Presidential Debate, Austin, TX, 2/21/08)

CHANGE #10: During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Filibuster Any Bill Which Contained Immunity For Telecommunications Companies Involved In Electronic Surveillance, But Now Backs A Compromise Bill

In October 2007, The Obama Campaign Pledged He Would Filibuster “Any Bill That Includes Retroactive Immunity For Telecommunications Companies.” Obama Spokesman Bill Burton: “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.” (Greg Sargent, “Obama Camp Says It: He’ll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity,” Talking Points Memo’s “Election Central” Blog, tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com, 10/24/07)

Barack Obama Now Supports A Bill Reauthorizing Electronic Surveillance That Grants Immunity To Telecommunications Companies. Obama: “Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives and the liberty of the American people.” (Ben Smith, “Obama Backs FISA Compromise,” The Politico’s “Ben Smith” Blog, www.politico.com, 6/20/08)

CHANGE #11: Barack Obama Disagreed With The Supreme Court Decision Striking Down The Use Of The Death Penalty For A Convicted Child Rapist Although In The Past He Opposed The Death Penalty

When Asked About Today’s Supreme Court Decision Striking Down The Use Of The Death Penalty For A Child Rapist, Barack Obama Stated That He Disagreed With The Decision. Reporter: “Senator, what’s your reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision today striking down the death penalty for a child rapist?” Obama: “I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances, for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime. And if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our constitution. Now, I think it’s — you know, had the Supreme Court said we want to constrain the ability of the states to do this to make sure that it’s done in a careful and appropriate way, that would have been one thi ng. But it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagreed with that decision.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, Chicago, IL, 6/25/08)

Running For The Illinois State Senate In 1996, Barack Obama Opposed The Death Penalty. Question: “Do you support capital punishment?” Obama’s Answer: “No.” (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

CHANGE #12: Barack Obama Has Backtracked From His Earlier Commitment To Meet With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror “Without Precondition”

At A July 2007 Debate, Barack Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria And Other Hostile Nations “Without Precondition.” QUESTION: “[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”… OBAMA: “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous.” (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

The Boston Globe’s Joan Vennochi: “On foreign policy, Obama went from stating that he would meet, without preconditions, with the president of Iran, to saying he would meet ‘with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing - if and only if - it can advance the interests of the United States.’” (Joan Vennochi, Op-Ed, “Obama And McCain Flip-Flop, Flip-Flop,” The Boston Globe, 6/22/08)

CHANGE #13: After Saying Jerusalem Should Be “Undivided,” Barack Obama Has Since Backtracked

At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Barack Obama Says Clearly That Jerusalem Should Be The “Undivided” Capital Of Israel. Obama: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)

One Day After The AIPAC Conference, Barack Obama Said The Future Of Jerusalem Would Have To Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians. CNN’s Candy Crowley: “I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?” Obama: “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 6/5/08)

CHANGE #14: As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Has Backed Away From His Earlier Support For Normalized Relations With Cuba And Ending The Embargo

Barack Obama: “As president, I’ll maintain the embargo it’s an important inducement for change because we know that Castro’s death will not guarantee freedom.” (Beth Reinhard, “It’s Got A Good Beat And You Can Dance To It,” The Miami Herald’s “Naked Politics” Blog, 8/25/07)“In January 2004, Obama Said It Was Time ‘To End The Embargo With Cuba’ Because It Had ‘Utterly Failed In The Effort To Overthrow Castro.’” (”Top Obama Flip-Flops,” The Washington Post, 2/25/08)Barack Obama: “I think it’s time for us to end the embargo with Cuba.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 1/20/04)CHANGE #15: Barack Obama Is Against The California Ballot Measure Banning Gay Marriage Despite His Assertion That Marriage Is Between A Man And A WomanBarack Obama Came Out Against A California Ballot Measure That Would Ban Same-Sex Marriage. “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages. In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group’s annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending ‘fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.’” (Aurelio Rojas, “Obama Rejects Proposed California Gay Marriage Ban,” Sacramento Bee, 7/1/08)“Obama Had Previously Said He Opposes Same-Sex Marriage But That Each State Should Make Its Own Decision.” (Aurelio Rojas, “Obama Rejects Proposed California Gay Marriage Ban,” Sacramento Bee, 7/1/08)

CHANGE #16: Barack Obama Says That “Mental Distress” Should Not Be Reason For A Late Term Abortion Which Contradicts His Past Extreme Pro-Abortion ViewsBarack Obama: Mental Distress Should Not Be A Reason For A Late Term Abortion. “I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.” (Sen. Barack Obama Interview, Relevant Magazine, 7/1/08)Barack Obama Appears To Have Backed Away “From His Long-Stated Positions On Abortion.” “In a recent interview, Obama appears to back away from his long-stated positions on abortion (and a proposed federal abortion rights law he had co-sponsored), repudiate 35 years of accepted Supreme Court rulings on the issue and embrace a view on abortion restrictions that has been expressed on the Court only by Justices Thomas and Scalia.” (Jan Crawford Greenburg, “Obama: Sounding Like Thomas And Scalia?” http://blogs.abcnews.com, 7/4/08)

CHANGE #17: Barack Obama Said He Would Debate “Anywhere, Anytime” But Has Rejected Joint Town Hall Meetings

Barack Obama Says He Would Debate John McCain “Anywhere, Anytime.” OBAMA: “I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy. If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime, to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East or around the world, that is a conversation I am happy to have. Because I believe that there is no separation between John McCain and George Bush when it comes to our Middle East policy and I think their policy has failed.” (Barack Obama, Media Availability, Watertown, SD, 5/16/08)However, Barack Obama Has Rejected Joint Town Hall Meetings. “Avoiding town hall meetings and rejecting public campaign financing may be predictable strategies for minimizing one of McCain’s greatest strengths and exploiting one of his key weaknesses. But they pull Obama down into the cynical political calculations he pledged to rise above.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Big Words Ring Hollow,” St. Petersburg Times, 6/20/08)

So I posted how 15 of 18 Iraq benchmarks have been met and how the we are winning in Iraq,

The usual people did not want to hear this FSG, RF, Noone and the other loons, I gave a web address of a Clinton supporter  who posted it and not here it and you can always look on Drudge.

http://www.breitbart.com/ar...

They will still not believe it after Reading it and will continue to call me whatever names they want to justify their dangerously ignorant positions.

But you don't have to follow. Why isn't this front page news you might ask? How come Fox was the only one to report it on TV? How come Dems will not accept that even though heavily invested in our defeat, acknowledging our victory is the right thing to do?

Check it out, guys and remember unlike the loons mentioned above you don't have to fed info to believe t research it yourself. If you don't will become just as ignorant as thoughs above.

Less than half that last year, shoudn't this be front page news?

In Baracks campaign women are paid about 6000 dollars less than their male counter part, among the people that make over 100,000 on his staff only one is a woman.

This is the guy saying McCain would do all these horrible things and lose women's rights...lol

On McCainscampiagn women are actually paid what they deserve.

Hmm, can some one explain why Obama doesn't pay women what they deserve? Why the agent of change treats women's as 2nd class?

Oh and why are republican women better looking?