Obama’s Most “Gut Wrenching” Decision Was One He Never Actually Made

  •  August 19, 2008

At the Saddleback forum each candidate was asked about his most “gut wrenching” decision. McCain’s said his was the decision to undergo years of additional torture instead of allowing himself to be used as a propaganda tool for the Vietnamese communists.
Obama’s was a vote in the Senate that happened before he was a Senator.

When Warren asked Obama, “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve ever had to make?” Obama answered that opposing the war in Iraq was “as tough a decision that I’ve had to make, not only because there were political consequences but also because Saddam Hussein was a bad person and there was no doubt he meant America ill.”

Hindsight is 20/20. It’s very easy to make decisions after the fact.
Of course, now that the war is going a lot better than it was when Obama decided to make opposition to the war in Iraq an official part of his campaign I’ll bet Obama wishes he could go back and change things.

Tags: , , ,


«
»
  • http://Array RebTex

    J f’n K voted for it before he voted against it.
    Does that count?

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    The idea that Obama endangered his political career as an uber-liberal state senator from Hyde Park by being anti-war is just laughable.

    If that is this guy’s most gut-wrenching decision, he hasn’t seen enough of life to be fit for the White House.

  • Bat One

    Yep! Just like H’s first response when cornered is to try and change the subject to Bush and Cheney? My kids learned to stop doing that before they were out of Middle School.

  • atease

    I stand by my comment. How shallow was that..? It wasn’t on any vote he ever made. It wasn’t on policy he supported. It was about his candidacy. Someone above you made the comment about carrying a fellows jock…

    I supported the war. Still do. In fact, I want more of it. I want us to target and kill those who want to kill my children for no reason. Maybe your bleeding heart wants to talk and appease, but I don’t. They want my kids dead. Let me say that louder so you can hear and f’n understand where I am coming from. They want to kill my children.

    I take their threat seriously. More people should.

    atease

  • Bat One

    A truly “courageous” decision would have been for Obama to publicly acknowledge that his opposition too the “Surge” strategy of General Petraeus was wrong, and that rather than making the situation Iraq far worse, as Obama predicted, the general’s strategy is exactly why discussions about US withdrawals are taking place.

    That sort of admission by Obama would have shown me courage and integrity. So far, Barack Obama has shown me neither.

  • Jay

    I love how you ignorant liberals classify any dissent against The One as “a lie.”

    Very Stalinesque.

    You go ahead and hide behind your goons Rob. Anyone with a brain knows you purposely lied about what Obama said because it was politically expedient. Now you’re backpeddling. You lie, they change the subject. You’re getting too used to it and you’re getting sloppy. What about your OP isn’t a lie?

    For God’s sake, just cop to it.

  • Jay

    Oh stop. That’s pathetic. Again, you’re too smart to play dumb. You said:

    Obama’s was a vote in the Senate that happened before he was a Senator.

    That’s a lie. And it was done purposely. Unless, of course, (in borrowing your legal analogy) you admit it was gross negligence on your part.

  • Hannitized

    .I can empathise with you on that. I’m sure it was quite a disappointment.

    The war surely was. And the fact that guys like Rob choose to re-write history and make the conscious choice to ignore how united the country was back then, it was very hard to question the administration after the success in Afghanistan and the pride we had as Americans to defeat our enemies.

  • Hannitized

    Hannitized, before his speech in 2004 no one knew who he was.

    According to whom? In Hawaii, he was well known.

    You had to have been deeply engrossed in local Illinois politics, a Weatherman, or a member of a racist South Side cult (TUCC or NOI, take your pick) to even know who the guy was.

    Well I can’t speak for others. I am a personal friend of the family. I am close friends with his sister.

    Why do yo feel you can speak for everybody?

  • Jay

    So it’s a lie because you say it was a lie.

    Umm. Rob…it’s a lie because Obama said nothing about his decision being a vote, as is the crux of your OP. Only after being called on it, did your minions decide to change the meaning of your OP.

    Why don’t you just admit that your Messiah said something stupid and move on?

