DID OBAMA'S OWN POLITICAL PAST KEEP HIM FROM SPEAKING OUT ON IRAN?

President Obama has taken a lot of justifiable criticism for his tepid responses to the crisis in Iran. His failure to speak out forcefully on behalf of free and honest elections and support of the demonstrators have earned this criticism. But one has to wonder if his own political past is playing a role.

Obama has made the statement that voices must be heard and every vote must count. But the last time we heard Obama make that statement was during the Democratic primary battle with

Hillary Clinton where it was clear he was saying one thing and doing another.

During that primary battle he did everything in his power to suppress the votes of almost 2 million voters in Florida and Michigan because both states voted overwhelmingly against him in the Democratic primary. Both states had moved their primary election ahead of where the DNC wanted them, something other states also did but did not face the sanctions threatened by the DNC. The difference was the size of both states and the number of votes and delegates that would have gone to Hillary Clinton.

As those who remember, it was probably the most shameless moment in Democratic Party poltics since the corrupt of Boss Tweed.

The memory of Florida and Michigan protestors attending the meeting of the DNC Rules Committee and staging protests outside with signs similar to what we have seen in Iran, has not been forgotten. Nor has the excuses made that 2 million voters deserved to lose their votes because of the actions of a handful of peolple in the respective state parties who moved the elections up. ( by the way, the other states who did the same including the state of Delaware were not sanctioned or even threatened with losing their delegates).

At the time Obama, who had been campaigning using the slogan that voices must be heard and every vote must count, did all he could to make sure those 2 million votes didn't count until it didn't matter anymore. Only then did he petition the rules committee to allow the Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated something he could have done months earlier.

As events unfold in Iran,one can only wonder if Obama's own political past and images of thousands of Florida and Michigan voters taking to the streets to demand that their votes be counted, votes he was instrumental in suppressing, has in any way shaped his own reluctance to speak out and be faced with accusations of hypocrisy.

WHY TAX DAY TEA PARTIES ARE FULL OF HOT JULY 4TH AIR.

Political organizers of the April 15th Tax Day Tea Party have scheduled new tea parties for July 4th. And a look at their site reveals their complaints: too many taxes, higher deficits and they don't like Obama's economic plan. Well, I havent been crazy about it either.

But the problem with the Tax Day Tea Party movement is that the chief organizers, the same people who are now complaining about deficits, are the same people who kept their mouths shut for 8 years while George W Bush ran the country into the ground with his nonsensical, inept incompetent policies, enabled by a compliant, irresponsible Republican congress.Which reveals the Tax Day Tea Party movement in terms of the organizers as nothing more than a partisan political event.
'
There were no complaints about the deficit from conservatives or Republicans when Bush became the first President in history to lower taxes and take the country to war at the same time, which is what exploded the deficit in the first place. They said nothing when the Iraq war was burning through $1 billion a day as the worst foreign policy decision in American history as well as the most mismanaged ill conceived post war fiasco. They also had nothing to say when Paul O'Neill, Bush's Secretary of the Treasury quit over Bush's economic polices, policies which led to the worst economic disaster since the Depression.

The point is the tax day tea party of both April 15th and now July 4th is not the grass roots effort it pretends to be, but a woefully transparent partisan exercise by conservatives who ran from the truth for 8 years like a vampire runs from a crucifix and are now cloaking their partisan agenda as some kind of grassroots non-partisan effort. That was obvious when the April 15th tax day tea party in New York City featured Newt Gingrich as the keynote speaker, a man who couldn't get himself elected dog catcher in New York City.

All one has to do is look at the Official Tax Day Tea Party web site to see what a partisan exercise it is. Which is not to say that the organizers haven't duped a lot of sincere people who have something less than confidence in Obama and how he is handling the Presidency. Count me as one of those. But the tax day tea party reveals itself to be essentially a partisan sham.

This is an excerpt from the home page of the tax day tea party site.

