2008 Election CoverUps
obama's trans-atlantic hypocrisy
Month 2008
When it comes to afghanistan, two faces are better than one
By Andrew Peterson
For CoverUps.com
Undecided and fence-sitting voters have plenty of time to make up their minds about who to cast their vote for in the Presidential election. But why wait 'til November when there are some fairly obvious clues out there in broad delight that tell you all you need to know about Barack Obama's leadership style and integrity.
Before we go any further, let's state up front that this information was brought to our attention courtesy of the Republican National Committee. We'll wait a moment for outraged liberal Democrats to tune out before proceeding... We might also mention that the RNC backs up what they say with links to reliable sources, which we will cite as we go along.
Okay, everyone ready? Good.
Today's topic: Afghanistan. You may remember that during Senator Obama's Berlin speech, he exhorted his German audience to support ongoing American and German efforts in Afghanistan. Here are some excerpts:
Obama: “This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets …
The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Victory Column, Berlin, Germany, 7/24/08 – YouTube link – scroll to 7:35)
High-flown words. But has Mr. Obama backed them up with deeds? Believe it or not, he's had the opportunity to do so, but he hasn't taken advantage of it. As Chairman of the Subcommittee with Jurisdiction Over NATO Operations in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama was yet to walk his soaring Berlin talk.
On Tuesday, Obama Claimed That He Never Convened A Hearing On NATO Operations In Afghanistan Because Those Issues Are Dealt With At The Full Committee Level. CBS’ Katie Couric: “If you believe, Senator, Afghanistan is, in fact, the central front in the war on terror, why was this your first trip there? And why didn’t you hold a single hearing as chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the fighting force there?” