Starting to put together a comprehensive case against Obama

Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-gaffes-on.html

I was going to summarize this article, but the entire thing is relevant so I would suggest a thorough reading.

This is my personal opinion; I’m not presenting this as unbiased:

This source gives a clear example that Obama’s premise on foreign policy, specifically the fact that he says Iraq is a drain on Afghanistan’s resources, is ill-advised. The response from his campaign on an article that highlighted that fact falls short of addressing the rebuttal in a comprehensive manner. Although there is a real eminent danger if we forget about violence and rising tensions in Afghanistan, Obama fails to illustrate how a quick and drastic withdrawal from Iraq (a set timetable just over a year-which he has now started to waver on saying that it depends in so many words) will keep both areas’ stability maintained enough that the countries can manage themselves in the years to come.

McCain, however, seems to present a more practical and manageable approach to tackling both situations in such a way that would lead to definite success as opposed to a risky and possibly detrimental plan that would set back all the progress made in Iraq. Direct Quote from McCain’s Op Ed: “A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind.”

I must say at this point, what good is a withdrawal from Iraq anyway (as Obama suggests) if we are to simply send the soldiers right over to Afghanistan (as he charges)? Wouldn’t a more encompassing and practical approach be to safeguard stability in Iraq and send troops over to Afghanistan as we are able to so that we can also effectively manage their security and stability without leaving either country high and dry in the long run? Yes, there is some lag time that could be detrimental to Afghanistan, but this should be minimized as much as possible by using the local resources there (trained local forces, local linguists, etc) and send surge troops already sent back to Afghanistan to nip rising violence and tensions in the bud?

Source: http://blog.oregonlive.com/politics/2008/05/obama_stumped_by_question_abou.html

Obama’s Hanford cleanup debacle

Source: http://thirdwavedave.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-says-hes-not-familiar-with.html

Although the site itself is biased, it has links to Obama’s vote on Hanford and all the other relevant links that I didn’t want to re-link. So disregard the bias and just look at the actual vote/bill. Although I know that many bills come across the desk of a Senator that must be voted on, I find it highly disturbing that Obama did little homework on the issues of Oregon before making a speech there. At the very least his aides should have highlighted this Hanford site/his vote on the Hanford site defense-authorization bill before he spoke there in anticipation of a question on it. Some may say that Obama represents Illinois and not Oregon; McCain had no problem doing his research and effectively answered a similar question or at least addressed the issue a week earlier. (The article was posted on Monday, May 19^th and Obama’s comment was “over the weekend,” McCain made the statement on Tuesday, May 13^th)

Source: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/election/story/359908.html

McCain’s statement about Hanford days before Obama’s Hanford Gaffe. “Asked whether Washington state residents would stand for more nuclear power development after dealing with some monumental problems, including the polluted Hanford site in Eastern Washington, McCain said he would speed cleanup efforts and push for technological advances in disposing of nuclear waste. McCain said the U.S. should emulate Europe in advancing its methods of cleaning up the radioactive byproducts of nuclear power.”

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703250359mar25,0,120649.story

Highlights discrepancies in Obama’s autobiographical accounts (granted, exaggeration is usually expected in these things). It’s not so much that some of the things he writes about in his book are completely false or exaggerated; it’s that he frequents these instances in his books in speeches, as evidence, etc. These “facts” are believed by the general public, especially as justification for his foreign policy credibility. Also, I realize this news source typically leans right however: http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/tribune_obama.jpg

More: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/06/19/chgo-trib-giving-away-obama-t-shirt-subscription

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaG6s05MKeM

Source: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/the-mccain-op-ed-the-new-york-times-wouldnt-publish/

McCain Op-Ed

Look Ma, No Stem Cells!

Enough Said, No Embryonic Stem Cells Required
This article outlines the development of a cure for cancer via immune cell injections. I would say this pretty much ends the debate about funding for the destruction of embryos. Since embryonic stem cells have shown this many results: 0 and since alternative methods have pretty much cured cancer...It's safe to say we can cure diseases without having to destroy the potential for human life.

Obama-Leave the Gun at Home, We Fight with Our Fists

For a pacifist who's for gun control and for immediate withdrawal of troops, it seems like Obama's choice of words was slightly inappropriate even if meant as a metaphor:

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"

Then he says that the GOP is going to make him out to be "scary," but I don't think he needs to worry about that, all these knifes, guns and brawls he's talking about were scary enough.

Democrats will make this out to be one of those, "Oh, well I know that's what he said, but that's really not what he meant" types of things, but I think that's wearing thin on people when they suddenly realize, "You know, what has he said?"

All I have to say about this is that his rhetoric is no better than the highly criticized rhetoric of the President. I don't think foreign countries will feel very confident negotiating with a person who wants to up a knife fight (mind you, between our country's two main political parties) with a gun.

Cooling the Global Warming Hype (and surprisingly getting little media notice)

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, has released the most coherent and well-written statement against scam-artist Al Gore's promotion of man-made global warming...and who noticed? Not surprisingly, the biased liberal media made little note of this groundbreaking statement. Thank god for ICECAP, Drudge Report, Fox News and informed bloggers for leaking his briefs to those who care about the real facts.

For a little perspective, let's look at the qualifications of these two men. Al Gore: B.A. from Harvard in Government, and some random years at Vanderbilt divinity school and law school with no degrees taken away. Ok, not bad, some prestigious schools but I'm failing to see a degree in Environmental Science or Climate Science...interesting. Somehow, Al Gore has become a self-proclaimed expert on the field of climate study and environmental science from maybe one or two science classes he took in college. Hey Al Gore-I took Meteorology in highschool-guess that makes me an expert too, huh?

Now, John Coleman went to the University of Illinois and received a B.A., which pales in comparison to Al Gore's Ivy League undergrad degree. But here's the kicker-John Coleman is a lifelong meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel. Got to give a guy credit for releasing briefs on things he actually knows about. ICECAP [a little known but highly reputable source of TRUE information about global warming] supports Coleman's statements and has received 90% positive feedback about the statements ICECAP & Link to statements.

And by the way, has anyone even seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? More like an inconvenient waste of time. Al Gore uses his personal sob stories (which have nothing to do with global warming or science in general) to evoke sympathetic emotions from the viewers that strategically happen throughout the movie to make you feel sympathetic to his cause even though the two have absolutely NOTHING to do with one another.

What's great about John Coleman is that he uses real facts to back up his statements. He not only makes a counter-argument to the hype, but effectively takes down the oh-so-high platform of the media, Hollywood and uninformed public about "man-made global warming." Not to mention that 30,000 scientists are on his side (9,000 with PhDs) as opposed to the 2-3,000 (total) on Al Gore's side.

I just want to say thank you John Coleman for taking the high road and sticking up to the uninformed and biased media (whether they remain in denial or not) with facts and data. Most importantly thank you for taking down the platform of Al Gore and his minions completely. I hope that Al Gore does get sued for the disgusting hype he's pushed for years so we can have a little more accountability in our society.

Oh by the way, case and point-Gore can't even do his part to prevent "man-made global warming," his energy usage is up 10%, from the already 20% over average energy use.