"Obama and liberals in Congress are taking us down the road to socialism, seizing control of key banks, insurance companies, the automobile industry, etc. They are currently working on a government funded national health care program which is expected to cost roughly $2 trillion while rationing services."

Obviously the far right has not learned their lesson -- that they are not going to lie their way into political power. Just about every word in the above paragraph is an out and out lie and perhaps they think they can appeal to some people who don't know the difference but not enough to win an election.

I was totally opposed to the GM bailout and said so back in November and was opposed to the AIG bailout as well but using words like "seizing control of key banks insurance companies, the automobile industry etc" sounds like the kind of dumb pamphlet printed on cheap paper with the ink smudging, that used get handed out on the streets of New York in the 1960's by a guy handing out flyers for massage parlors at the same time.

Note their clumsy use of the words "key banks" as if there was some kind of nefarious plot going on to only "seize",. certain banks. It borders on the infantile. Unless by the use of the word "key" then mean "failing" then yes, large failing banks that were about to go under were bailed out and since if they had gone under and it could have caused a run on all banks, I suppose you could call them "key". But that was all done on the advice of Bush's economic team in November of 2008, notably Bernake.

This site is also so out of touch with reality that they don't know that the national health care program now being proposed, whether you are for it or against it , has been budgeted out by the non-partisan and highly respected Congressional Budget Office at $600 billion, less than half the nonsensical $2 trillion this site is claiming.

Here are the facts: The country is in trouble economically, in a deep recession brought on by the economic polices of George Bush and the Republicans. The unemployment since Obama took office has gotten worse.The banks have been stablized. $39 billion in bailout money for GM went down the drain and never should have been granted in the first place. I see little or no benefits yet from the so called stimulus. The stimulus money that was supposed to create jobs or save jobs so far hasn't worked. And Paul Krugman the liberal economist who writes a column for the New York Times wrote some time ago that Obama's plan was not going to work, was spending too much and would return too little. So much for the clumsy attempt at the Tax Day Tea Party organizers to try and pin the problems on liberals which is nothing more than pathetically transparent partisanship trying to gain political advantage.

There are real problems and they are not going to get solved by conservative political consultants masquerading as organizers of a grass roots effort by non-partisan independents even if they do succeed in recruiting some well meaning sincere people who think it is non-partisan.

The last group of people who have anything to complain about are the conservatives who played "see no evil, speak no evil hear no evil" while George Bush and a reckless, incompetent irresponsible Republican congress let him get away with it for 8 years violating every conservative principle they stood for.

We do have responsible Republicans whose voices need to be paid attention to and who unfortunatley are being largely ignored because when Republicans were in power and could have spoken out, didn't. Among those Republican voices whose economic positions have reflected my own are Shelby of Alabama, Corker of Tennessee Graham of South Carolina, Grassley and to some extent, McCain.

But for the most part trying to make political hay or tea out of Obama's economic mistakes is not going to work. People have longer memories than that. No matter how you look at it, Republican control of the government and their inept policies and then silence when it counted most are responsible for the present economic mess and whether what Obama does succeeds or fails, its hard to blame those trying to clean up the mess more than the people who made it.

The July 4th Tax Day tea parties are a lot like 4th of July fireworks. They look good, make a lot of noise, attract a crowd, and then the next day are forgotten.

OBAMA PLAYED FOR THE FOOL BY AHMADINEJAD.

In a speech to Iranian judiciary officials on Saturday, Ahmadinejad, Iran's disputed president, said he was "astonished" over what he said was Obama's interference in Iran's election .

Ahmadinejad, as if to rub salt in the wound also added, "They keep saying that they want to hold talks with Iran. All right, we have expressed our readiness as well. But is this the correct way? Definitely, they have made a mistake. They have revealed their intentions before the Iranian nation, before the world nations. Their mask has been removed. "

The statement makes Obama's position of the last two weeks and those who defended it as being "pitch perfect" left with diplomatic egg on their faces and leaves Obama with the worst of all worlds.

For two weeks Obama gave tepid,meaningless responses to the events in Iran because he didn't want to be seen as "meddling" to preserve some kind of undefined negotiating position while demonstrators protesting a clearly rigged election were murdered and beaten in the streets of Tehran. And the result of Obama's approach? He is accused by Ahmadinejad of meddling anyway with Ahmadinejad turning Obama's own words against him.

Obama's approach seemed like a diplomatic farce and a pragmatic disaster from the beginning as I and others pointed out two weeks ago. And now Obama looks weak and ineffectual on all fronts.

There were many things Obama could have said that would have put the Iranian government on the defensive, strengthened his own negotiating position and supported the demonstrators and the democratic institutions demonstrators like Neda sought. There were also actions Obama could have threatened (and still can) if he was able to rally other governments (either with the UN or without) to the cause. He did none of that. Instead he decided he didn't want to be seen as meddling and gets accused of it anyway.

On Friday with German Chancellor Merkel at his side, Obama called the violence against the demonstrators "outrageous". Why its outrageous now and not two weeks ago? When he was asked that very question at last weeks press conference he gave the preposterous answer that all of his statements had been consistent from the beginning.

Obama, after his meeting with Merkel also said " despite the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to the violence, we see it and we condemn it." Okay, okay, he sees violence and he condemns violence. We get it.

Then Obama actually did put his foot in his mouth and gave Iran good cause to accuse him of interfering when he said it was "absolutely clear" that Mir Hossein Moussavi, has "captured the imagination or the spirit of forces within Iran" .

Obama again missed the point. The turmoil in Iran wasn't about someone capturing anyone's imagination. It was about the likelihood that the election was rigged, and that those demonstrating against a rigged election have been beaten, murdered, and terrorized.

Obama is clearly grasping for something to say and has no idea what it is because nothing he has to say comes from within.It's always based on politics. His statement about Neda, the Iranian woman whose murder was recorded on a cell phone video and shown around the world was so meaningless and empty it would have been better had he said nothing.When asked his reaction to the video of her murder Obama said it was heartbreaking, then added "Anyone who sees it knows there was something fundamentally unjust about it".

Fundamentally unjust? All he has to say is that there is something "fundamentally unjust" about murder?

With German Chancellor Merkel present, Obama went on to say Friday that both countries "share the belief that what's happened in Iran is unacceptable when it comes to violence against its own citizens."

Unless Obama is prepared to back up what he means by "unacceptable", that statement is meaningless also, and for now leaves us with two presidents -- one with egg on his face, and the other, Ahmadinejad, with blood on his hands.

OBAMA GETS TOUGH ON IRAN, SAYS NO PARTY FOR YOU.

People had been waiting for President Obama to take a tough stance on Iran and he finally did. He revoked an invitation to Iran to attend a 4th of July celebration to which he had originally invited them.

Ahmadinejad, not to be outdone, seems to have gotten the last laugh, accusing Obama of meddling after Obama took heat all week for his tepid responses because he didn't want to be seen as "meddling".

It seems that the tougher events in Iran become, the more inadequate Obama's responses are exposed to have been and the more foolish he looks. He gave weak and tepid responses supposedly to keep the Iranian government from using it as an excuse to crack down on demonstrators and they crack down harder than ever anyway. He says he doesn't want to be seen as meddling and then is accused by Iran of doing just that. And as events continue to unfold in Iran, those trying to defend Obama's position reveal not only how weak his position actually is, but the rationale they use to defend his position exposes the weakness even more.

The latest example is a piece on CNN where the writer, once again, invokes the "walking a tightrope" analogy ( there is no tightrope, only one of Obama's own making) but takes it to another level of bizarre when she talks about the tightrope Obama must walk as being between, "U.S. interests and being on the right side of history".