    Mainly becuase I don’t think it WAS stupid. And even if it WAS stupid, by your definition, it’s still not a lie. You lied. And you’re a coward for not admitting it. You can try to change the subject all you want Rob, it doesn’t change the fact that your OP is a lie.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    he was not an outspoken opponent

    Heh, neither was Obama. No one pays attention to nobodies. He was an Illinois senator – no one gave a damn about his views on anything outside of Illinois.

  • Hannitized

    In todays political climate, it is probably every politicians first thought Bat. For if you aren’t in position to implement change, all of your great ideas are useless.

    But I am sure you know this.

  • Jay

    Then why the hell do we care what Obama said when he was a backbencher in the Illinois senate?

    You obviously wouldn’t care…because you like war. But unless you’re completely daft, the political climate of that time did not lend itself to ANYONE not supporting this war. There is a reason there are relatively few politicians who can claim that, either “back-bench” or otherwise.

    But that’s beside the point. Even if you don’t agree with Obama that his decision to oppose the war was “gut wrenching”, Rob lied in his analysis of the topic. And you guys are covering for him…like you always do.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Obama said nothing about his decision being a vote

    Then why the hell do we care what Obama said when he was a backbencher in the Illinois senate? No one knew who the hell he was.

    Your whole argument is inane, Jay.

  • Bat One

    I wonder exactly who these “goons” are you’re supposedly hiding behind, Rob. After all, its dem other guys that are Democrats and union apologists who refuse to condemn violence and intimidation against those with whom they disagree.

    Jay’s intemperate remarks say more about his mindset and his own limited cognitive powers than they say about principled conservatives.

  • Hannitized

    Keep pounding Jay, they know its a lie. They are trying to change the subject with everything they’ve got.

    Rob knows the game. Rob parrots other, real bloggers and gives his goons more lying talking points to spread around to their idiot constituency.

    If Rob isn’t going to admit to his mistakes, then it makes them lies, and if he won’t admit they are lies, than it makes him stupid. Either way, it doesn’t look to good for him.

  • atease

    His most gut wrenching decision was to run his entire democratic campaign on that single issue. So, the decision that mattered most to this man was a decision about HIS political life. Not an issue that matters to any other person in this world outside his family. What a joke.

  • RebTex

    “He obviously made a risky decision based on his principles”
    .
    .
    .Much like a parent in the stands at a friday night football game decides the next offensive play.
    If you’re not in a position for your decision to make any difference, why would you consider it to be such a big deal?

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    It’s not just on this Ken. Hannitized ALWAYS moves the goalposts because he’s never right.

    The rewrite of history is in full swing. Obama was courageous in his opposition…even though he didn’t even speak out until AFTER the war was started. With 8 long months of buildup, he couldn’t be bothered to speak up when it was pertinent? Only after? That’s courage? Puh-lease.

    Then the man of principle came to the Senate and voted to extend the war before voting against it.

    He’s full of crap and so are his supporters.

  • crshedd

    can you provide the clip where obama said his most gut wrenching decision was a vote?

    Obama’s was a vote in the Senate that happened before he was a Senator.

    oh, wait. he didn’t say anything about a vote. you did.

  • RebTex

    “…and might have been encouraged by people like me who would love to have someone with the courage to speak out against what most wouldn’t? … Because to so many of us on the left, it was a HUGE mistake to invade Iraq. We encouraged him…”
    .
    .
    .I can empathise with you on that.
    I’m sure it was quite a disappointment.

  • Bat One

    For if you aren’t in position to implement change, all of your great ideas are useless.

    Well, so much for any notion that Mr. Obama is burdened with any sort of principles.

  • RebTex

    “Except for the fact that having a voice and a loud one mattered, especially when few people were listening.” .
    .
    Yes…and if he were in the Senate or House of Representatives, it would have mattered.
    But, alas, he was on the sidelines……..
    .
    .
    “Had there been more, perhaps the war could have been avoided?”"
    .
    .
    .I dunno….Let’s see what clintoon thought on the subject at the time…..

  • Hannitized

    The giant thinkers of SAB weigh in:

    So, the decision that mattered most to this man was a decision about HIS political life.

    Actually, it was the decision to oppose a war that everybody else supported.

    Much like a parent in the stands at a friday night football game decides the next offensive play.
    If you’re not in a position for your decision to make any difference, why would you consider it to be such a big deal?

