Senator Obama Caught In Another Lie!

[nevadamedic]

Dear Don,

You've probably seen it on the news by now.

During Monday night's AFL-CIO debate, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama got into a candid exchange about foreign policy.

At the heart of the back-and-forth exchange were comments made by Barack Obama during an August speech about taking unilateral military action against Pakistan.

When Senator Dodd commented it would be a mistake to publicly suggest the United States unilaterally invade Pakistan in the midst of a Presidential campaign, Obama suggested that he had never called for such action and that Senator Dodd "obviously didn't read [his] speech."

Well ... it turns out that Senator Dodd was right. Barack Obama was wrong. You don't need to take our word for it. Here's a video with an independent analysis of the facts:

http://www.chrisdodd.com/doddvsobama

There is no question that America needs change. But after six years of George Bush there is nothing new in saber-rattling about unilateral invasions.

The change we need lies in having leadership that has a deep understanding of the complexities of foreign policy and military affairs to meet the challenges that face us; leadership that is guided by experience and thoughtful consideration instead of political timing and ideology. With over a quarter century of helping to resolve conflicts around the world, Chris Dodd offers that type of leadership.

This critical time in our history demands no less.

Watch the video and forward it to your friends.

http://www.chrisdodd.com/doddvsobama

Leadership -- and words -- matter,

Hari Sevugan
Communications Director, Chris Dodd for President

What a surprise. Major Props for Senator Dodd on calling him out on this. I love how he tries to cover up what he said with a lie. I guess he is not bright enough to realize that every speech he gives is recorded somehow. Catching a candidate in a Lie, and a major one this early in the games is not good for them. He is loseing major credability and he didn't have much to go on to begin with.

Does anyone know how to put that video up on here? I can't figure put how to do that. If you could put it up that's great, I put the link up above!

[Pale Rider]

Yup... obama bin laden. The liberals poster child.

[Monkeybone]

obama seems like anohter John Kerry. says what he thinks ppl want to here at the time and then tries to deny/or truly forgets what he says.

[nevadamedic]

Yup... obama bin laden. The liberals poster child.

It's scary that he will more then likely get one of the nominations, either President or Vice President nomination.

The more Senator Dodd attacks him the more I like Senator Dodd. He is not as slimey as Senator Obama or Clinton. I think he is by far the best Democratic choice.

[nevadamedic]

obama seems like anohter John Kerry. says what he thinks ppl want to here at the time and then tries to deny/or truly forgets what he says.

Hillary is the same way. These people are lying pond scum that will say whatever they think the people want to hear to get elected. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have been caught in lies already and the Campaigns just barely started.

[emmett]

Obama wins presidency on "no war" platform and then bombs Pakistan. That should makes Osama happy. Problem is all these 21-35 demos believe his lying spew.

Well, if two years as a US senator qualifies a person for president then 48 years as a US citizen ought to as well.


EMMETT FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!

[stephanie]

Obama wins presidency on "no war" platform and then bombs Pakistan. That should makes Osama happy. Problem is all these 21-35 demos believe his lying spew.

Well, if two years as a US senator qualifies a person for president then 48 years as a US citizen ought to as well.


EMMETT FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!

I'd vote for you....

[nevadamedic]

Obama wins presidency on "no war" platform and then bombs Pakistan. That should makes Osama happy. Problem is all these 21-35 demos believe his lying spew.

Well, if two years as a US senator qualifies a person for president then 48 years as a US citizen ought to as well.


EMMETT FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!

[emmett]

I'd vote for you....

Your so precious! I'd vote for you too!

[nevadamedic]

Obama wins presidency on "no war" platform and then bombs Pakistan. That should makes Osama happy. Problem is all these 21-35 demos believe his lying spew.

Well, if two years as a US senator qualifies a person for president then 48 years as a US citizen ought to as well.


EMMETT FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!

You couldn't be any worse then Fred Thompson or Ron Paul.

[82Marine89]

It's scary that he will more then likely get one of the nominations, either President or Vice President nomination.

The more Senator Dodd attacks him the more I like Senator Dodd. He is not as slimey as Senator Obama or Clinton. I think he is by far the best Democratic choice.

Finally coming out of the liberal closet?

BTW, it's democrat, not democratic. They are anything but.

[nevadamedic]

Finally coming out of the liberal closet?

BTW, it's democrat, not democratic. They are anything but.

Ahhhhhh, looks like my bitch is trying to talk.............

[82Marine89]

Ahhhhhh, looks like my bitch is trying to talk.............

Listen up you pillow biter. I turned you into my bitch on another thread. I f you want to go toe to toe, I'm ready. Until then just stay on your knees. Fucking cum guzzler.

[red states rule]

the liberal media is trying to give Obama some cover

LAT: 'Suggestions By U.S. Politicians' That Pakistan be Attacked Has No Mention of Obama
By Warner Todd Huston | August 10, 2007 - 03:50 ET
The L.A. Times has morphed Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama's over-the-top campaign rhetoric that he would attack Pakistan into "suggestions by U.S. politicians that American forces unilaterally strike" that country. But, no where did the story mention Obama, nor that no Administration officials are advocating such a move. How is it that Obama's absurd gaffe has suddenly become a U.S. political policy that the Pakistanis fear is impossible to know, but the way the L.A.Times wrote the story, one would cast blame on the Bush Administration instead of Obama for this slight to Musharraf and the Pakistani government.

The story written by Laura King revolves around Musharraf's increasing security concerns and calls for him to step back from power. It also reveals the fact that Musharraf is sending prime minister Shaukat Aziz to the jirga (a traditional council) in Afghanistan instead of attending himself, a move that supposedly surprised the Bush Administration. According to the L.A.Times, one of the reasons Musarraf made this decision is because U.S. "officials" are saying we should invade his country. But the only person who said such a thing in such a public forum was Barack Obama, who's hardly in a position to be setting U.S. policy toward Pakistan. Yet, the Times acts as if the U.S. government is advocating for just such an attack which, in the way the Times writes, makes it seems as if this is a Bush gaffe.

Pakistan has been angry over official and unofficial suggestions by U.S. politicians that American forces unilaterally strike Al Qaeda figures believed to be taking shelter in Pakistan's tribal lands if Musharraf's government fails to do so.

Pakistan, which is in the midst of a major military offensive against militants in the semiautonomous border region, said any such U.S. action would violate its sovereignty.

Why no mention of Barack Obama and the scolding he has taken for his over-the-top rhetoric?

Does anyone doubt that if a Republican candidate had said something on the campaign trail that caused a foreign ally to react in such a visceral way that the L.A.Times would waste no time in linking that candidate's name to such a story, regardless if his rhetoric was "official" or not?

Don't get me wrong, I think the Pakistanis have every reason and right to be indignant at Obama's rhetoric and if we ever undertook such a strike, it would be an abrogation of that country's sovereignty -- no matter if we felt we had to do it or not. So they have every right to be upset over the comment even from just a junior Senator on the campaign trail. Obama is an "official" U.S. politician, after all. From the Pakistani view point he is not much separated from the Bush Administration.

But the L.A.Times knows better. They know that Obama does not represent at any time the official policy of either the Bush Administration or the United States. They know better than to classify Obama's comments as "official and unofficial suggestions."

Unfortunately for us, this effort by the Times to obscure Obama's place in this story, though, makes it all appear to be the "government's" fault which makes it ultimately the Bush Administration's fault. And that is, in the end, just what they want.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-...ed-has-no-ment