Funny but I always thought that being on the right side of history was based on the interests of the United States and that the interests of the United States was always supposed to be on the right side of history. But I suppose when you are a media sycophant twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend a White House that has performed abysmally during the Iranian crisis, its any port in a storm.

From the beginning of the Iranian crisis Obama was never guided by principle, something we've seen repeatedly since he took office and was evident in the back and forth over the torture memos, prosecutions and photos. It cant even be said he was guided by pragmatism because there was no rational reason to think given the dishonesty and brutality of the current Iranian regime that there could be any effective and genuine negotiation.

And now, given events, any offer of negotiation by Obama would not only be a sign of weakness, it would in fact be weakness and Amadinejad knows it. In any negotiation it would be Obama who would need to come away with something to show the American people, and not Amadinejad who knows that too.

It always seemed to me that Iran's hinting at being agreeable to talks was a diplomatic trap that Obama hasn't seen, since to engage in talks with the United States and then break them off or refuse any compromise and let the status quo remain would only strengthen the hand of Ahmedenejad and make Obama look weaker.

But getting tough on Iran now and imposing harsh economic sanctions would, if Obama did want to negotiate,at least give Obama something to give -- easing of sanctions -- in return for a nuclear deal.

Ahmadinejad's statement accusing Obama of meddling and warning him to stay out of Iran's affairs is only the latest example of how ineffectual and wasteful Obama's approach has been since Obama's tepid responses to the plight of the demonstrators in Iran was supposedly to keep him from being accused of "meddling". And now he has the worst of all worlds. And that's what happens when you shirk from acting on real principles and behave only like a politician instead of being a real leader.




.

OBAMA: START THE REVOLUTION WITHOUT ME.

Protestors and demonstrators in Iran took to the streets defying orders from the Ayatollah Kahmanei to stay off the streets and were heard chanting "Death to Kahmanei".

What most observers who understand internal Iranian politics are saying is that what we are now seeing in Iran is unprecedented. It is the single biggest taboo to challenge the authority of Iran's supreme leader and that is exactly what the demonstrators are doing.

The consensus among those who understand the culture and politics of Iran is the demonstrators have crossed a point of no return. Robin Wright, who has written extensively on Iran for years said on CNN that she believes Kahmanei is fighting for his political life. And she as well as others have said this is no longer about the election. It's become much bigger. It has become what the system of government in Iran is going to be.

And while other European leaders and even the US Congress have made their condemnation of the current government and their actions clear and have voiced clear support for the demonstrators, Obama has chosen to take the " I don't want to be seen as meddling" approach and has watched it all from the sidelines. As events in Iran become more dramatic, Obama's position has gotten to the point where it's becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Iran has already come out and condemned France, Great Britain and Germany for their "meddling" statements. So what does Obama think? That by trying to stay in the good graces of an oppressive and now murderous regime he is somehow going to affect change through negotiation?

Change is occuring within Iran without Obama.With the protestors having crossed a line of no return experts say it is not going to be possible for the ruling mullahs in Iran to hold onto power without unleashing the worst violence against their own people that the middle east has seen since Sadaam used chemical weapons to put down a revolt of the Kurds.

So one of two things are going to happen. Either the demonstrators are going to succeed in overthrowing the current government which has already become destabilized, or the conservatives in Iran will unleash an unprecedented bloodbath against the protestors. Either way Obama's position of trying to stay in their good graces for the sake of negotiation has become obsolete, a situation that neither he nor his advisors have been able to recognize.

The other argument being made for Obama's soft pedaling is he doesnt want to be used as a "foil" or an excuse by the current governement to unleash more violence against the demonstrators.

Is he kidding? All he has to do is warn Iran publicly against doing just that and make it clear publicly that the safety of the demonstrators is the responsibility of the Iranian government and that any attempts to use the United States as an excuse to commit murder or human rights violations against its own people will be just that -- an excuse.

To see and read and hear these fumbling excuses by the Obama Administration and Obama himself as to why he has chosen "not to meddle" in an unprecedented revolution by the moderates and liberals in Iran is too reminiscent of the ineptness of George Bush to be believed.

