Obama Either Makes It Up As He Goes Or He Has Serious Issues With Interpreting Reality

This is how Barack Obama interpreted his conversation with the Iraqi Foreign Minister:

At a press availability in Michigan, I asked Obama if Zebari had expressed any concern to him that his plans to withdrawal U.S. troops as president would undo any security advances.

"No, he did not express that," Obama said. "He did emphasize his belief that we've made real progress and I think was eager to see political accommodations between the factions follow up in the wake of this progress.

…And so my sense is that we should be able to execute a withdrawal and set a timeframe - a timetable that continues to allow US forces to support Iraqi forces in going after terrorists, that continues to train the Iraqi police and military as long as we're not training militias that are turning on each other.

This is how the Iraqi Foreign Minister interpreted the very same conversation:

Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that "Iraq is not an island." In other words, an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. "We have a deadly enemy," Mr. Zebari said. "When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity." Mr. Zebari says he believes U.S. forces can and should be drawn down. His point is that reductions should be made gradually, as the Iraqi army becomes stronger.

The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain.

So lets see, not only Does Senator Obama get history wrong, his campaign gets lessons of Winnie the Pooh wrong, but he can't even properly relay the contents of a conversation with an important ally.

Obama is a one man game of Telephone!

He either makes it up as he goes to fit his current message, or he has serious issues with his interpretation of reality.
DKK
Thanks to Ace

Obama's First Important Appointment Resigns -- Fabled Judgment ™ Shaky

Jim Johnson resigns Barack Obama's vice-presidential search committee.

Everyone and their brother expects the inevitable, "This isn't the Jim Johnson I once knew." Once again, we see that Obama's first instinct when encountering a skeptical questioner is to challenge the questioner; "no, you're wrong." Twenty-four hours ago, this was "a game" and Johnson didn't work for Obama. Once again, as with Wright, and the flag pin, and Trinity United, etc., the initial answer is now inoperative.

Bonus points to my campaign source who said yesterday "it's only a matter of time before Johnson's departure, because he costs the candidate a lot more than he benefits him."

UPDATE: A brilliant question from Campaign Spot reader Tim: "How do you accept the resignation of someone who doesn't work for you?"

DKK

The Campaign Spot On National Review

Dangerous Judgment and Bulldog Stubbornness -- Not A Good Combination

Even more astonishing than Mr. Obama's absence from Iraq, however, is the fact that he has apparently never sought out a single one-on-one meeting with Gen. Petraeus. The general has made repeated trips back to Washington, but Mr. Obama has shown no interest in meeting privately with him. It's enough to make you wonder who exactly Mr. Obama listens to when it comes to Iraq?

Mr. Obama frequently decries the danger of "dogmatists" and "ideologues" in public policy, yet he himself has proven consistently uninterested in putting himself in situations where he might be confronted with the hard complexities of this war. It suggests a dangerous degree of detachment and overconfidence in his own judgment.

After all, Mr. Obama was among those in January 2007 who stridently opposed the surge and confidently predicted its failure – even going so far as to vote against funding our soldiers in the field unless the Bush administration abandoned this new approach. It is now clear that Mr. Obama's judgment on the surge was spectacularly wrong.

Yet rather than admit his mistake, Mr. Obama has instead tried to downplay or disparage the gains our troops have achieved in the past 12 months, clinging to a set of talking points that increasingly seem as divorced from reality as some in the Bush administration were at the darkest moments of the war.

Mr. Obama continues to insist that "Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war" – despite the passage of numerous pieces of benchmark legislation by the Iraqi Parliament and unequivocal evidence of grassroots reconciliation across the country.

Mr. Obama also continues to claim that America has "simply thrown U.S. troops at the problem, and it has not worked" – despite the dramatic reduction in violence in precisely those areas of Iraq where American forces have surged, and since handed over to Iraqi Security Forces.

And of course, Mr. Obama persists in his pledge to withdraw all combat forces from Iraq, on a fixed timeline, beginning the moment he enters office – regardless of the recommendations of our commanders on the ground, regardless of conditions on the ground, and regardless, in short, of reality.

America is longing for an informed and principled debate about the future of Iraq. However, such a debate seems unlikely if the Democratic nominee for president won't take the time to truly understand the dynamics on the ground, let alone meet with commanders.

The time for talking points is over. Too much is at stake. When will Mr. Obama finally return to Iraq and see the situation for himself?

Obama's Fabled Judgment is based on a myth and has proven dangerously wrong ever since!
DKK
WSJ -- Why Obama Must Go to Iraq

Obama Throws Palestinians Under Bus

Palestinian activist, Ali Abunimah, discussed Barack Obama's overnight switch from Pro-Palestinian activist to supporter of Israel.

ALI ABUNIMAH: I don’t know if they’ve been asked in a debate, but whenever they have been asked, they have all gone out of their way to express full support for what Israel is doing. Barack Obama is not distinguished from the rest of the pack, except by for how far he has moved to try to appease AIPAC and pro-Israel movements.

I remember, Amy—I knew Barack Obama for many years as my state senator—when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time.

