Gary Gore's blog

Where does Barack Obama stand on Iraq?  Well, we could just ask him.  But, make sure you take note of the date, time and wind direction if you do!

This great video submission to Youtube.com reminds me so much of the famous quote by John Adams (often paraphrased by Ronald Reagan, as well):

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

John Adams - 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770

These multiple statements comically presented in the video should be weighed against the comments made in an interview with CBS News' Laura Logan on Sunday's Face the Nation where he stated he has absolutely no doubts about his foreign policy and Commander-in-chief bona fides.

Logan: Do you have any doubts?

Obama: Never.

Well... If after looking at the Youtube video of Obama's swings on Iraq policy, you're just as confused as I am about his positions, I really don't think you're alone.  At least Obama is certain of his foreign policy stances... as of 2:30 PM, July 21st, 2008.

Well, they do say "Politics make strange bedfellows"!

According to The Wall Street Journal, Carly Fiorina - one of the top financial and economics advisors to John McCain - met with 25 prominent Hillary Clinton supporters on Tuesday.  Apparently, the meeting was initiated by the former backers of the Clinton campaign and not by John McCain's staff.

The Westchester meeting came at the behest of former Clinton
supporters, some of whom have said – adamantly – that they won’t
support Obama. Polls show Obama winning the majority of support from
women voters while about a quarter of ex-Clinton supporters are leaning
toward McCain. The meeting wasn’t stocked with typical voters, however.
These were prominent activists and fund-raisers, including several
known as “Hillraisers,’’ who raised more than $100,000 for Clinton
during the primary season. “I didn’t ask how many of them were
Hillraisers but certainly a number of them were,’’ Fiorina said.

It's apparent these Hillary backers are looking for a viable alternative to having to vote for Barack Obama after that hard-fought primary they just went through.  I personally don't think it will be difficult for them to find some common-ground with McCain on several issues.  The story goes on to detail some of their interest in doing just that:

Fiorina and participants said the town-hall style meeting covered a
variety of issues, from health care to foreign policy to workplace
rights. While many of the subjects could be described as of particular
interest to women, many were not. One topic that got little attention:
abortion rights. “John McCain has a very strong record of being
pro-life, as do I,’’ Fiorina said. “They knew that. This was not a
one-issue crowd.’’

Siskind said Fiorina agreed to provide details regarding McCain’s
stances on mandating health insurance coverage for birth control pills,
federal mandates for paid maternity leave and a reinvigoration of
federal legislation aimed at giving women equal pay for comparable work.

Siskind said the group told Fiorina that if McCain would give some
concrete assurances of support on such issues, the people in the room
and the organizations they represented could help deliver “hundreds of
thousands and maybe millions of votes” to the presumptive Republican
nominee.

At the end of the day, I'm sure Hillary Clinton is going to tow the party line and maintain her verbal support for the nominee.  But, this sort of migration to McCain by her supporters, especially with its financial implications, is the kind of thing that could help level the playing field to compete toe-to-toe with Obama and his '50 States' campaign strategy he's going to employ to try to bleed McCain of his funds.

It seems 'Nothin's easy" these days as far as Obama is concerned.

Read the full story here

In an amazingly unbelievable revelation to us all, we have been presented today with evidence that Jesse Jackson may, indeed, be a hypocrite.  As hard as that may be to believe, once the shock wears off, read more at FoxNews.com.

Last week, as Bill O'Reilly was about to broadcast Jesse Jackson's 'hot mic' incident for the first time on 'The O'Reilly Factor', the program's highly rated host stated that there was actually some additional captured audio that, while damaging to Jackson, would not be aired due to it not adding anything to the present story.  I personally witnessed some snickering and doubtful comments about that on some of the more liberally-biased programs and networks in the days following O'Reilly's statement. 

Well, it appears that O'Reilly was being truthful all along.

“I’m not in the business of hurting Jesse Jackson — because it does hurt Jesse Jackson — and I’m not in the business of creating some kind of controversy that’s not relevant to the general subject: one civil rights leader disparaging another over policy. So we held it back. Some weasel leaked it to the Internet,” O’Reilly said.

Once a few internet blogs got hold of the full transcript of Jackson's off-air comments and published them, O'Reilly decided to go ahead and make comment on the additional content of Jackson's rant.

Anyway... Jackson referring to black people as the 'N-Word' in the process of denigrating Barack Obama seems just so rich, does it not? 

Jackson has been vocally critical of others’ use of the N-word, saying it is hurtful to the black community, whether it is used by blacks or whites.

For instance, after a November 2006 rant by “Seinfeld” star Michael Richards during a stand-up routine laden with the N-word, Jackson joined other black leaders to challenge the entertainment industry to stop using the slur. He also called for a boycott of the “Seinfeld” DVD series that was coming out because of Richards’ use of the slur.

“We want to give our ancestors a present,” Jackson said at a news conference at the time. “Dignity over degradation.”

Jackson’s comment came when he was discussing Barack Obama, saying the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is “talking down to black people,” and “telling niggers how to behave.”

FOX News aired a portion of the tape last week where Jackson was criticizing Obama because they were deemed newsworthy. O’Reilly said the N-word was not deemed so, because it “did not advance the story in one way, shape or form.”

So, let this be a lesson to all.  Nothing is impossible in this world.  If Jesse Jackson can be a hypocrite, anything can and will happen!

Every so often, within this battle we engage in to further our conservative ideals, there are brief satisfactory moments where we can just sit back and enjoy the fruits of past conservative struggles and victories.  Reading this article from Cybercast News provides us just that sort of opportunity.

The cities of London, England and Berlin, Germany are in the process of establishing memorials to our late, great 40th president, Ronald Reagan.

London and Berlin may soon join other cities across Europe in hosting memorials to the late President Ronald Reagan.
 
Since the death of America’s 40th president in June 2004, a handful of parks and streets across the continent have been named after him, and a bust of Reagan was installed in a central Budapest park in 2006.

With plans already underway for memorials in Prague and two cities in Poland, a spokeswoman for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation confirmed Monday that the organization is involved with plans for a proposed statue in the British capital.

It has always seemed notable that those who have personally endured the hardships and tyranny of communism and socialism are the ones who are the most adamant in their opposition to its reemergence when they see it.  Those who have suffered in the past, and are the most appreciative of their newfound freedoms and liberties, are the strongest stalwarts against 'neo-socialism'.  They've been there and done that!

Those on the political left in America would do well to take note of just how appreciative a vast majority of Europeans are to the heroes of the late 20th century like Reagan.  These people feel so fortunate, that today they are actually moving on from such oppression as opposed to rapidly moving towards its deadly embrace.  All the while, those on the left in America take their freedom for granted, those who recognize oppressive government when they see it, celebrate every day of liberty and freedom they now enjoy... Thanks to those like President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

If there is one area of focus that John McCain should be given undeniable praise on, it would be his push for the surge strategy in Iraq.  It was upon adopting his proposed military strategy that we were, finally, able to begin taking control of the situation on the ground. 

Today, McCain called for a similar strategy to be undertaken in Afghanistan.  In doing so, he took the opportunity to also take some swipes at Barack Obama's military strategies, or lack thereof, in the region.  Read more here.

McCain has described Obama's call for withdrawal from Iraq as tantamount to declaring defeat and points to the lower levels of violence in Iraq as evidence that sending additional U.S. troops there has been a successful strategy.

"Sen. Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards," McCain told a town hall meeting. "It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan."

McCain added: "I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory."

McCain laid out a blueprint for intensified military efforts in Afghanistan, where nine U.S. soldiers were killed and 14 injured in a militant attack Sunday, the U.S. military's highest death toll there in three years.

As part of his reasoning for this needed change in strategy in Afghanistan, McCain noted the recent regrouping of our enemies in the region - much of which can be attributed to the seasonal nature of their abilities to fight improving following the bitterly cold months where they have been forced to hold up.

"The status quo is not acceptable. Security in Afghanistan has deteriorated, and our enemies are on the offensive," he said. "From the moment the next president walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions and crucial decisions about Afghanistan."

Three more brigades should be sent to Afghanistan, McCain said, as well as a presidential envoy to deal with countries vying for power in the region.

I have little doubt that the present increase of violence in Afghanistan will once again be quelled to a large degree once the harsher, colder months once again arrive.  The question that remains to be seen, however, is who will be our Commander-in-Chief come next January?  Who will determine the strategy our military leadership should employ come May, 2009 when that next wave of barbarians emerge from their caves?

The U.S. Senate has passed an update to the nation's FISA laws by a margin of 69-28, which finally brings the 30-year-old standards for electronic surveillance into the 21st century. See the story at FoxNews.com.

