The following is a post link that came via a commenter named “X” on the “Bush and GOP pushing harder on energy” thread. To disclose, the source is a Yahoo News story dated July 15th by an AP journalist, NEDRA PICKLER… titled “Obama Web site removes `surge’ from Iraq problem”.
It appears His Messiahship is busy removing website statements and proof that his prior stance INRE the Surge seriously conflicts with his latest and greatest policy statements INRE the surge. And when the AP jumps on this, you have to figure it’s an overt change in text…
Wonder if the Obama camp has any “bellyaches” … being so busy ingesting the cyber bread crumbs in order to obsure the trail to his past opinions and misjudgment.
Thank you “x”. You should speak out louder on your own behalf.. but you were “heard”.
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama’s aides have removed criticism of President Bush’s increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat’s written war plan to reflect changing conditions.
Debate over the impact of President Bush’s troop “surge” has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.
RTFA at the link above…
… and thank you for the heads up on the BHO website change.
UPDATE: Per Thomas’ suggest (post #1), here is a more permanent CBS link to the same article. Some article excerpts:
As first reported Tuesday by the New York Daily News, Obama’s campaign removed a reference to the surge as part of “The Problem” section on the part of his Web site devoted to laying out his plan for Iraq.
The change was part of many broader changes that Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said were made to reflect current conditions. She provided the full text of the old site and the updated version, which includes a new section on the recent resurgence of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and another on this year’s negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement that would detail the legal basis for the ongoing presence of U.S. military forces operating in Iraq.
The changes stress that Obama’s plan to end the war is responsible and designed to improve national security. They include:
_ An updated Obama quote at the top of the page. The previous quote stressed how Obama had the judgment to oppose the “rash war” from the start. This was a popular message among Democratic voters and was meant to draw distinctions with primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who initially supported the war. The new quote focuses on how ending the war will make Americans safer _ a message aimed at general election voters who are more likely to trust McCain on issues of national security, according to polling.
_ A description of Obama’s plan as “a responsible, phased withdrawal” that will be directed by military commanders and done in consultation with the Iraqis. Previously, the site had a sentence that has since been removed that flatly said, “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq.” Morigi said that his plan hasn’t changed, but they wanted to expand the description. “There’s not an intent to shift language,” she said.
_ A new sentence that says Obama “would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppres potential genocidal violence within Iraq.”
Only one of his plan’s subheads remains unchanged, the first one _ “Judgment You Can Trust.” That’s a message the campaign wants Americans to embrace.
Wants me to “embrace”? Only in his dreams… which come, of course, at the “expense” of mine. LOL
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Get a screen capture!!! Yahoo deletes news stores after a few days. Sometimes faster.
It’s just a matter of time before Obama claims credit for the surge’s success. He’ll say it was his pressure to withdraw that forced the Iraqis to get serious about making progress on security and political fronts.
i have a cloient who is a life long democrat, she said to me today that she would no more vote for obama than she would murder her grandkids. that statements speaks volumes. the little retired people in a small industry town are sick of his lying and sneakiness, those were her words. i was a tad shocked because we have always debated on politics, now she is voting only republican in the general election. she said she feels lied to to, snuck around on and and flat out let down. i told her about this site and others where she could fiond another view of things and she was thankful, she never realized the MSM was so one sided until now. score one for the little guy with half a brain, now all we need is a ton of others just like her whoa re pissed off and wanting to make this nation right again.
Luva: Was she a Hillary voter?
nope, she was waiting to see who they put up there, she voted edwards in our states primary. she is disgusted. gotta love it.
Luva: I had the same experience when I went to get my hair cut recently. The person who cut my hair said she would vote McCain. She was a staunch supporter of Hillary through the primary. Others in the shoppe were in agreement with her.
I was surprised to hear this for here in NE Ohio everything is BHO. Here a person is hard pressed to see or hear anything about McCain.
CHANGE is a campaign theme that’s starting to haunt him. It no longer means changing the way politics are done. Instead, every time he stands in front of a podium w CHANGE pasted on it or a CHANGE banner behind him…it’s a YouTube-in-waiting that basically says, “Here’s his position one day, and here’s his CHANGED position the next”
I totally understand modifying one’s position from time to time or even fully changing it, but Obama’s position on Iraq-the issue that is the CORE issue for Dems…is all over the place, and extreeeeeeeeeeeeeemly close to being the same as Pres Bush’s policy.
