From the AP (via Yahoo News):
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ridiculed Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday for saying Britain's decision to pull troops from Iraq is a good sign that fits with the strategy for stabilizing the country.
....
"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."
Later in the same story:
While in Texas, Obama raised money in Houston Thursday night, where he said he'd like to see an end to the "tit-for-tat" that dominates politics.
This is what happens when a person gets used to not being held accountable for what he says. He'll say anything, and then say or do the opposite the very next day, with no sense of irony.
That's how other Democrats can vote for the war in Iraq, then rail against it as a lie and a waste for 4 years, all while saying they "support the troops."
As for Vice President Cheney's prior statements on the war, we'd rather express hope for victory and be overly optimistic than be hoping for defeat.
Obama didn't vote for the war in Iraq. At least get all the facts straight before posting your "tit for tat" comments.
Comment by True Blue American — February 24, 2007 @ 1:13 pm February 24, 2007
No one 'hopes' for defeat. But many are realistic and while expecting success are always prepared for the worst. Our leaders have, for far too long a time, refused to admit that the policy being pursued was an inevitable recipe for defeat. Remember, hope is a thing with feathers...always flying beyond our reach and our grasp.
Comment by Harry Williams — February 24, 2007 @ 3:09 pm February 24, 2007
I heard this speech yesterday, in the rain, and I would like to say that it was not offered as a personal attack; it reflected the veiws of a disenfranchised electorate. When I heard the White House take on Britain's decision to pull out troops a few days ago I thought it was most absurd. Sen. Obama did not say anything that was not true in his statements about Cheney's take on the Iraq war. The truth can not be a personal attack.
Comment by Stephanie — February 24, 2007 @ 3:24 pm February 24, 2007
You're right. If you don't stand up for dumb wars, you're not supporting the troops. Stupid Dems.
Comment by Estevan Carlos Benson — February 24, 2007 @ 3:51 pm February 24, 2007
"Obama didn't vote for the war in Iraq."
And no one said he did.
"No one 'hopes' for defeat."
Of course many hope for America to be defeated.
"it was not offered as a personal attack"
The liberal AP called it "ridicule."
"a disenfranchised electorate"
You've been denied the right to vote? By whom?
"The truth can not be a personal attack."
Of course it can. And Stephanie would agree if, for example, a Republican commented on Hillary Clinton's physique.
"...dumb wars..."
This is exactly the kind of intellectual argument one expects from those on the left.
Comment by The Editors — February 24, 2007 @ 4:20 pm February 24, 2007
"And no one said he did"
You're right. You did not say "Barack Obama can vote for the war in Iraq, then rail against it as a lie and a waste for 4 years, all while saying they "support the troops."
But you implied it by using the term "Democrats" instead of "Barack Obama" in an article where you say Barack Obama says one thing, but does the opposite.
Comment by Andre Reavis — February 24, 2007 @ 7:16 pm February 24, 2007
"But you implied it..."
No, not at all. We made a point about Obama, then a separate but related point about Democrats. The observation about the Democrats was in a new paragraph. [The post has now been edited slightly for clarity - "Democrats" is now "other Democrats".]
Comment by The Editors — February 25, 2007 @ 9:02 am February 25, 2007