Obama's Character Problem

Over the course of this campaign, Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards have been going off on Sen. Clinton's character and convictions.  They call her "corrupt" and claim that she does not have the interest of the American people in her heart.  As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly okay for one candidate to go after another on policy issues, but it is not acceptable to incorrectly insult one's character and integrity and wrongly defame that person.

  

Hypocrisy, in my mind, is one of the worst kinds of character problems. Like Hillary Clinton or not, there is not one instance where it could be said that Hillary is a hypocrite. However, as the rigors of this Presidential campaign roll full steam ahead, it seems that there is one candidate who is starting to exhibit a slight bit of hypocrisy, and that candidate is Illinois Senator, Barack Obama.

1) Barack Obama has been highly critical of Hillary Clinton on the Iraq War.  Obama likes to use the fact that he did not vote for the war, while Sen Clinton did, against her.  But there is a huge inconsistency on Obama's part.  The fact is that he was not even in the U.S. Senate at that time.  And in fact, in numerous interviews in 2004 and 2005, Obama said that he was not sure how he would have voted if indeed he was in the Senate.  He said that he couldn't rule out possibly have voting for the war because he was not privy to the information that members of the Senate were.  Obama continued that stance until he began running for President.  Now he is trying to retract that statement, recently telling Tim Russert that he only said that because, at that time, the top Democrats in the country (John Kerry and John Edwards) did vote for the war and he didn't think it would be a good idea to go against them.  That brings me to my next point.

2) Leadership.  Obama likes to claim that he is the best leader for the Democratic Party.  I ask you though, does someone exhibit leadership when he just "goes with the flow".  In 2004-2005, Obama could have very well said that he was against the war; that would have been leadership.  But instead, he said that he didn't know how he would have voted.  A second thing also calls into question his leadership.  Although he is highly critical of Sen. Clinton's handling of the Iraq War, he voted the exact same way as she did in every single measure.  There is not one bit of difference in their voting records on that issue.  But, there is a difference somewhere in there.  It was Sen. Clinton, not Obama, who asked the Pentagon for plans to end the war earlier this year.  Obama had years to show leadership and vote against the war if he so chose, but apparently he didn't want to upset the status quo.  That my friends, is no leader.  If any candidate has shown leadership on trying to bring this war to a safe end, it was Sen. Clinton when she asked for withdrawal plans.

3) Obama has been highly critical of Sen. Clinton's vote for diplomacy in Iran. Obama's voting record is clear though.  Earlier this year, back in April, Obama voted for a resolution that was almost identical to the one Sen. Clinton recently voted for.  And again this comes back to the leadership issue: Sen. Obama completely missed the Iran vote because he was "too busy" campaigning.  There was even a debate that night where, although given the opportunity,  Obama did not express any negative feelings toward the Iran resolution nor did he criticize Sen. Clinton. Obama instead waited a few days until he realized it was the popular thing to criticize Sen. Clinton.  

4) Obama also enjoys talking about universal healthcare. The problem is that he does not advocate universal healthcare as does Clinton, Edwards, and the other Democrats.  Rather, Obama's plan leaves 15 million Americans uninsured.  Some claim that this is not true, but one only has to read Sen. Obama's plan to realize that indeed Obama does not guarantee every woman, man, and child health insurance. Some, inevitably, would be left uninsured. 

5) Obama likes to center his campaign around the theme of "change".  He would like Americans to believe he is the only candidate who can successfully bring about change in America.  But, as you examine his record, you realize that Obama has done very little if anything to bring about the "change" he so often refers to.  All you have to do is look at a person's record to see how they will govern in the future, and when you do that, you realize that Obama has yet to stand up for change.  As the old saying goes, "talk is cheap".  It's one thing to talk a good talk, but America needs a President who will walk the walk, and quite frankly, Obama has failed to do that.

So, I ask Senator Obama, before you go after someone else's character and record, why don't you examine your own.  Because from what is clear to the naked eye, Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic contenders have a far better record than you.  

Iran: What Bush Really Knew

George Bush's rhetoric concerning Iran for the past six months is a mirror image of his rhetoric concerning Iraq during the run up to that war.  In the second instance, Bush claimed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program; but they had not.  With Iran he said they were building nuclear weapons.  However, we found out in the NIE report released just last week that they stopped that in 2003 when they froze the program.  That was over four years ago.

 

What the news media failed to pick up on is that from 2001 to 2003, Iran was working to produce nuclear weapons and Bush was silent.  Instead, he was attacking Iraq.  The Los Angeles Times reported that when Bush came to office he was totally disinterested in Iran, this according to a CIA official.  In fact, the CIA had made up a large Iran task force of nearly 100 officers and analysts by the end of the Clinton administration.  When Bush took office, it shrank to fewer than a dozen officers.  Those resources were shifted to other targets by Bush.  It went from being focused on Iran to being switched to Iraq.

 

The NIE report released last week now catches Mr. Bush in another lie.  He said he did not know till a few days ago that Iran froze its nuclear weapons program in 2003.  This guy has lost all respect for the office of the President.  He now wants to change the subject on Iran so he is trying to demand that they reveal all their covert activity.  Mr. Bush should demand Israel, India, and Pakistan reveal all their covert activity of their nuclear weapons program as well.  Their leaders are also unstable. 

The CIA: Out of Control

The CIA is in the news and once again they are involved in a scandal, this time destroying evidence concerning videos of interrogation on al Qaeda prisoners.  Officials of the CIA told a federal court and the 9-11 commission that they had no record of the interrogation; those were lies.  

 

CIA lies, misinformation, and violation of the law go back to at least the Church committee who documented wrong doing in the middle 1970s.  One CIA director, Richard Helms, was even found guilty of perjury. 

By destroying the video of the interrogation, the CIA destroyed any torture procedure that may have been on the video.  That has been a real concern that has dogged the Bush administration because, if true, serious legal charges could be brought about.

 

One problem with the CIA today is the director, General Mike Hayden.  The director is usually a civilian so the intelligence given to a president can be clear and independent.  Being a military man, Hayden can not be independent.  The President is Commander in Chief.  General Hayden ran the super secret NSA before accepting the directorship of the CIA.  At NSA, he fully supported Bush's authorization of wire taps and warrant-less intrusions without going to the FISA court.  He has demonstrated that he is a person who can not be trusted to protect the American people's right to privacy.

 

President Kennedy was quoted as saying he was going to break the CIA up in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind.  Kennedy found out about the CIA dirty tricks and that some at the CIA had their own foreign policy agenda far different than his.

 

In the case of the videos that were destroyed, it was reported that the CIA was trying to hide evidence of coercion.  FBI officials on the scene protested the tactics and then forbid its agents from taking part in such acts.

 

Congress should take away all operational functions of the CIA and leave them to gathering intelligence only.  That was President Truman's idea when the CIA was created.  Then Congress has to come down hard on the CIA and really hold them accountable for their actions.  The lies have gone on for too many years.