I remember personally introducing him onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. And that’s just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation. And just yesterday, he apparently sent a letter to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador at the UN, to urge the US not to allow any resolution to pass criticizing Israel and saying how Israel was forced to impose this barbaric medieval siege on Israel.
Video At Link

It looks like Obama's Fabled Judgment™ * strikes again!
(* ™ -- Obama's Judgment is so famous, accurate, and prescient it is clear it has to be trademarked!)
DKK
Gateway Pundit -- BREAKING: Devastating Video Discovery-- Obama Associate Talks About His Pro-Palestinian Background

Running From Judgment -- Rezko -- Obama Got Another One Wrong

Barack Obama has known Tony Rezko for 18 years, worked with him for quite a few years and has accepted at least $200,000 in campaign contributions from him.

Yesterday following the conviction of Tony Rezko on 16 of the 24 corruption charges against him Obama said:

I�m saddened by today�s verdict. This isn�t the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform. I encourage the General Assembly to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent these kinds of abuses in the future.�

This guy, Obama, is the guy who got a negative score on his famous, "Dumb War," speech.

The same guy who who said this about Reverend Writht:

"I've known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years. The person that I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

After sitting in this man's church and having a personal relationship with him for those 20 years.

Why is it that any person alive believes that Barack Obama has the judgment necessary to set the proper priorities, put the proper people in position, and take the actions necessary to run this country?
DKK
Quotes thanks to Gabriel Malor blogging at Ace -- Obama Is a Freakin' Idiot and His Followers Are Even Dumber

That Judgment -- Change -- Why Trinity But Not Iraq?

Barack Obama today had the judgment to leave Trinity Church after 20 years!

Obama will speak to this decision later today. My bet is he will attempt to do the same thing he did with Reverend Wright and make it about how the Church has changed recently.

If that is the case then Obama needs to explain how he can change his mind about his church of 20 years when facts on the ground change but is unwilling reevaluate or even visit Iraq or General Petraeus to see how the facts on the ground there have changed!

Is this really the judgment of a leader?
DKK

Afterthought:
The timing of Obama's change of mind about Trinity is quite interesting -- now that the nomination is pretty well locked up and he is no longer being called, "not black enough," by black leaders .

Does the Judgment Make The Grade

As Obama swings his campaign toward the general election I keep hearing how Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq. Why, "(a)s a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq," when he gave his, "Dumb War," speech. (In January 2003 Obama formally announced he was running for the US Senate seat --- wait, 2003, well in 2002 he really was risking it all wasn't he.)

What I don't hear is what he actually said in that famous speech.

What did he say that confirms his judgment claims today? Was he accurate and knowledgeable and is he consistent today? Does that speech demonstrate that Barack Obama knew the right thing to do when all the rest were flailing around for an answer?

Lets take a look at the key points in Barack Obama's now famous (but rarely quoted) 2002 Iraq speech:

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

Check, We know today that that Obama was right about one thing, Saddam was a brutal, ruthless, butcher and the world would be better without him!

(+1 Obama Judgment point (OJP))

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Obama was wrong about the containment policy working against Saddam. In addition Saddam's hold on his people wasn't even close to weakening. As a matter of fact thanks to Oil for Food the only thing that was weakening was the resolve of the UN.

We also know that petty dictators:

For the most part, dictators tend to stay in power for a very long time. Or they're deposed only to be replaced by another dictator. It takes a long time to change an entire governmental structure, and often it doesn't happen without the intervention of the United Nations, the United States or other governmental organizations. Currently, more than 70 countries in the world are ruled by dictators. Many of them are guilty of atrocities against their own people. (How Stuff Works -- To End Dictatorships)

(Oow, sorry that is -1 OJP. Since the President said we needed to act before Saddam was an imminent and direct threat that is not scored.)

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

Well, he was right about that -- but strangely he is willing to ignore his own judgment on this one. He said REQUIRE, but is now willing to forgo that requirement for the sake of political posturing.

(-1 OJP = +1 for accuracy, -2 for ignoring his own advice)

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.

Well, the middle east didn't erupt in flames, to the contrary, the Arab world proved quite rational overall.

(-1 OJP)

This week the US Ambassador to Iraq stated that Al Qaeda in Iraq has nearly been eliminated (something time will tell) and Bin Laden's most recent tape indicated he was diverting his resources from Iraq, what he had called the central battle against the US, to the support of the Palestinians.

Recruiting of foreign fighters may have increased as they went to Iraq to help the Jihad, however this appears to have had the affect of draining the jihadi swamp in a manner advantageous to the US as our trained forces were able to deal with them in Iraq rather then worldwide or at home. In addition many, including Bin Laden himself believe a defeat in Iraq will damage al Qaeda.,

(-1 OJP)

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

(Huh?)

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today.

The key word in this sentence is WORLD. Let's remember what Obama said earlier, a few short paragraphs earlier:

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

Would leaving a brutal, ruthless, butcherer who thwarted the world's attempts at eliminating the danger, developed chemical weapons and coveted nuclear capacity -- A BAD GUY who the world would be better off without -- really have left a just more secure world? Does Obama really believe that? How DOES he define just and more secure, because it seems he really mucks this one up.

Is this the lesson he took away from the stories of his Grandfather and Great Uncle liberating Nazi death camps in Europe? Is that the lesson you or I would have gotten from their honorable service in a horrific liberation of people oppressed by a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butched his own people. A man who repeatedly thwarted the world's attempts at peace?

(-3 OJP = -1 for just and -1 for secure and -1 for his interpretation of his own family history!)

So, as far as the infamous speech that has made Obama the candidate with the judgment, how does he score?

Final Score -- Minus 6 -- Obama Judgment Points.

Sorry, but even in public school that is a failing grade.
DKK