The new standards that have passed the House and Senate are now being sent on to President Bush for his impending signature.  These updated measures will now give the communications companies - that are a necessity in assisting the government - immunity from being sued by individuals for those efforts to conduct surveillance on foreign terrorists planning to wage war against U.S. citizens within our country and against our troops on foreign soil.

I find it interesting that Barack Obama, in earlier attempts at amending the bill, voted for failed efforts to keep out the immunity for our telecommunications companies. But, when the rubber actually hit the road, this turned out to be just another one of the instances of late where his campaign rhetoric over the past year did not serve his new found political needs to move away from his ultra-liberal views and towards the center.  It's basically a case of him being fine with engaging in all of the self-serving, left-wing chatter he can spew out to the liberal masses when he needs them, but when it actually comes down to going along with sound and vital national security policy, the actual right thing to do is as plain as day.

It really makes you wonder how much longer it will be until those at 'MoveOn' & Company go all out in their support for Ralph Nader?  Obama is clearly aware of the fact that the fringe left is not going to be able to serve him the presidency on a platter - the Democratic nomination was another story.  Their seperation anxiety from Obama must certainly be getting intense right now.  The question is if they can hold out until November.  It is only after he would be elected that he would surely placate them once again.

... after he reversed his position on Iraq policy, that is.  Could this be Election '08's version of 'I reversed my position on Iraq before I was for reversing that position on Iraq'?

In what is turning out to be an almost daily event, Barack Obama announced today that he may have an upcoming policy revision on another major national issue.

Early on Thursday, Obama made statements that left the door open for major alterations in his plans for Iraq in the unfortunate event he happens to become president.

This from Politico.com based on statements from earlier in the day:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq immediately and instead said he could “refine” his plan after his trip to Baghdad later this month.

Earlier, a top Obama adviser had said that the senator is not “wedded” to a specific timeline.

Obama told reporters in Fargo, N.D., that he is “going to do a thorough assessment."

"When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies," he said, according to CBS News. “I have been consistent, throughout this process, that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.”

Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to stick to the timeline.

It was in that 'second news conference' of the day that Obama had to try to wiggle out of the pickle he was creating for himself with his inconsistencies.  One of the more telling moments of the later news conference came in this exchange between the Democratic nominee and reporters:

Obama: ... I would be a poor Commander-in-Chief if I did not take facts on the ground into account. Alright?

Reporter: You just said that when you use the phrase "refine policy" that it did not refer to the 16-month timetable. Does that mean you can tell us today that you will not change the 16-month timetable?

Obama: (Laughs, Scratches his head, thinks a few seconds) - Here's what I will tell you. I will bring our troops out at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades per month. And at that pace, we will have our combat troops out in 16 months.

So, how does Obama and his supporters reconcile a 16-month timetable being a "done deal" with his self-admission that he is working blind, having no idea of what is currently going on in Iraq until he is able to meet the military leadership over there on the ground - once he actually gets around to making the trip?

By sticking to his latest news conference position of saying "we will have our combat troops out in 16 months", is he not admitting to being a potential "poor Commander-in-Chief" from his words just two sentences previously stated, admonishing any decision-making before taking "facts on the ground into account"?

As more and more time passes and Obama has more and more position changes, I'm almost feeling sorry for his supporters having to figure out what the talking-point is for the current hour.  Karl Rove puts it well when he simply says that Obama is a candidate that is "unanchored and untethered".  Some "leadership", huh?

Just when you thought the Left-leaning block of the U.S. Supreme Court could not get any more flawed in their decision-making process... The New York Times is reporting that part of their major argument in their majority opinion against the Louisiana death sentence was based on a factual error:

When the Supreme Court ruled last week that the death penalty for raping a child was unconstitutional, the majority noted that a child rapist could face the ultimate penalty in only six states — not in any of the 30 other states that have the death penalty, and not under the jurisdiction of the federal government either.

This inventory of jurisdictions was a central part of the court’s analysis, the foundation for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s conclusion in his majority opinion that capital punishment for child rape was contrary to the “evolving standards of decency” by which the court judges how the death penalty is applied.

It turns out that Justice Kennedy’s confident assertion about the absence of federal law was wrong.

A military law blog pointed out over the weekend that Congress, in fact, revised the sex crimes section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 2006 to add child rape to the military death penalty. The revisions were in the National Defense Authorization Act that year. President Bush signed that bill into law and then, last September, carried the changes forward by issuing Executive Order 13447, which put the provisions into the 2008 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial.

