I Wish I Were In Paris

From war to peace and politics to gossip, if we have an opinion on something we'll share it here.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Obama On King

How many of you sycophantic Obama worshippers out there watched your Savior on Larry King Live last night?

I didn't bother. Better things to watch on television.

However, part of the fun of knowing that he was on is to get the transcript the next day. Transcipts are always fun because you have a record of what was said.

Putting aside the fact that there are times when Senator Obama talks like George W. Bush (and, by that, I mean the words that he chooses, not the warmongering speech, though we'll get to that), I thought it was a typical, hack King interview.

Obama was in usual form, trying to prove himself to be the best choice for the American empire.

Allow me to pick this interview apart and show you that the would-be emperor has no clothes.

King started with the New Yorker magazine cover (which you'll see below on this site) and Obama shrugged it off at first. Then he got it in his head that he might be able to make points with some of the Muslim voters out there and said that it was an insult to them.

Funny, coming from the man whose campaign told Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison they didn't need him to campaign for them.

As Ellison tells the story, "But before the rally could take place, aides to Mr. Obama asked Mr. Ellison to cancel the trip because it might stir controversy. Another aide appeared at Mr. Ellison's Washington office to explain.

"'I will never forget the quote,' Mr. Ellison said, leaning forward in his chair as he recalled the aide's words. 'He said, 'We have a very tightly wrapped message.'"

Funny, coming from the man whose campaign told two women in Detroit that they didn't want them sitting behind the Senator, at least not with their head scarves on because, you know, John McCain might make some kind of commercial about Obama supporting Muslims.

Obama is going to pretend like he's tolerant about Muslims but the New Yorker is intolerant, even after these two episodes and perhaps more that we haven't heard about?

When King continued to talk about how the imbeciles in this country actually believe Obama is a Muslim, Obama's response was to tell Larry King how he confronts these fools (and please tell me that it doesn't sound like Obama is being intolerant):

"Well, you know, by getting on LARRY KING and telling everybody I'm a Christian and I wasn't raised in a Muslim home and I pledge allegiance to the flag and, you know, all the things that have been reported in these e-mails are completely untrue and have been debunked again and again and again."

You know, if I want to be a real shit, I can read this comment exactly the way it reads, through the complete fault of Barack Obama.

It reads like he's saying that Muslims do not pledge allegiance to the flag, doesn't it?

Well, if Barack hadn't tried to get everything in in one go, it wouldn't have sounded like that. But restraint has never been a strong point for Obama.

Tough shit. I still hearken back to the other happenings in his campaign where it concerns Muslims to point out the fact that he has absolutely no currency in calling the New Yorker intolerant.

He gets in one more shot at the end by saying that this "is not what America is all about".

One of these days, I wish Obama would try to explain what America IS all about because it seems like it would interesting to have him tell us some more lies about this warmongering country that calls itself the "beacon of freedom".

Moving along...

King asked him about Iraq.

We ended up getting the usual answer about national security (which, to me, has always meant security for corporations and the puppets owned by them and to hell with the people of this country).

But, of course, Obama couldn't just regurgitate the same words that hundreds before him have uttered. He has to tell us that he's sooooo much different than John McCain and here's how.

John McCain said we'd be greeted as liberators and Obama never did.

And?

Bush and McCain didn't weigh the cost with the benefit.

Benefit?

Obama then went to the numbers.

And, people, if you just nodded your head and said, "Yup, yup, yup", as he continued on and on about the cost, then you might be allowed to sit behind him at one of his rallies. Just make sure you're not a Muslim.

Because if you nodded your head and said, "Yup, yup, yup", you are completely brain dead. How many times has Obama voted to send money, the very same money he went on and on about, down the rat hole? He's against the war, right? Yet he keeps voting on spending to continue it? Makes no sense whatsoever.

He mentioned the situation in Afghanistan and how it's deteriorating. He called Afghanistan "the central front against terrorism".

Part of the desire of the thugs who run this puppet is to return to Afghanistan to get that gas and oil pipeline up and running and then to focus on going after Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

This, in turn, pushes up against China (whom the US denigrates at every drop of the hat) and Russia (a particular favorite "enemy" of the US and, in particular, Zbigniew Brzezinski; remember him?) and the US gets to antagonize them, as well, thumbing their nose at the world, as it were.

So you trot out the puppet and you get him to talk about how bad things are happening in Afghanistan.

Oh, not to the still beyond impoverished (a generous word; their situation is far worse than simply impoverished, hence the modifer beyond) people of Afghanistan; the US couldn't care less about them.

No, they trot the puppet out to get him to talk about how bad things are happening to US troops in Afghanistan, hence the comment about the "brazen attack" on the US base that left nine troops dead.

King played a clip of McCain talking about how, in King's words, Obama is going about Iraq backwards.

Obama responded by stating the obvious, that McCain was in a political campaign.

And you, sir? What is it you're doing again?

He continued and basically said that McCain was a doody-face. Okay, he didn't say that but he might as well have. He went back to the numbers and how we need to not just be spending here at home but somewhere else, too. Afghanistan was that somewhere else. But not on the people of Afghanistan, of course.

King took a break and came back asking about Bin Laden. How would Obama get him, would Obama go into Pakistan to do so.

Obama basically said, "Sure, why not?"

His actual quote was: "...if we had actionable intelligence on those high-value targets, then we should go after them."

I have quoted Obama as having said this before and I have gotten responses asking what is wrong with doing what Obama is advocating. The next time Mexico decides to go after a criminal that's skipped to the US or Canada decides to chase a bail-jumper across the border using F-16s and tanks, we'll get together and talk, okay? I can't wait for the responses about how Bin Laden is more than a simple criminal or bail-jumper.