    Except for the fact that having a voice and a loud one mattered, especially when few people were listening. Had there been more, perhaps the war could have been avoided?

    Obama, widely viewed as the party’s rising star, has spoken openly against the Iraq War since its inception, beginning with an October 2002 speech he gave alongside Jesse Jackson. At the time, Obama suggested the war was a ploy to distract voters from domestic issues impacting minorities.

    Standing in Chicago’s Federal Plaza, Obama declared, “What I am opposed to is the attempt by potential hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty state, a drop in the medium income–to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thorough the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I am opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war, a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.”

    Obama went on to explain that “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequence of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequence. I know that an invasion of Iraq without clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.”

    Spot on!! You can’t catch Bush being that precise, that early on.

    Squirm worms, squirm.

  • Jay

    Wow. Rob blatantly lies and you guys hold his jock. Good gig if you can get it I guess.

  • atease

    Actually, it was the decision to oppose a war that everybody else supported.

    Not everyone supported it, giant thinker. The point was the decision that was most gut wrenching to him was what to base his candidacy on. How shallow is that…?

    atease

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Show me what other candidates that ran for president opposed the war. If you can do that I will concede. Otherwise, I would advise that you STFU on that particular point.

    Dennis Kucinich was opposed to the war when he ran in 2004.

    Hell, Mike Gravel is a Troother, who thinks we need to investigate 911.

    I guess we see who needs to STFU eh Hanntized?

  • Hannitized

    Oh I am not speaking for everybody.

    Just the 95% of Illinoisians who had never heard of him before he ran for senate either.

    I don’t think you can demonstrate that you can speak accurately to the ignorance of 95% of a population, but if anyone can do that, it would be you. Personally, I think you you have to be projecting.

    I would be one thing if you are talking about things everyone knows, you know like Angelina Jolie stole Brad Pit, but this is like trying to demonstrate that people don’t know who Paris Hilton is….i mean, you guys made the comparison.

  • sayanything-2407

    From what I gather after reading some articles on this, Obama was giving his opinion on the toughest decision he had to make in opposing the war, not about any sort of voting record.

    “The opposition to the war in Iraq is hee touhest DECISION he had to ever make. Not only because of the political consequences, but also because Saddam Hussien was a real bad person and there was no doubt that he meant America ill. But I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and there was alot of questions, that as I spoke to experts, kept on coming up.

    Do we know how the sunnie, the shia and the kurds are going to get along in a post-saddam situation?

    Whats our assessment of how this will affect the the battle agisnt al-queda?

    Have we finished the job in Afghanistan?”

    Fox News Video

    More videos on this can be seen HERE

    Now I will say, what he said makes it SEEM as if he was one of the people voting and making the decisions on this, but in no were in the video segment did I hear anything about his gut-wrenching moment be about VOTING on this.

  • Hannitized

    Just like your Messiah made Russia sign a cease fire simply by demanding it. Just like he’ll likely make the poor rich and the hungry fed just by thinking about it.

    Bat, did you kids learn to stop changing the subject like Rob as well?

    Just curious.

  • Hannitized

    Ken,

    You know, I didn’t think I had to include the word Democratic candidate, because I truly didn’t think you would be that obtuse as to include a Republican candidate. As if the Dems could vote for him.

    And as far as Gravel goes, he was not an outspoken opponent to the Iraq war.

    And as to the request to STFU….well, I would never stifle free speech, but you certainly lost that point. Keeping your mouth shut would be good advice, but if you wan’t to continue looking ignorant, that is your choice. God Bless America for your right to make non-points.

  • Hannitized

    It would have been courageous if George Bush could admit he was wrong when he said the UN was not effective at containing Saddam Hussein. We know now that it was.

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    Obama stated quite clearly what the political risks and ramifications could be. They could damage his political career and indeed, it could have.
    Just because you don’t understand that people have to make personal choices that impact their lives doesn’t mean anything. Somehow you got it in your head that it had to impact others. How and why you did that, I will never know?

    He opposed a war that had already been started. His “hard decision” gave him a lime light he’d never had before. He was a nobody posteuring, holding a position that didn’t matter.

    Maybe you like to overstate how hard this was to make Obama seem saintly. To the rest of us, it’s bullshit.

  • Hannitized

    The idea that Obama endangered his political career as an uber-liberal state senator from Hyde Park by being anti-war is just laughable.

    Ken,

    Show me what other candidates that ran for president opposed the war. If you can do that I will concede. Otherwise, I would advise that you STFU on that particular point.

  • Hannitized

    Why do you say that Bat? I said it was a consideration. He obviously made a risky decision based on his principles. But it is not like you don’t consider them while you are making a decision.

  • Jay

    That’s profound Rob. Too bad the question was “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you ever had to make and how did you process that to come to that decision?” and not “what’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve had to make as a US Senator”.

    Perhaps you would’ve preferred that he borrow a touching story from Alexander Solzhenitsyn from his times in the Soviet Gulags.

    Snip*

    Along with other prisoners, he worked in the fields day after day, in rain and sun, during summer and winter.

    His life appeared to be nothing more than backbreaking labor and slow starvation.

    The intense suffering reduced him to a state of despair.

    On one particular day, the hopelessness of his situation became too much for him.

    He saw no reason to continue his struggle, no reason to keep on living.

    His life made no difference in the world.

    So he gave up.

    Leaving his shovel on the ground, he slowly walked to a crude bench and sat down.

    He knew that at any moment a guard would order him to stand up, and when he failed to respond, the guard would beat him to death, probably
    with his own shovel. He had seen it happen to other prisoners.

    As he waited, head down, he felt a presence.

    Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside
    him.

    The man said nothing.

    Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross.

    The man then got back up and returned to his work.

    As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire
    perspective changed.

    He knew he was only one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire.

    Yet he knew there was something greater than the evil he saw in the
    prison camp, something greater than the Soviet Union.

    He knew that hope for all people was represented by that simple Cross.
    Through the power of the Cross, anything was possible.

    Solzhenitsyn slowly rose to his feet, picked up his shovel, and went
    back to work.

    Outwardly, nothing had changed.

    Inside, he had received hope.

    Pathetic. I think a fair question now is how much of John McCain’s service record is also “borrowed”?

  • Bill Mitchell

    Hilarious Faux Book Cover.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Why do yo feel you can speak for everybody?

    Oh I am not speaking for everybody.

    Just the 95% of Illinoisians who had never heard of him before he ran for senate either.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    But unless you’re completely daft, the political climate of that time did not lend itself to ANYONE not supporting this war. There is a reason there are relatively few politicians who can claim that, either “back-bench” or otherwise.

    Your memory is faulty. We had a long, dragged out runup to the invasion of Iraq where plenty of people were lauded for their anti-war views, and plenty of people were openly opposed to the war. Obama was not some brave little voice in the wilderness. Your attempt to rewrite history on this point just fails.

    But that’s beside the point. Even if you don’t agree with Obama that his decision to oppose the war was “gut wrenching”, Rob lied in his analysis of the topic. And you guys are covering for him…like you always do.

    Absolutely wrong. Obama was a nobody when this vote was taken. He is trying to puff himself up by making it appear that anyone back then gave a rat’s ass what he thought.

    Because no one did give a rat’s ass what he thought, and so endangering his invisible career was impossible.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    People did care, that is why he gave the speech along side Jesse Jackson.

    Hannitized, before his speech in 2004 no one knew who he was. When the 2003 vote on the Iraq War took place, Obama was a complete nobody.

    Hell I live in Illinois, and until he ran for senate I had never heard of him.

    You had to have been deeply engrossed in local Illinois politics, a Weatherman, or a member of a racist South Side cult (TUCC or NOI, take your pick) to even know who the guy was.

  • Hannitized

    How was this a gut wrenching decision? His “decision” impacted nothing, affected nothing, changed nothing, and had no consequences whatsoever.

    Kenny,

    Obama stated quite clearly what the political risks and ramifications could be. They could damage his political career and indeed, it could have.

    Just because you don’t understand that people have to make personal choices that impact their lives doesn’t mean anything. Somehow you got it in your head that it had to impact others. How and why you did that, I will never know?

  • Hannitized

    He is trying to puff himself up by making it appear that anyone back then gave a rat’s ass what he thought.

    Ken,

    People did care, that is why he gave the speech along side Jesse Jackson. You may not value it, but it doesn’t mean the rest of us didn’t.

    Why can’t you just admit Rob lied and that you guys are spinning. If the best you have is to cling to emotions and non-factual events, you should be spending more time on the fantasy football league websites.

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    That’s profound Rob. Too bad the question was “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you ever had to make and how did you process that to come to that decision?” and not “what’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve had to make as a US Senator”.

    So, then the question is: How was this a gut wrenching decision? His “decision” impacted nothing, affected nothing, changed nothing, and had no consequences whatsoever. I can’t see how this decision would be gut wrenching at all, unless one is so childishly self absorbed that they actually believe every decision they make matters to the world. When Obama came out against the war, we had already invaded. And most people reacted to his pronouncement with “And who are you?”

    So, unless Obama truly believes that his opinion on the war helped set policy, how was this a tough decision. The hacks I’m seeing here are you four.

    What tools. The lot of you.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Why can’t you just admit Rob lied and that you guys are spinning.

    Why can’t you admit that not every opinion that clashes with yours is a lie?

  • Hannitized

    Rob never tires of his political hackery. This is just too comical.

  • Hannitized

    Uh . . . Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are now suddenly Republicans?

    Im sorry, my bad, I was imagining Ron Paul. And I can’t find any speech where Gravel was opposing the Iraq war. Google it, try for yourself.

    Well I see the goalposts are continuing to move here. First Obama was brave because no politicians other than him anywhere, apparently, opposed the war.

    Then it became presidential candidates that opposed the war.

    Well, it sort of makes picking a presidential candidate easier when they actually ran for president Ken. How do you vote for a guy who hasn’t ran? Mind explaining that to me.

    And as far as Gravel goes, I didn’t know anything about him until today. I never even bothered. This guy was never a serious contender. And there is nothing that I could find showing he gave a speech to contest the President, anywhere.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    It would have been courageous if George Bush could admit he was wrong when he said the UN was not effective at containing Saddam Hussein. We know now that it was.

    LOL

    Once in a while you come up with a real howler, Hannitized.

    Saddam Hussein had the UN in his pocket – do you know nothing about the Oil-for-Food scandal, the largest financial scandal in the history of the entire world?

    Sheesh, the UN didn’t have a single soldier stationed anywhere near Iraq . . . and the U.S. forces sitting just over the border in Saudi since the Gulf War just . . . had nothing whatsoever to do with keeping Saddam inside Iraq’s borders?

    Wow Hannitized this is a poor performance even for you.

  • Hannitized

    do you know nothing about the Oil-for-Food scandal, the largest financial scandal in the history of the entire world?

    haha!

    And what exactly does that have to do with the WMDs that Bush said he had, you know, that he actually didn’t? The fact of the matter is, UN inspectors challenged Bush and they were silenced and the UN was successful at preventing Saddam from developing weapons and taking the ones he had from him.

    History proves this.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Oh yeah, like being anti-war in the Democratic party makes one ‘brave’ or ‘courageous’.

    It is like saying that Bush’s policy of cutting taxes was ‘brave’ or ‘courageous’ in the Republican party.

    Democrats will take credit for anything, everything, or nothing at all, apparently.

  • RebTex

    I, too, have been forced to such horrific decisions.
    One time, I had to decide wheither to change lanes to miss a turtle as it crossed a highway.
    .
    .
    What a nothing excuse for an answer.
    Almost as vacant as his abortion answer…which, as an answer, was an abortion in every sense of the word….

  • Bat One

    I find it instructive that the very first consideration offered by the young Mr. Obama are what he identified as the “political consequences.” It gives us quite an insight into the man’s after-the-fact priorities.

    Obama’s answer reminds me in a way, the structure and intonation of what he says, of Richard Nixon’s famous aside to the secret recorder and to John Dean in the Oval Office, “… but that would be wrong.”

  • Hannitized

    The point was the decision that was most gut wrenching to him was what to base his candidacy on. How shallow is that…?

    Well, um…..gee…you think that because after the war he might have recognized that the country cant afford any more nimble minded politicians (who didn’t have the courage to stand against dumb wars), and might have been encouraged by people like me who would love to have someone with the courage to speak out against what most wouldn’t?

    If you know anything about Obama you would know, because of our foolish decision to race to war, it caused him to want to pre-maturely seek the office. Because to so many of us on the left, it was a HUGE mistake to invade Iraq. We encouraged him.

    People like us want someone who thought about it differently than Bush and his neocons. So it preempted him to run. Had the war worked differently he might not be in this position.

  • Hannitized

    And what are you talking about? He gave his speech with Jesse Jackson in 2002. Even Fox News highlighted his opposition to the war tonight on the character story they presented on him.

    Again, just because you don’t care doesn’t mean nobody else did.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Republican candidate

    Uh . . . Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are now suddenly Republicans?

    You smokin’ that kona gold again my friend?

    he was not an outspoken opponent

    Well I see the goalposts are continuing to move here. First Obama was brave because no politicians other than him anywhere, apparently, opposed the war.

    Then it became presidential candidates that opposed the war.

    Now that Hannitized learns that Kucinich opposed the war he suddenly becomes a Republican.

    And then Mike Gravel doesn’t count because he wasn’t outspoken enough about the war to really count.

    You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game Hannitized.

  • Hannitized

    I think it would have been courageous if the President and the Vice President admitted that they were wrong to invade Iraq, and that they were wrong when they claimed that the insurgency was in its last throes and in the loose ties they implied with Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

    I guess since the bar is set so low, he imagines how much better he looks for simply being so vocal about the issue.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Well, it sort of makes picking a presidential candidate easier when they actually ran for president Ken. How do you vote for a guy who hasn’t ran? Mind explaining that to me.

    For fuck’s sake Hannitized . . . Obama wasn’t even running for president yet when the Iraq war vote was taken.

    How, then, did he bravely and courageously endanger his presidential career?

    Answer: he didn’t. All he did was get approving nods from the brie and wine set in Hyde Park.

    Not exactly a profile in courage.

  • sayanything-2407

    By the way, sorry about the mispellings, was trying to type directly from the fox news video of what Obama was saying, so was flipping back and forth, stopping video and typing, starting it back up…ect

  • Bat One

    Why do you say that Bat? I said it was a consideration.

    H,

    You have misinterpreted my comment. What you said about it is irrelevant. My comment was based on the quote from Obama in the original post, not on your explanation of what you generously thought he might have meant.

  • http://www.wethepeopleforum.com/forum/forums.asp golfmann

    I see the DNC plants are re-grouping…

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Anyone else notice how Jay’s first impulse in this thread was to ignore his Messiah’s stupidity and go straight after McCain?

    And he accuses us of changing the subject.

    Why don’t you just admit that your Messiah said something stupid and move on?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    So it’s a lie because you say it was a lie.

    Just like your Messiah made Russia sign a cease fire simply by demanding it. Just like he’ll likely make the poor rich and the hungry fed just by thinking about it.

    Gotcha. Well done, counselor.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    You go ahead and hide behind your goons Rob. Anyone with a brain knows you purposely lied about what Obama said because it was politically expedient. Now you’re backpeddling. You lie, they change the subject. You’re getting too used to it and you’re getting sloppy. What about your OP isn’t a lie?

    So…you’re going to accuse me of lying, and then demand that I prove I’m not lying?

    What about innocent until proven guilty, counselor?

    I’m not lying. Your messiah said what he said. Don’t kill the messenger.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Wow. Rob blatantly lies and you guys hold his jock. Good gig if you can get it I guess.

    I love how you ignorant liberals classify any dissent against The One as “a lie.”

    Very Stalinesque.

    By the way, it’s hilarious that Obama wants us to believe that his decision to oppose the war in Iraq was gut-wrenching. There was nothing resting on that decision, and coming from the radical left-wing background he came from it was a no-brainer.

    Gut wrenching my ass.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Umm. Rob…it’s a lie because Obama said nothing about his decision being a vote, as is the crux of your OP.

    That’s not the crux of my OP at all.

    Obama said opposing the war was the most gut-wrenching decision he ever made. But he was a state senator at the time. He didn’t have to make a decision. Nobody cared what he thought. It’s a big nothing.

    Honestly, Jay, if you have to resort of this level of parsing to make your point you should just pack it up and go home.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development