The Blog @ Spolitics

Obama Was Against Timetables Before He Was For Them

June 22, 2006 Barack Obama sent out a podcast telling listeners that he opposed the Kerry Amendment to the Iraq War Resolution because it imposed a specific timetable. He argued a firm, arbitrary deadline would not give commanders enough flexibility to implement a strategy to stabilize Iraq, create the space for ethnic reconciliation and prevent a meltdown in the region. How much flexibility? He postulated that if the generals, in consultation with the Iraqis, asked for an additional twenty thousand troops for an additional six months, they should get it.

Less than six months later, as conditions worsened and after the Iraq Study Group’s report came out, Obama began arguing the exact opposite: that there was no military solution for the ethnic “civil war” in Iraq and that a timetable for withdrawal would put pressure on the Iraqis to resolve their differences. He even went on to say that our withdrawal would send a sign to Iran and Syria to start playing a constructive role. The worst of our options, he claimed, was to send more troops (i.e the surge strategy).

So what changed? He started running for President and saw a lot of room on Clinton’s left and the Iraq Study Group’s report gave him the cover he needed to advocate withdrawal. At that point, he was less concerned about giving the general’s flexibility. Here’s how he said it to Charlie Gibson during the ABC debate:

GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said…we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that.” So you’d give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?

OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That’s not the role of the generals. And one of the things that’s been interesting about the president’s approach lately has been to say, “Well, I’m just taking cues from General Petraeus.” Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission.

Wait… does the President set the mission or do study groups? And, of course, now that he’s won his party’s nomination, Senator Obama sees room for “refinements.” He’s also, claiming every new development agrees with his position. Of course they do… he’s taken every one.

Barack Obama’s positions are like the weather in Florida… If you don’t like what you’re hearing, just wait ten minutes.

We Are Not Addicted to Oil Anymore Than We Are “Addicted” to Food

What exactly are the benefits of being addicted to crack? To hear Thomas Friedman tell it, you’d think there were a lot. After all, he compared our oil use to an “addition” to crack. Of course, crack doesn’t provide nutrition to the body whereas oil is the lifeblood of our economy. Oil isn’t our crack, it’s our food. With the current options out there, to say we should give up oil is the same as saying we should all just go hungry.

Friedman goes on to list all the reasons why we need to break our dependence on oil but most of which have to do with foreign oil. Yet he maintains drilling domestically won’t help at all on that front. Instead, he promotes the same tax and spend policies the Democrats have been promoting since Carter. Why must everything include another tax with these people? Here’s an idea: sell the offshore leases to the oil companies and then use that money to fund alternative energy. Use oil as a bridge to alternatives.

Lastly, Friedman praises Gore’s energy plan without pointing out the fact that if we take the steps Gore wants us to take, it will make him incredibly rich. Since when did a man peddling his own economic interests become the height of morality? We’re supposed to swallow the claim that we can’t believe anything Exxon says because they’re just trying to make a profit. Well, the same is true for Al Gore. The difference between the two is Exxon produces the fuel that runs our economy and Al Gore just produces a lot of hot air. And so — based on his recent article — does Thomas Friedman.

Democrats Want Americans to Pay Even More for Gas

Apparently, we are getting a gas tax holiday. Only it’s not in the form of Congress lowering taxes. They just haven’t raised them on us yet. From the AP:

Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel.

Gas prices have risen astronomically since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. Anyone see a pattern here?