Obama, however, is never one to stop at just crossing a border and bombing whatever country seems fun that day, with actionable intelligence, of course.

Obama said that the US needs to form a stronger relationship with the Pakistani government and that Musharraf was a waste of time. Duh! But I'd really love to know how crossing into Pakistan without their permission is going to form a stronger relationship. If any Obamaist out there can tell me how this is going to work, I'd love to hear the explanation.

The next comment on Pakistan was an advocation of committing crimes against humanity.

Obama's own words:

"And what we need to do is to form an alliance with the Pakistani people, saying that we're willing to significantly increase aid for humanitarian purposes, for schools, for hospitals, for health care. We want to support democratic efforts in Pakistan.

"But, in exchange, we've got to have some firmness about going after al Qaeda and Taliban, because it's not good for American security, but it's also not good for Pakistani security."

Withholding aid from the Pakistani people because they don't do what you want them to do? This is a crime against humanity.

Obama called himself a Christian earlier in the interview. Doesn't sound very Christian-like to me.

This is change?

And, finally, he says that he wants to have an alliance with the people themselves and, apparently by his second set of comments, he wants the average Pakistani to turn in their neighbors or else they don't get the medicine they need to survive another week.

This is the guy that so many of you want to vote for? He comes right out and says that he will withhold aid from Pakistan if they don't do our bidding and he said it in fucking public last night and you still want to vote for this fucker?

Understand that nothing is going to change in the way of trials under an Obama administration.

King asked him if the US got its hands on Bin Laden and he was still alive, would he be brought back to the US for trial?

Obama said:

"Well, I think that, you know, we want to capture him or kill him. And as I've said -- as I just said this past weekend, if we captured him, then we would want to put him on trial. And I think he would be deserving of the death penalty."

Let's take this a step at time. He wants to kill Osama Bin Laden, if the US doesn't capture him. Again, not too Christ-like. Christ said to love your enemies. But you know...

Then he says that the US would put him on trial. He immediately and without hesitation believes that Bin Laden would be found guilty so much so that he's already talking death penalty.

This might be the red meat that you toss to sycophants and gun nuts and people like Nancy Grace, who believes everyone should have the switch thrown on them.

But toss this line out to someone that actually has a brain that's not addled and the question has to be, "Would it even be a fair trial?"

King didn't stick around on that subject any longer than he usually does with any other topic and moved on to advisers and military commanders and how Obama would work with them.

Anyone else feel like falling over when Obama said this:

"And I think, for example, General Petraeus has done a terrific job with the cards that have been dealt to him."

Oh, okay, sure.

Anyone up for waffles?

Obama did it within maybe a minute or two as King asked him how the search for Spock, I mean, the veep nominee was going.

"Well, Larry, what I've said is I will not talk about the vice presidential process until I introduce my vice presidential nominee."

Don't you love the arrogance? Not to worry, though, Warmonger Obama is about to flip-flop.

King "presses" the issue, as only Larry King can. Excuse me, I had to laugh there.

He asked Obama, "But the question was how is the process going?" It's almost as if King is pleading here.

Obama: "Yes, the process is going well."

I'm confused. I thought he wasn't going to discuss the process. Oh, never mind.

King asked about Bill Clinton and whether Obama's going to "utilize" his "talents".

Obama talks about his school-girl crush on Bill Clinton and it just rings phony from a guy whose campaign painted Bill Clinton as a racist for the last eight months.

But I think the funnier bit is when he started to talk about Bush, Sr.

I always think it's funny when Obama opens his mouth about history and past doings, because it points out that he has no clue what he's talking about, that he only does it so he can pretend like he's a genius and dazzle the shit out of the already-lost sycophants.

Last night's interview was no different.

"I think on the foreign policy front, George Bush, Sr., has a lot of wisdom to impart. And his foreign policy team, you know, people like Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell, are extraordinary thinkers."

That, right there, is a group of cockroaches that should never, ever be praised for the shit they've all pulled.

Let's go down the hill starting with Senior Bush.

His foreign policy, Obama says, was wise.

Really?

How wise was it to target one man in Panama and, in the process, kill thousands of people? I don't know if Obama understands why the US went after Noriega but it had nothing to do with his being a drug trafficker.

How wise was it to go after another puppet that stepped out of line in Iraq? I'd love to hear from anyone that wound up with Gulf War Syndrome that thinks it was a good idea. I'll let you in on a little secret: I've talked with Gulf War vets that have this supposedly non-existent disease and they didn't see anything wise about that policy.

These are but two of the supposedly "wise" foreign policy decisions of George H.W. Bush.

Next, Obama mentioned Jim Baker. Jim Baker, the architect of the scheme to get the current disaster of an administration into power. Obviously very praise-worthy.

Brent Scowcroft. Don't ask me what Obama sees in this guy. Oh, I guess because he used his brain where it concerned going into Iraq in 2003. Shit, Obama should choose me as an advisor. I could have told him that.

And finally, Colin Powell. And please don't get me started on this guy. I will say just a few words about Powell.

My Lai cover-up.

Iran-Contra and Casper Wineburger.

"My response would be I wasn't in the government." Powell said this when asked by Seymour Hersh what his response would be if a vet with Gulf War Syndrome where to come to him for answers.

And finally, recall the vial-holding bullshit session in the U.N. before the current war in Iraq was launched.

Sounds like all wise things to me.

I think Mr. Obama has a problem with moths. I believe they're eating his brain.

1 Comments:

  • At 3:31 PM, Blogger John Maszka said…

    Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs and a nuclear arsenol. Pakistan also has the support of China. The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
People Who Are Violent to Animals ... Rarely Stop There
Palm Springs Real Estate
Air Filter