Mr. Obama is too naive and too misinformed to see what almost all Americans see; John McCain is correct in his assessment that the US will withdraw from Iraq only when the Iraqi people and military are strong enough and prepared enough to manage the defense of their own country. To withdraw any sooner than this may mean, if Iraq cannot defend itself, the US will have to return.
What is more important is that Mr. Obama is going to Iraq only to get a grilling from generals and the military who have already stated in no unclear terms that the best course of action is to stay in Iraq until we achieve success.
It will be interesting to see what ‘refinements’ Obama will make to his Iraq policy once he returns from his visit to Iraq. He may return only to become a firm believer in John McCain’s stance and we would welcome Obama’s vote for John McCain for President of the United States.
http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/nextgenblog/
You know…I wonder. The Democratic Convention hasn’t been held yet. Theoretically, he’s not the candidate until the Convention is held and the votes are cast. Is there _any_ possibility that they might go back to Hillary? Is there any possibility that they _can_ go back to Hillary??? Does anyone know the legal aspects?
after an informal poll of my clients today, i concluse that onama will not win the whitehouse.. so many people are pssed at his diceptions. its funny that so many of the people that he is padering to are really startin to question his beliefs and convictions. hate to say it, the candidates will go for the cities, but the small town populance are the ones that are the most knowledgable voters, my opinion. they are so atarting to question everything. the repubs already know, but he dems are shifting. out of 14 clients i talked to today, 13 are voting mccain, and not because i held the shears to thier necks.
Oh really, so there’s “empirical” smoke. You know he “pulled” the “trigger”; you _know_ his intention was to remove all traces of criticism of the surge from his site; that his aim was “murderous” of Bush’s ‘rash war’. How amazingly prophetic.
Perhaps, Wendy Morigi, an aide to the Obama campaign can help with the “smoke”: she explained to the Daily News Obama was “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”
Which is true, as I peruse it almost daily, as well as McCain’s. Both appear, from my understanding of them, to react to the MSM currents. Which is understandable, and reasonable. One would expect that to be the case.
For example, You don’t see McCain’s site talking about this plan to privatize social security. But you can bet, when the MSM pushes this issue, their site will respond in some defensive fashion. And so it goes…
Obama’s going to Iraq– it’s big news –one would expect the site to do a revamp; so aides updated the site with the newest content on national security and foreign policy.
As I read the site on Iraq, it’s remained the same–albeit, it’s rhetoric is less strident and more centrist, but Obama’s policy, it’s themes remained largely the same.
For all purposes, the “surge” is over, Obama is now moving on and giving a more updated assessment of what he wants to do next. Obama has acknowledged, online and off, what went right with the surge, and what went wrong— We’ve all had an earful of it; he’s on record enough for most to know where he stands… not to mention his NYT piece and yesterdays speech on Iraq.
His poll bump, if he has one, won’t be from his site anyway, it’ll be from the MSM horde that’s going with him to Iraq.
The guy is almost as much of a media whore as McCain!
Aren’t they all, Doug? Certainly Mac doesn’t have the media attention and devotion he had years ago. So I’d have to say that JSM’s media whore status has been usurped by a younger whore…. ain’t it always the way? LOL
I would expect campaign sites to keep up with current events. That, however, is not the point here. BHO presents himself as fit for the CIC/POTUS because of “judgment”.
His judgment on the Surge in 2007 was “the surge is not working”. His judgment turns out to be wrong.
In NH, he continued that poor judgment. July 2007:
Again, his judgment is wrong. And he is too proud to admit his mistakes… a flaw they accuse GWB of daily.
Today BHO seeks not to update for current events, but to mask proof of his erroneous judgment of the military strategy. Why? Because the most important task of a POTUS is as a Commander in Chief, and this is BHO’s Achilles Heel. Here’s a guy, regurgitating his slightly morphed plan in an Iraq speech *before* he goes to Iraq. That’s a guy who has no intention of changing his plan, despite what commanders on the ground or the Iraqis say. Otherwise he would not have set himself up to deliberately be the fool.
One can only conclude that the arrogance the libs accuse GWB of is dwarfed by audacity and arrogance of the Jr. Sen from IL.
I’m no JSM fan, lord knows. And it’s genuinely hard for me to defend him and his flaws. But, all total, he stinks far less than the alternative.
Obama is the anti-Christ. He rose from no where and went to the top in no time. That is what the anti-Christ is capable of. Obama will tell you what you want to hear just to gain your trust. Then with a mighty blow the anti_Christ will distroy you. Don’t be fooled, open your eyes and run like your life depends on it…..Ofcourse this is only my personal opinion…