As we have to admit, that Nostradamus wouldn't be a big fan of Barack H. Obama and Mabus these days, some seem to like the candidate anyway. Those who support Barack H. Obama most fearless are against war: They »know« Barack H. Obama is against war as well. But is he?
The word is that Barack Obama would bring America's troops in Iraq back home, if they want to be brought home or not.
The word is that he is the man of change, positive change that is. But is he?
One thing that striked me in the last weeks was that Barack H. Obama didn't complain at all about being treated so much better than Hillary Clinton by an obviously biased U.S. press. I happened to find that quite unappealing, to say the least - and stupid. Imagine Barack H. Obama would have spoken out against it with only a single sentence during one of these televised debates: He would have scored a homerun, I guess, and his nomination could be most probably in dry towls already since long time.
But what did Barack H. Obama, the Democrat, do instead, while the unfair media tried to take over the Democrats' democratically election? He sat there and let injustice happen to his seemingly own advantage - not very gentleman-like, a living lie, I'd say. One might argue that's a secondary matter of taste, if at all, and anyway it is election time, so gloves should stay off, no presents allowed. Well, firstly I don't think it would've been a present too much for the Clintons, as a little revolution in that matter could have well played into Barack H. Obama's own hands, and secondly it is Barack H. Obama himself who claims all over to be all change and against the old dirty rules and tricks of political games where he just wants to unite. I say: Barack H. Obama missed to give a good example. Indeed he himself is too much of a campaigning Clinton to understand his failure at all.
Q.e.d.: The way Barack H. Obama willingly watched injustice to happen and go on, didn't mark him for me as the »saviour« he claims to be. The fact that Barack H. Obama didn't speak out, at least to build up a real advantage for himself, showed that he is not a smart politician either.
And while I got more and more suspicious of that Obama guy and his showing aura, while I read around to learn that Barack H. Obama was and is connected with dubious people (some too radical and racist, some too criminal, others too corrupt and many too obsessive), I also found out that his stand »against the Iraq war« is nothing much more than a farce.
Yes, in his Illinois state legislature Barack H. Obama opposed the war in Iraq at first...
But when he ran for US Senate and public opinion supported the war with a record high, Barack H. Obama put his nose with the wind and said very clearly: »There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.« (July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune)
Indeed Barack H. Obama believed by then that US forces had to remain in Iraq - just as U.S. President George W. Bush himself thought as well.
Barack H. Obama's campaign says now that he did talk back then only about the ongoing occupation and the need of stabilization in the region. But if Barack H. Obama opposes war, as Barack H. Obama's too many followers choose to believe, why didn't Barack H. Obama take the chance to call for withdrawal somehow anyway, as others did? Because Barack H. Obama was telling on Barack H. Obama's way to be elected into the U.S. Senate some conservative voters that Barack H. Obama's anti-war position didn't mean necessarily anything final, for sure not if it could cost Barack H. Obama an important step forward in Barack H. Obama's political career.
And since Barack H. Obama took office in January 2005, Barack H. Obama constantly gave Barack H. Obama's vote to approve every war appropriation the Republicans came up with, in total for more than $300 billion.
In addition and not to forget, Barack H. Obama did vote for Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, even though she had been partner to the Bush Administration who went to war with Iraq in the first place. Look at Barack H. Obama: He supported herewith one of the main architects of the Iraq war to be(come) the head of U.S. foreign policy, while thirteen of Barack H. Obama's colleagues didn't!
So, as anti-war protesters chant »war criminal« at Rice on Capitol Hill, these very same ignorants are all ready and fired up to vote for Barack H. Obama, who actually helped with all he had to put Condoleezza Rice into office in the first place.
Next thing we know about Barack H. Obama, who loves to present himself as a civil rights lawyer, is the fact that he voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, obviously the biggest attack on civil liberties in the last fifty years, allowing for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.
But now, since anti-war sentiments are on the rise, Barack H. Obama over and over again reminds us of himself having opposed the Iraq war and everything that came with it once upon a time, as he announces to get America's combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. All of them? Really? Wow: Before the September 2007 New Hampshire primary during a debate moderated by Tim Russert, saviour Barack H. Obama refused to commit to getting (m)any troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.
Barack H. Obama's only commitment is to keep enough combat troops in Iraq to »carry out counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al-Qaida in Iraq.«
Therefore Barack H. Obama's idea of warfare will need around 60,000 troops to stay in Iraq, following the report of the Center for American Progress.
And as if that wouldn't be enough, Barack H. Obama repeats for everybody who wants to hear it, that he intends to »redeploy« troops he takes out of the sometimes unpopular war in Iraq and send them right to Afghanistan instead - heavily engaging in war.
Yes, it is no wonder, that Nostradamus, truly a man of peace, wouldn't be a big fan of Barack H. Obama these days; and I really don't get it why anti-war voters see a saviour in Barack H. Obama, whom the predicting Nostradamus might have called »Mabus«, the Antichrist, already long time ago.
The word is that Barack Obama would bring America's troops in Iraq back home, if they want to be brought home or not.
The word is that he is the man of change, positive change that is. But is he?
One thing that striked me in the last weeks was that Barack H. Obama didn't complain at all about being treated so much better than Hillary Clinton by an obviously biased U.S. press. I happened to find that quite unappealing, to say the least - and stupid. Imagine Barack H. Obama would have spoken out against it with only a single sentence during one of these televised debates: He would have scored a homerun, I guess, and his nomination could be most probably in dry towls already since long time.
But what did Barack H. Obama, the Democrat, do instead, while the unfair media tried to take over the Democrats' democratically election? He sat there and let injustice happen to his seemingly own advantage - not very gentleman-like, a living lie, I'd say. One might argue that's a secondary matter of taste, if at all, and anyway it is election time, so gloves should stay off, no presents allowed. Well, firstly I don't think it would've been a present too much for the Clintons, as a little revolution in that matter could have well played into Barack H. Obama's own hands, and secondly it is Barack H. Obama himself who claims all over to be all change and against the old dirty rules and tricks of political games where he just wants to unite. I say: Barack H. Obama missed to give a good example. Indeed he himself is too much of a campaigning Clinton to understand his failure at all.
Q.e.d.: The way Barack H. Obama willingly watched injustice to happen and go on, didn't mark him for me as the »saviour« he claims to be. The fact that Barack H. Obama didn't speak out, at least to build up a real advantage for himself, showed that he is not a smart politician either.
And while I got more and more suspicious of that Obama guy and his showing aura, while I read around to learn that Barack H. Obama was and is connected with dubious people (some too radical and racist, some too criminal, others too corrupt and many too obsessive), I also found out that his stand »against the Iraq war« is nothing much more than a farce.
Yes, in his Illinois state legislature Barack H. Obama opposed the war in Iraq at first...
But when he ran for US Senate and public opinion supported the war with a record high, Barack H. Obama put his nose with the wind and said very clearly: »There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.« (July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune)
Indeed Barack H. Obama believed by then that US forces had to remain in Iraq - just as U.S. President George W. Bush himself thought as well.
Barack H. Obama's campaign says now that he did talk back then only about the ongoing occupation and the need of stabilization in the region. But if Barack H. Obama opposes war, as Barack H. Obama's too many followers choose to believe, why didn't Barack H. Obama take the chance to call for withdrawal somehow anyway, as others did? Because Barack H. Obama was telling on Barack H. Obama's way to be elected into the U.S. Senate some conservative voters that Barack H. Obama's anti-war position didn't mean necessarily anything final, for sure not if it could cost Barack H. Obama an important step forward in Barack H. Obama's political career.
And since Barack H. Obama took office in January 2005, Barack H. Obama constantly gave Barack H. Obama's vote to approve every war appropriation the Republicans came up with, in total for more than $300 billion.
In addition and not to forget, Barack H. Obama did vote for Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, even though she had been partner to the Bush Administration who went to war with Iraq in the first place. Look at Barack H. Obama: He supported herewith one of the main architects of the Iraq war to be(come) the head of U.S. foreign policy, while thirteen of Barack H. Obama's colleagues didn't!
So, as anti-war protesters chant »war criminal« at Rice on Capitol Hill, these very same ignorants are all ready and fired up to vote for Barack H. Obama, who actually helped with all he had to put Condoleezza Rice into office in the first place.
Next thing we know about Barack H. Obama, who loves to present himself as a civil rights lawyer, is the fact that he voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, obviously the biggest attack on civil liberties in the last fifty years, allowing for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.
But now, since anti-war sentiments are on the rise, Barack H. Obama over and over again reminds us of himself having opposed the Iraq war and everything that came with it once upon a time, as he announces to get America's combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. All of them? Really? Wow: Before the September 2007 New Hampshire primary during a debate moderated by Tim Russert, saviour Barack H. Obama refused to commit to getting (m)any troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.
Barack H. Obama's only commitment is to keep enough combat troops in Iraq to »carry out counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al-Qaida in Iraq.«
Therefore Barack H. Obama's idea of warfare will need around 60,000 troops to stay in Iraq, following the report of the Center for American Progress.
And as if that wouldn't be enough, Barack H. Obama repeats for everybody who wants to hear it, that he intends to »redeploy« troops he takes out of the sometimes unpopular war in Iraq and send them right to Afghanistan instead - heavily engaging in war.
Yes, it is no wonder, that Nostradamus, truly a man of peace, wouldn't be a big fan of Barack H. Obama these days; and I really don't get it why anti-war voters see a saviour in Barack H. Obama, whom the predicting Nostradamus might have called »Mabus«, the Antichrist, already long time ago.
2 comments:
Obama is now denouncing what has been preached to him over the course of the last 20 years. It wasn't until statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr were "politically" incorrect. Did he accept these values prior to the uproar made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr?
Whatever, he isn't worth to be President of anyone, and he sure can't be President of all Americans.
I agree with all predictions on this blog, Nostradamus or not - amazed how early they were made.
Nostradamus Obama prophecies are very popular those days, even though the predictor's favorite was John McCain.
Post a Comment