Another Bush/Obama Similarity...

His supporters. Recently, I wrote about how Obama and Bush are mirror images of each other. I would say this extends to the people who support each of them, too. Yes, I would have to say that Obama's supporters are EXACTLY like the Bush supporters from everything I have seen. For instance, Hillary Clinton has been VICIOUSLY attacked for allegedly supporting the war from the very BEGINNING of this campaign. Now, there is absolutely NO basis for that statement. There just is not. She never, ever said she supported the invasion of Iraq. In fact, she said the complete opposite. But hey - why should they bother to actually READ her speech (or listen to it, for that matter) when they can keep chanting, "She is for the War! She is HORRIBLE!" But, "Obama made a speech against the war!! He is AWESOME!" As if a speech is EXACTLY the same as a vote. As if a barely acknowledged speech by a state senator to a very select group of people should even COMPARE to the difficult decision Senator Clinton, and the other US senators, had to face. That is to say, they go on the offense lest they actually have to look at their candidate's record, attacking someone for something she did not even DO in an attempt to frame the debate. Sadly, the MSM did its part in supporting this line of attack against Hillary Clinton. Not unlike how Bush supporters claimed that all of us who opposed the war were unpatriotic, and that we HAD to go to war because of 9/11, despite the fact that not ONE of the terrorists was Iraqi, and that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. But once again, the MSM jumped on this bandwagon pushing this false attack.

Since the Obama supporters keep insisting that Clinton is a huge war monger, is there some basis for their constant refrain? Well, let's just take a look at some of what Clinton wrote in terms of the Resolution to Authorize Force: "Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak."

Huh. I didn't see anything there that screams, "Let's invade Iraq and blow the BEJSESUS out of them!!" So, what the heck else did she say that these Obamatrons are using to support this claim? Could it be this?

"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a preemptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

Well, golly gee willikers, that doesn't sound like someone who is rushing to war either!! Hmmm. Maybe I just need to read this speech a little further to see just WHERE it is Obama and his minions got this idea that Senator Clinton was war crazy...

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise."

AHA!! There it is! She used the word "ATTACK"!!!!! Never mind that it is SURROUNDED by condition after condition!! Don't bother to read anything PRIOR to that word, or AFTER that word, and you can see, clear as a bell, why Obama has attacked her from the VERY beginning as a COMPLETE and utter war hawk!

Oh, wait, there's MORE?? Well, shoot - since we've come this far, might as well see what else that war-crazed woman said!

"I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections."

Just hold the phone, here - is she talking about getting the UN involved??! AGAIN?? Heck, she already mentioned them a few times, so why the heck is she involving them AGAIN here??? Good grief - what possible good could the UN do?!?! I mean, she already said that the CIA assured them there was a "clear and present danger," so why bother with the UN, getting a resolution, or even having weapons inspectors?!?! Sheesh! What a wimp!! Oh, wait - no - she is a war-monger! Obama SAID so!!!

Let's just finish this out, and see why he was SO insistent on this point! Oh, I bet it has something to do with pre-emptive invasions! Yeah, that's the ticket!!

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

Whaaaa???? Wait - if I can still read English correctly, it seems she is saying she does NOT want a pre-emptive invasion. That CAN'T be right, can it???

Dadgummit. There must be SOMETHING in this whole speech that screams she can't wait to rush into war against Hussein!! How else could Obama and the MSM keep claiming it was so???

All right - here is the VERY last paragraph: "So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

Well, hell. OK, so she has the CIA, and the Secretary of State ASSURING the Senate, heck, the UN, and the WORLD, that Saddam Hussein had WMD. She received PERSONAL assurances from the President that he would go to war as a last resort. Her entire SPEECH is based on going to the UN, working with the world community, and against pre-emptive action. Yet, somehow, in this new Upside Down World, she, and she ALONE, is responsible for the US attacking Iraq! Wow - that's some nifty magic there!

So - clearly, Senator Clinton never supported the war flat out. Yet, Obama has gotten MAJOR traction, and major amounts of VOTERS, based on the LIE that she did.

Doesn't that sound like a Bush supporter to you??

And at No Quarter, we have seen - just in the past couple of days - instance after instance of Obama turning his back on former campaign promises (campaign finance, FISA), and yet, his supporters go through the most CONVOLUTED machinations to dismiss this blatant hypocrisy, just like Bush's supporters have done for him over the past 7 years (do I REALLY have to ennumerate all of the times and all of the ways Bush's supporters have stood up for him in the face of his numerous lies? I didn't think so, either.).

How does he get away with this? As with Bush, no matter WHAT Obama does, no matter how much fence-siitng ("Present!") or flip-flopping or flat out LIES he tells, his people will continue to march in lockstep behind him, not daring to admit to themselves that they have been had. Maybe that is the problem. Their ego is SOOOOO much more important than our country is. Or maybe they are just too invested now to admit out LOUD that they were wrong, and heck, Clinton has already started to help him, so it's too late anyway, right? Whatever their (flawed) reasoning is, they, along with Howard and Donna, have shoved Obama down our throats. That just makes me ill.

But you know what? Just like Bush being forced on to the country by a bunch of myopic, uninformed people, Obama is being forced on us by a bunch of people who are doing it for THEMSELVES, not the country, for them to feel "hip" or to assert it makes them more progressive. They are CLEARLY not looking at what he REALLY says, or what his record shows, or with whom he associates. So I, for one, along with Just Say No Deal, say No Deal. No Dice. No Way. I refuse to hear the Mea Culpas down the road from the people who were taken in by this Charlatan. Just say NO DEAL now, and spare the country another 4 years of Obama OR McCain. Really - it is in EVERYONE'S best interest. Really.