It's hard enough when you try to engage in the political battle against the Left on an even playing field.  But, now we see that those on the left, even as high as our Supreme Court justices, don't mind using erroneous data to further their agenda. 

As far as this decision's outcome... As they say, "Garbage in, Garbage out."

Earlier today we saw a notable sign that North Korea is falling in line regarding their nuclear program, with the demolition of a 60-foot tall nuclear reactor cooling tower at the Yongbyon complex.  The achievements of the six-party talks are becoming more and more apparent by the day.

After this highly-visable action by North Korea, President Bush moved quickly to lift many of the trade sanctions against the country.  President Bush also will remove North Korea from the list of nations that sponsor terror.

It's hard to believe that we are less than seven years removed from President Bush's 2002 State of the Union address, where he lumped the nations of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq into the 'Axis of Evil'.  In the present situation - with North Korea's removal now from the state sponsors of terrorism list - Iran now stands alone from that former 'axis' today!

Iran was once a nation that was comfortably buffered on both the east and the west by two countries that were also highly antagonistic towards the U.S. - Afghanistan and Iraq.  But, due to the Bush Doctrine, Iran now finds itself a country that is geographically and ideologically isolated.  To put it in simple terms, it's clear where we can find the present location of the bull's eye.

We, as Americans, should all celebrate our foreign policy success.  The sad fact is that, in this day of partisanship and the politics of personal hate from the left, that will not happen. 

But, to those who can recognize what has taken place on the foreign policy stage during Bush's time as President, it's obvious that our President has been playing some great 'chess' - And Iran would do well to realize, as well, it is now 'checkmate'.

Now that the general election campaign is in full swing, we are beginning to see some telling traits come to light, which are defining the Obama political machine.  In just over the last few days we’ve learned of several unique actions that can be chalked up to nothing but ‘Politics as usual’. 

The most shocking has been the revelation illustrating to what lengths the Obama campaign will go, and likely has gone throughout his run, to craft the Obama image.  Politico.com broke the news of two female Muslim supporters of the nominee being barred from sitting behind Obama on Monday at a campaign rally.  The volunteers that prevented the two women from appearing behind Obama’s podium did not want the women who donned their traditional headscarves to appear in any campaign images behind their candidate in photographs or on television.

It’s been pretty clear that the Obama image has been a highly crafted and closely managed one.  But, events such as this coming to light, are very troubling - events which clearly show the lengths they will go to in trading decency and respect for people in exchange for that desired image.  If this is how calculating and dismissive Obama and his camp will go with his supporters to further his political prospects, I’d hate to see how far he would go with those in opposition to his views.

Another notable action by Obama ’08 this week is yesterdays announcement that Senator Obama will be the first modern presidential candidate to refuse general election public financing.   In making the decision, Obama will refuse the $84 million from the federal government.  But, he will in turn not be limited by the program to spending $84 million. 

Obama has built much of his image as being a ‘new kind of candidate’ on the strength of his major statements in support of the public financing system in the election process - (See a retrospective from Politico.com right here highlighting the evolution of Obama’s views on public financing).  Any reasoning he states for his complete 180-degree turn, at this point, rings completely shallow.  This shallowness in his decision is based on two major favorable facets of the race Obama finds himself in – Yes, both reasons given are actually in efforts to further two advantages Obama already has!

The first is in relation to just how much success he has enjoyed with his private fundraising - through April of this year, Obama had raised an incredible $266 million.  With this being his reality at this point, why stick to his guns?  Why place the limits on himself under these advantages, when those restrictions and rules could just be for “the other guy”... You know, "other people".

Another one of his excuses he tries to use is his need to counter the political tactics that are surely to come from the GOP and the John McCain camp in the general election.  It is no secret to anyone, if there has ever been any national candidate who has stressed his desire to keep a race issue-based and has wanted to limit “special-interest” ads (whether he should have any say in that matter, being another issue entirely), that candidate would be Obama’s opponent, Senator John McCain.  Obama could not have faced an opponent, even if he chose one himself, who could dispel his claims for needing to refuse public financing, better than Senator John McCain.

As this general election campaign is starting to shape up in earnest, so are the efforts to reimage and retool the democrat politician by the name of Senator Barack Obama – an empty suit bringing us empty words.