It seems that Obama and Michelle are saying this phrase more and more each day. Yesterday on the view, Michelle had to try to clarify her Anti-American remarks. She did state of course, what she said, was not what she meant. This has become a popular scapegoat throughout this campaign. It appears that alot of Americans are not able to understand what they really mean. This makes all of us wonder what really is the truth. This scapegoat excuse goes way back to super Tuesday. Where Obama had a conversation with Canada about NAFTA, and the stories did not match. Why? Because we didn’t understand him correctly?
I find all the excuses, just that excuses. On the view, Michelle spoke about the statement she made that her husband was “sweet and pathetic”. But of course, we all miss understood that to. What she meant to say was “sweet and sympathetic“. And of course there is the “whitey” statement, where she meant “why’d he”. So now it clear, according to the Obama’s alot of people in America can’t understand English.
ABC news is reporting that Obama had a conversation with the Iraqi foreign minister. But, of course there is a communication problem. Obama remembers the conversation in a very different way than the foreign minister.
Senator Obama remembers they conversation as follows:
“I think that he expressed what President Maliki has expressed as well,” Obama continued, “which is that the Iraqis are obviously concerned about their sovereignty and are not seeking a long term occupation by the U.S. 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. One area that I think is important to emphasize is that as a consequence of a huge spike in oil prices – the Iraqi government’s budget is twice as large as it anticipated and so I think its important for the Iraqis to start picking up more of the tab both for reconstruction efforts as well as the need to continue to boost their military capacity.”
Ok, so he said, they talked about a timetable. But here is the problem The Iraqi official remembers the conversation differently:
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.”
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. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that “if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security.
So, what he meant to say was? We are withdrawing from Iraq? They agreed? Am I missing something here? Ok……
Now it gets better….. This is the Iraqi ministers view on the difference between Obama and McCain….
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.
I thought the war was the “most important difference” between the two candidates. It appears we have another “what I meant to say moment”.
The problem is with so many of these “moments” how can we know what the truth is? The answer is clear, we cannot. It seems that Obama is no different than most politicians, he says what we want to hear at the time. This appears to be the reasoning behind all the “what I meant to say”. This then pleases the person with whom he is speaking to.
Kind of sounds like a appeasement arguement to me. When speaking to the Jewish Voting community, he assured them he would stand beside Israel. However, his past Anti– Semitic connections also haunt him. Another contrast, and there are many such examples.
Obama is a walking contradiction, knowing this, I have to ask how can we really trust someone like that, with our country?