link

Speech on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama.:

 

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

 

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don?t oppose all wars.

 

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton?s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

 

link

I'm more likely to be forgiving of BO's gaffe than HRC's lie.  I don't care if it was his uncle or great uncle.  Nor does it matter which camp.  The event happened, even if some of the details got confused in the retelling.  In HRC's case, it was not a mistake or gaffe.  It was a straight out, brazen LIE.  She claimed to have ducked sniper fire, when she was actually greeted by children with flowers.   By no stretch of the imagination could have been a mistake--no matter how much reporters are willing to accept it as one.

 

Don't get me wrong, BO has gotten caught in his share of lies.  This just didn't happen to be one.

 

SW's link doesn't work!

YES IT DOES!!  use i.e. Explorer

 

 

swhitebull

It is nice that Obama uses a gaffe he has repeated several times to pander to Vets.  Of course, the MSM has yet to pick up on this little fact (he's repeated the gaffe since 2002).

 

It is nicer that a distant relative of his had the courage to help free prisoners from Hitler's death camps.

Yet, if Obama had his way....  Saddam would still be operating his death camps.

Shh!  You're not supposed to mention those, or the fact that the invasion halted Saddam's genocide of the Marsh Arabs and saved a 5000 year old culture from extinction.  Stuff like that could imply some degree of nobility in the cause, and we can't have that spread around the media, now can we?

 

Funny thing... saving ancient cultures from extinction was supposed to be a leftist thing, wasn't it?  But they dropped it like a hot potato when the saving was done by US troops.

SGTObvious

 

For a presidential aspirant to be ignorant of these basic historical facts exposes him as someone without serious preparation  for the most serious job in the world. In Barack Obama's case, the "L" word doesn't mean "Liberal", it means "Lightweight."

 

It remains to be seen if McCain can hammer Obama on his lack of historical insight and more importantly show that his remarks are more an attempt to pander than to demonstrate that he has an enlightened foreign policy outlook.

 

Pat Buchanan has a new book out Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War that appears to repeat his view that British support of Poland was unnecessary and the cause of WWII. This book will certainly be highly debated as it goes against generations of American propaganda about the need to become involved in the war in Europe and the war in China in 1941. The point of the book (when I finally get to read it) should open lines of debate that an experienced candidate can attempt to ratify or refute. Obama is of the camp that supports the reasons given for entering WWII. The U.S. liberated the extermination camps and to him that appears to be the reason we entered the war. Someone will eventually call him out on the fact that the camps were not started up until after the U.S. entered the war. If he wants to justify a war based on the barbarous acts of a dictatorship, then he will be faced with the conundrum that includes Iraq and our WWII ally the Soviet Union. 

 

If the U.S. involvement in WWII was to eliminate the terror of a Hitler dictatorship, then how does Iraq not meet the test? Neither Roosevelt or Bush used these reasons for getting into their wars. After the war was on or at the end, these acts of the dictators were used to justify an action that was not stated at the outing.

 

Obama says that he is not an isolationist, but that he opposes ?dumb wars.? If his understanding of history is not as deficient as indicated by his recent speeches, how are we to know that any action he may consider is smart or dumb? We need a president who understands when the interests of the United States are at risk. The war in Iraq may be considered a mistake in 50 years, but it may as likely be considered a bold and inspired action. Barack Obama shows a deficiency in his historical background to be a credible judge of this war, either for or against.