Guest Column: Obama Double-Speak
Double-Speak We Shouldn’t Believe In
Andrew Genz
Sophomore, Marquette Universiy College of Engineering
To the editor:
Fans fainting. Crowds screaming. Girls crying. Sounds like a Hannah Montana concert, right? One would think so until Barack “Hope and Change” Obama steps on stage. Never in the history of American politics has a presidential candidate attracted so much appeal in so little time. How can a man with less than two years in the United States Senate (if you factor in all of the votes he’s missed) be the presidential frontrunner and not be scrutinized by citizens, the media, and his fans? (Obama doesn’t have supporters, he has fans. Similar to those you would find at a Hannah Montana concert.)
Recently, news broke out that Obama’s senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, had a meeting with the consul general of Canada. In the meeting Goolsbee told Georges Rioux that Obama’s speak on NAFTA “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” As evident in the March 4 primaries, this “NAFTA-gate” incident hurt Obama and proved that, despite popular belief, Obama is human. But Obama fans reply, “This was a one time thing. He won’t do it again.” Wrong. Obama’s double-speak has occurred again, but this time nobody is covering it. Samantha Power, the Obama advisor who recently called Clinton a “monster,” had other comments in her BBC interview that has the potential to be even more damaging than “NAFTA-gate.” The interviewer, Stephen Sackur, asked Power, “So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out [of Iraq] in 16 months isn’t a commitment isn’t it?” She responded that pulling out one to two brigades a month, Obama’s 16-month plan, was a “best case scenario” implying that Obama’s strategy to pull out of Iraq would probably be longer than what he preaches to his supporters. When it comes to Iraq, Democrats tend to like Obama’s position a little better than Clinton’s because Obama has claimed to have a set deadline. According to Power, he doesn’t have a “set” deadline and is no better than Clinton on the issue.
As a college student, it seems like I’m expected to support Obama. However, before being a student, I am an American citizen and as a good citizen I’m going to scrutinize and question all of the candidate’s positions. Obama prides himself on change. But from what I’ve seen so far, he’s no different than any other double-speaking, rhetoric spewing politician.
Andrew Genz
Sophomore, Marquette Universiy College of Engineering
To the editor:
Fans fainting. Crowds screaming. Girls crying. Sounds like a Hannah Montana concert, right? One would think so until Barack “Hope and Change” Obama steps on stage. Never in the history of American politics has a presidential candidate attracted so much appeal in so little time. How can a man with less than two years in the United States Senate (if you factor in all of the votes he’s missed) be the presidential frontrunner and not be scrutinized by citizens, the media, and his fans? (Obama doesn’t have supporters, he has fans. Similar to those you would find at a Hannah Montana concert.)
Recently, news broke out that Obama’s senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, had a meeting with the consul general of Canada. In the meeting Goolsbee told Georges Rioux that Obama’s speak on NAFTA “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” As evident in the March 4 primaries, this “NAFTA-gate” incident hurt Obama and proved that, despite popular belief, Obama is human. But Obama fans reply, “This was a one time thing. He won’t do it again.” Wrong. Obama’s double-speak has occurred again, but this time nobody is covering it. Samantha Power, the Obama advisor who recently called Clinton a “monster,” had other comments in her BBC interview that has the potential to be even more damaging than “NAFTA-gate.” The interviewer, Stephen Sackur, asked Power, “So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out [of Iraq] in 16 months isn’t a commitment isn’t it?” She responded that pulling out one to two brigades a month, Obama’s 16-month plan, was a “best case scenario” implying that Obama’s strategy to pull out of Iraq would probably be longer than what he preaches to his supporters. When it comes to Iraq, Democrats tend to like Obama’s position a little better than Clinton’s because Obama has claimed to have a set deadline. According to Power, he doesn’t have a “set” deadline and is no better than Clinton on the issue.
As a college student, it seems like I’m expected to support Obama. However, before being a student, I am an American citizen and as a good citizen I’m going to scrutinize and question all of the candidate’s positions. Obama prides himself on change. But from what I’ve seen so far, he’s no different than any other double-speaking, rhetoric spewing politician.
Labels: 2008 Election, Barak Obama
posted by John McAdams at 4:20 PM
5 Comments:
haha, this is ridiculous.
You couldn't have misrepresented Samantha Power's comments on Iraq any more grievously.
Her quote, in full:
"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009. He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"
So, what about that position do you find so objectionable?
So, what about that position do you find so objectionable?
The fact that he promised the hard left that he was going to withdraw immediately, no ifs, ands or buts.
So now it seems he didn't mean that.
I don't recall the "no ifs, ands or buts" part. I think his campaign line is, "We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."
But I still don't see the problem here. Does Obama want to pull out of Iraq? Yes, I believe he’s been clear on that. But is he stupid or stubborn enough to ignore the realities on the ground, the new information he’ll have at his disposal as President, or the advice of his commanders? No, of course not.
John, I tend to agree with Greg. I think you used a little literary license/hyperbole. I also agree with Evan. Both indicate that Obama has no idea what he will do. He doesn't know the situation on the ground in Iraq. He isn't very knowledgable about the intelligence in the run-up to the war, as he was a back bencher in Illinois Rezko politics at the time, and given 2 or 3 weeks of intel briefings from his Secretary of Defense Jeremiah Wright, he'll know what to do. He knows what he'll do already, he'll cut and run and bug out, but he's just not sure of the timetable yet.
As for Samantha Powers, it seems Mr.Wonderful no longer requires her services. Why is that?
Back to the Iraq surrender. Obama is on record as saying he opposed the war. He wasn't privy to the intel, he wasn't a U.S.Senator and his proclivity to vote PRESENT whenever a sticky issue confronts him is troubling.
Yet PRESENT is what he claims not to have been when Jeremiah "the bullfrog" Wright made his vile/racially divisive/anti-American and hateful comments.
Seems Mr.Obama is really quite a mystery. He took off his U.S. flag lapel pin, yet he had 8 OLD GLORY'S behind him yesterday as props. He is unifier, and an agent of hope and change, whose own chosen Pastor is a racially divisive bigot. His wife heretofore has not been proud of her country, despite 2 Ivy league educations and a 7 figure income last year.
Again, Mr.Obama knows what to say, but hasn't a clue what to do.
Yet.
"That's why I have a plan that will bring the troops home by March 2008" Barack Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8
Also, see Iraq war deescalation act.
Man, look at the time. It's late!
Post a Comment
<< Home