As events continue to unfold in Iran, Obama's position is becoming more and more absurd each passing minute.

The Congress, in response to what they saw as a tepid response from Obama overwhelmingly passed resolutions of support for the demonstrators and condemnation of the current Iranian government. In response, Obama yesterday decided to issue a statement that was stronger than those of the past few days. But his statement that " the whole world is watching" was still typical Obama -- stating the obvious, borrowing the chants of the anti-war demonstrators in the US in the 1960's and telling us what everyone has known for days and hardly needs to be pointed out --- yes the world is watching.

But Obama's decision to sit on the sidelines in order to preserve some future attempt at negotiating with the current regime has been usurped whether he likes it or not. There are already reports that anywhere from 19 to 150 people have been killed by government police and militia. If this continues and the present government cracks down harder on the demonstrators and the violence increases it will be impossible for Obama to "negotiate" anything with the current Iranian government if they succeed in quashing the revolution. Any outstretched hand to this government after a bloodbath will look like the worst kind of appeasement.

Yet all of this represents a golden opportunity for the United States. If the current government becomes destabilized or even toppled, that, and not Obama's "outstretched hand" to a government that chants "Death to America" would be the best chance of a non-nuclear Iran which would be a benefit to the world.

But so far Obama has not seized the opportunity. He insists on giving legitimacy to the current government..The world seems ready to line up against the current Iranian government and their actions as the statements of condemnation from other European countries have shown. Obama could be the one to rally them. Instead he doesn't want to "meddle".

People are taking their lives into their hands to stand up against a repressive government that poses a threat to the whole world and Obama is worried about Iran's reaction to his own response, which when one thinks about it, doesn't bode well for how Obama would handle negotiations with Ahmedenjad anyway.

It should be clear by now that there is a revolution taking place and so far, Obama's approach in trying to preserve a "negotiating" position with the present oppressive government has made him look weak and foolish. Events in Iran will make any attempts at negotiating with the current government impossible in the future. Instead Obama should try and seize this opportunity to rally and lead the rest of the world to condemn the actions of the Iranian goverment . He could call for new supervised elections. He could do a lot of things but he isn't.

The revolution has started without him. Millions of Iranians are demanding change and putting their lives on the line to try and achieve it. .But so far it doesn't seem like change Obama can believe in.

UPDATE: Not to put too fine a point on this, but today (Sunday June 21) Hillary Mann Levit a former foreign policy advisor to the Bush Administration in an interview with CNN said that Obama's earlier statements and his "not meddling" position was the right one to take. She went on to say that his first statement saying that there was no difference between Ahmedenjad and Mousavi and it made no difference to him who was also the right thing to say.

History has shown that George W Bush was without a doubt the most inept and incompetent President in history. He was wrong on every foreign policy decision he ever made and when you have one his advisors saying that Obama has done the right thing, that alone should give Obama cause to reconsider.

OBAMA'S MEANINGLESS REPSONSE TO IRAN.

For days since the results of the Iranian elections, hundreds of thousands of protestors have taken to the streets to protest what they believe was a rigged election in Iran. So far seven protestors have been killed by the government police of Ahmadinejad.

As demonstrators have taken to the streets, Ahmadinejad has cut off cell phone service to prevent text messages, pictures and video from cell phones showing images of the demonstrations from getting to the outside world. He has banned international media from covering the demonstrations..And demonstrators have been beaten, arrested, and imprisoned and are risking life and limb to be on the streets protesting what seems obvious is a dishonest outcome.

And what has been President Obama's response to all this? His response came from p.15 of the Politician's Handbook of Hackneyed Responses. He said he was "deeply troubled". Not exactly awe inspiring.

He also said, as demonstrators were being shot and killed, that it just wouldn't do for the United States to "be seen meddling in the affairs of Iran." This practically redefines the expression, "mealy mouthed".

So why doesn't Obama want to make statements that might seem like he is meddling in the affairs of country that is now in turmoil over what may have been a rigged election that keeps a lunatic dictator in power? Is he afraid that if he speaks out too forcefully Ahmadinejad won't take his phone calls? Is he afraid Ahmadeinejad will get mad at him and wont meet with him if he offers an unconditional meeting? What exactly does Obama think is going to happen if he speaks out forcefully on the side of democracy and the Iranian demonstrators? That Ahmedinejad will accuse him of meddling?

Ahmadinejad himself doesn't seem too concerned about being seen as meddling in the affairs of another country when he threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Maybe Obama doesn't want to meddle in that either. But as hundreds of thousands of Iranians take to the streets defying the tyranny of Amadinejad and the forces in Iran responsible for what is certainly a rigged election, Obama says he doesn't want to be making statements that would be seen as "meddling".

Not exactly a beacon of courage and democracy. But here is what Obama could have said.

"Even by the official count, more than 14 million Iranians voted for Moussavi and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians are taking to the streets to protest what they believe was a rigged election. It is up to the responsible parties in Iran to investigate and prove to their own people, that either the election results were completely fair and accurate or, if they find that there were any irregularities or fraud as the demonstrators believe, to hold new free and fair elections".

Now does that sound like meddling?

Of course President Obama did say he believed that voices must be heard and every vote must count ( as long as you don't live in Florida and Michigan and vote against him in a primary) and one has to wonder if being the product of a rigged Democratic convention that secured his nomination, has made him a little gun shy when it comes to protesting too much over a rigged election in Iran.

But so far his response to the turmoil in Iran and the uprising of so many of its people over what looks like a stolen election and a protest against a dictator who is a threat to the rest of the world, has been less than inspiring, Chris Matthews goose bumps over Obama's speeches notwithstanding.

The White House has tried to portray this as a "balancing act" with President Obama walking a tightrope. Nonsense. If he is walking a tightrope it is one of his own choosing for reasons that have no real substance other than perhaps he doesn't want to get Ahmedenejad mad at him. It has no diplomatic value.It is just someone afraid to take a stand.

So if being"deeply troubled" is all President Obama can muster, if that's all he can give the Iranian demonstrators, if he continues to watch the demonstations in the streets as the protestors stand up to Ahmedenejad, maybe there is something they can give him. Courage.

UPDATE: On Saturday June 20th, Obama decided to issue a more forceful statement concerning Iran, perhaps feeling the pressure and the criticism for his original tepid response. And given the last statement I made about perhaps the demonstrators would give Obama the courage to speak out, part of Obama's new statement referred to the courage of the demonstrators. So maybe they did.

The Congress also chose to speak out on Friday passing overwhelming resolutions in both houses, condemning the government of Iran for it's crackdown on the demonstrators and expressing solidarity with the protestors demonstrating on behalf of democracy.

Perhaps this has made Obama feel like he is being left out of the loop. Either way he has now decided a little meddling is in order.

NEW BOOK SAYS DURING PRIMARIES OBAMA CALLED BILL CLINTON "A BALD FACED LIAR". IS THIS WHAT PSYCHIATRISTS CALL PROJECTION?

According to a new book on the Obama campaign, written with his cooperation, its reported that Obama during the primary battle with Hillary Clinton, called Bill Clinton a "bald faced liar".

That is somewhat amusing considering that if anyone checks Obama's record during the primary one would come to the inescapable conclusion that Obama was probably the most blatantly dishonest candidate to run for President since Richard Nixon.

Candidate Obama was caught in more lies during his primary campaign than any candidate in memory but the press simply chose to let him get away with it because they had an agenda and no amount of truth was going to interfere with their agenda. In fact it became so ludicrous Saturday Night Live did a satire on it.

For those who don't remember, Obama was caught red handed lying to the people of Ohio when he told them that, if elected, he would get rid of NAFTA. while at the same time sending an emissary from his economic team to the Canadian Embassy in Chicago to tell them to ignore what he was saying publicly, that it was all political posturing. The notes of that meeting were leaked to the Associated Press and became public and Obama and his campaign invented story after story, each proving false about who that emissary was and what he was doing there until facts made any more lying about it impossible. Had there not been an obvious cause celebre among the media to elect Obama, that would have been enough to sink most candidacies. As it was he lost Ohio to Clinton in a landslide.

Obama was also caught lying every day for seven straight days about his relationship with Reverend Wright when news of Wrights anti-American sermons first broke. Something even more relevant now given Wrights recent anti-Semitic tirade about Obama "being controlled by the Jews". Obama lied consistently about what he knew about Wrights anti-American anti-white sermons until,as each fact became public, he had to change his story which he did by some accounts as many as seven times.

But, like Billy Mays, he wasn't done. During the primaries, Obama also publicly promised he would filibuster and vote against the FISA bill if it contained retroactive immunity for the telecoms who had illegally given information about their customers to the Bush Administration. Obama reneged on both promises, first not filibustering the bill and then actually voting for the bill he promised to vote against. Not surprisingly telecoms helped pay for renting out Invesco Field for his acceptance speech.

Obama also made a public pledge in an interview with a group of the country's newspaper editors in a round table interview, to use public financing if he were the Democratic nominee. To underscore the point even made the pledge in writing and signed it. He reneged as soon as he had the nomination.

So what would cause someone with a track record like Obama's to call a former President a bald faced liar? It was Obama's assertion that his opposition to the Iraq invasion proved he had superior judgement that Clinton called a "fairy tale" that seems to have gotten under Obama's skin the most. Probably because Clinton was absolutely right and Obama was angry about the possibility of exposing one of his cornerstone campaign points as fraudulent.

Obama's assertion was based on the fact that when he was a state senator he publicly opposed the Iraq invasion. But the problem with his position is that his reasoning had nothing to do with questioning the intelligence that turned out to be false. There were many good reasons to question the validity of the intelligence that Bush used as a justification to invade, especially considering the source -- George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But Obama never questioned the validity of the intelligence. Instead he opposed the invasion on the grounds that it would create hostility towards America from Muslim countries.

The problem with that assessment is that had the intelligence been correct, that would have been the worst reason in the world not to invade Iraq. You don't compromise the national security of the United States because other countries wont like what you do.

The other reason that Obama's assertion was completely bogus was that at the time of the vote he was not in the US Senate, he was not exposed to any of the classified national security briefings given other Senators, many of which turned out to be bogus, (and which need to be investigated by this Congress) that indicated Sadaam was a threat to the United States. Obama was 1000 miles away, like a football fan watching it all on TV and making his calls from his arm chair without any relevant information.

Bush and Rice were telling the American people that we couldn't wait for the UN weapons inspectors to finish their work because we couldn't take the chance that "the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud". That was completely bogus but none of this factored into Obama's position on why we shouldn't invade Iraq.

Obama's assertion that he had the judgement to oppose the war and that events proved him right, is every bit the fairy tale that Clinton said it was. When Obama did get to the Senate he voted for every war resolution sent to the Senate when he could have voted against it as some did.

There were 13 Democratic Senators like Carl Levin who voted against the original war resolution who can claim they had the judgement to know from the beginning the invasion was not justified and was a mistake. Barrack Obama was not one of them.

Obama calling Clinton a bald faced liar may simply be what many psychiatrists call projection, when a person feels on the defensive after a truth they are in denial about gets exposed and then projects the flaw in their own character onto other people.

Though I haven't read the entire book,based on some excerpts the book sounds more like something you'd get from a vanity press. It was supposedly written with Obama's cooperation attempting to emulate the Theodore White book "The Making of the President" about JFK. But if anyone decides to write a completely honest account of the 2008 Democratic primary campaign, in the end it might end up being seen as "The Unmaking of the President".