A Defending Crusader…

The best defense is to be good and offensive…or something like that.

Points to Ponder

Posted by Godefroi on March 26, 2008

From around the net.

Chris Hitchens notes at Slate:

“If Barack gets past the primary,” said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the New York Times in April of last year, “he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” Pause just for a moment, if only to admire the sheer calculating self-confidence of this. Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he’d one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago “base” in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

Richard Benkin tells us at American Thinker:

Like everyone else, I have my own political principles and beliefs; and I feel very strongly about them.  But when I began fighting for anti-Islamist Muslim journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury [see AT Sunday edition], I knew that I could not be successful if I garnered support from only one political party or philosophy.  The fact is, Shoaib was in prison, being tortured, and risking his life.  He still is; which is why we have not stopped fighting.  Clearly this was a matter of human rights, of basic American principles, and everyone with an ounce of human decency should support us.

In fact, I approached about 15 percent of the House and a handful of Senators:  Democratic, Republican, left, right, moderate; you name it.  And every one of them reacted with support; every one of them, that is, except one.  Who was the one lawmaker that took a pass on saving the life of an imprisoned US ally and opponent of Islamist extremism?  That’s right, my own Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

I first met with his staff in April 2005 in his DC office…I brought Obama’s staff extensive documentation of the injustice, as well as other evidence of Shoaib’s activities; we spoke for quite a long time, but they never called back.  In fact, they ignored all my subsequent follow-up contacts.

Yet, I spoke personally with Obama 13 months later at a general meeting hosted by Obama and Durbin…I spoke with to [sic] both him and Obama, who at his best moments looked quizzical and confused.  While Durbin later sent a formal protest to the Bangladeshis, Obama never responded; nor again did he or his staff reply to my subsequent entreaties.

I spoke with Obama one other time about Shoaib’s case, less than six months later.  I reminded him or our last encounter, gave him an update on the case, and asked for his support in one of any number of ways.  He hesitated a moment then held out his hand and said, “Well, we’re sure happy for all the work you are doing.”   Propriety prevents me from verbalizing what I was thinking then.  I offered to send him more information, which he asked me to do.  And, guess what, I never heard back despite the reams of evidence I did send.

Barack Obama wants us to think that he has a special sensitivity to injustice and that his entire life has been about combating it.  Yet, in this one concrete situation he faced, he failed to act.  The fact that not one of the dozens of other lawmakers failed speaks volumes.

Ed Lasky notes this, also at AT.

Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama engages in more obfuscation to bolster his sinking poll numbers.

Rated as the most liberal member of the Senate by the non-partisan and highly-regarded National Journal, he now claims his United States Senate voting record just looks liberal because “the Senate is so ideologically polarized it is hard not to end up on one side or the other”.

Why should he take responsibility for those (remember those “present” votes)? Obama blames votes that “are purposely designed to divide people”.

Then why do all the other Senators (99 to be exact)  fill such a broad spectrum to the right of him?

If votes are deliberately designed to divide people, why do all the other Senators fall to his right?

Now, as he sees his support slipping away among independents and Reagan Democrats, he tries to shift the view that he is liberal by blaming some sort of machinations by the other 99 Senators. It is all their fault!

Finally, one more item at AT, by Rick Moran (probably the most egregious).

After weeks of arduous negotiations, on April 6, 2006, a bipartisan group of senators burst out of the “President’s Room,” just off the Senate chamber, with a deal on new immigration policy.

As the half-dozen senators — including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) — headed to announce their plan, they met Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request common when Capitol Hill news conferences are in the offing: “Hey, guys, can I come along?”

And when Obama went before the microphones, he was generous with his list of senators to congratulate — a list that included himself.

“I want to cite Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, myself, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman . . . who’ve actually had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out,” he said.

Staffers who had been coming in early for 7:00 AM meetings where only 3 or 4 Senators showed up were flabbergasted because Obama was never at those early morning sessions nor was he present most of the time anyway.

Mr. Moran’s final comment sums it up.

I guess we’re supposed to trust him to change his tune once we elect him president.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: