Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Mr. Obama, can you go even one day without LYING?
Savage Politics has made an astonishing catch. (At least, that was the first site to bring the matter to my attention.)In his first general election ad (here), Barack Obama brags that he "extended health care for wounded troops." As you can see in this frame capture, this claim is backed by a citation of Public Law 110-181, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
That Act was very popular, receiving nearly unanimous support in the Senate. One of the very few Senators who did not vote for Public Law 110-181 was Barack Obama.
Has this outrageous fib received any mention on TPM or DU? No. You know full well that those sites would have screamed like air raid sirens if the ads pushed Clinton or McCain or anyone but Obama.
Kos published a defense of the ad, claiming that Obama had authored sections of the Act even if he would not vote for it. As though anyone should trust Kos after that site pushed the "darkened video" hoax, the "Hillary caused NAFTA-gate hoax," the "Hillary called for Obama's assassination" hoax, and numerous other vile smear-jobs.
Not long ago, I saw an amusing exchange on one of the anti-Obama blogs. A reader asked how Obama would have voted on the AUMF if he had been in the Senate, and if the 9/11 attackers had targeted the Sears Tower.
Another reader gave the obvious answer: "Present!"
Ok I’m having a hard time trying to find where any of his amendments actually makes it into HR 4986, which is Public Law No: 110-181. And since I’m having a hard time, I can’t validate Kos’ arguments.
1. They mention: “SA 2085 SEC. 703. POSTDEPLOYMENT MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH SCREENINGS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES”
If you do a search for the term “POSTDEPLOYMENT MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH SCREENINGS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES”, one exact match comes up as S 177 IS which is part of HR 1354. The last major action for that bill was “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs” and that was on 01/04/2007.
2. They mention: “SA 2086 SEC. 593. DISCHARGE OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR PERSONALITY DISORDER”
Again if you were to do a search of the phrase “DISCHARGE OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR PERSONALITY DISORDER”, 1 exact match comes up as S 1817 IS which is part of HR 3167. And the last major action on this bill was “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services”. And this occurred on 07/19/2007.
This is all according to Thomas.loc.gov. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that these are separate amendments that were NOT part of HR 4986. However, they did make it into another bill. Read on.
The KOS website states:
“Alas, those who have been following this bill, or who actually read this web page, might discover that this bill is a reintroduction of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which also passed both Houses of Congress, but was vetoed by President Bush. And what do we find on that bill's web page”….
and preceding link takes you to another page from Project Vote Smart. This page deals with HR 1585. Both HR 1585 and HR 4986 both went by the short titles of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, while they were making their way through Congress. However only one of those became Public Law No: 110-181, and that was HR 4986 not HR 1585 (which is the one Obama amended.) Granted it does say it’s a related bill, but in no way do you get the connotation that it’s the same bill.
1. They mention: “SA 2085 SEC. 703. POSTDEPLOYMENT MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH SCREENINGS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES”
If you do a search for the term “POSTDEPLOYMENT MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH SCREENINGS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES”, one exact match comes up as S 177 IS which is part of HR 1354. The last major action for that bill was “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs” and that was on 01/04/2007.
2. They mention: “SA 2086 SEC. 593. DISCHARGE OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR PERSONALITY DISORDER”
Again if you were to do a search of the phrase “DISCHARGE OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR PERSONALITY DISORDER”, 1 exact match comes up as S 1817 IS which is part of HR 3167. And the last major action on this bill was “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services”. And this occurred on 07/19/2007.
This is all according to Thomas.loc.gov. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that these are separate amendments that were NOT part of HR 4986. However, they did make it into another bill. Read on.
The KOS website states:
“Alas, those who have been following this bill, or who actually read this web page, might discover that this bill is a reintroduction of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which also passed both Houses of Congress, but was vetoed by President Bush. And what do we find on that bill's web page”….
and preceding link takes you to another page from Project Vote Smart. This page deals with HR 1585. Both HR 1585 and HR 4986 both went by the short titles of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, while they were making their way through Congress. However only one of those became Public Law No: 110-181, and that was HR 4986 not HR 1585 (which is the one Obama amended.) Granted it does say it’s a related bill, but in no way do you get the connotation that it’s the same bill.
Holy mother of Sweet Potatos - that's pretty serious. The guy doesn't get busted when he lies. think about his bald faced lie in the debate about how his New England co-chair wasnt' a registered lobbyist, or when he claimed that he opposed the caps on interest rates because they weren't low enough.
Obama can say anything. No one cares.
Obama can say anything. No one cares.
Hillary in August. Nothing less.
Spread the word.
PS I asked the Sears Tower question on NQ.
Why doesn't everyone ask this when Obama supporters waive his "No" vote around.
Spread the word.
PS I asked the Sears Tower question on NQ.
Why doesn't everyone ask this when Obama supporters waive his "No" vote around.
Wait a minute. Since you do not say he voted AGAINST the bill, or even that he OPPOSED the bill, I'm inferring that, rather than either of the above possibilities, instead, he MISSED the vote. Is that correct?
I find that fact underwhelming. Active candidates for the presidency sometimes miss votes which are not needed to pass a bill. If almost everybody in Congress voted for this bill, it passed by a large margin, and wasn't close. BHO's aye vote was not necessary to ensure its passage.
Nor does missing the final vote on this re-passed bill mean that BHO did not author various amendments. And considering that it was wholly passed by Congress once already (then vetoed), likely, the second passed version would probably not need to further re-pass various amendments to the first bill that passed (they'd already be in the second bill).
...sofla
I find that fact underwhelming. Active candidates for the presidency sometimes miss votes which are not needed to pass a bill. If almost everybody in Congress voted for this bill, it passed by a large margin, and wasn't close. BHO's aye vote was not necessary to ensure its passage.
Nor does missing the final vote on this re-passed bill mean that BHO did not author various amendments. And considering that it was wholly passed by Congress once already (then vetoed), likely, the second passed version would probably not need to further re-pass various amendments to the first bill that passed (they'd already be in the second bill).
...sofla
To what the last person said:
The point that is trying to be made is that you can not take credit for something that you did not have a part in. He did help amend the bill as some are trying to say, nor did he even vote on the bill.
The simply state it:
HE'S LYING!
Obama is claiming that he did something that he did not help do. Therefore it's a lie.
Post a Comment
<< Home
The point that is trying to be made is that you can not take credit for something that you did not have a part in. He did help amend the bill as some are trying to say, nor did he even vote on the bill.
The simply state it:
HE'S LYING!
Obama is claiming that he did something that he did not help do. Therefore it's a lie.
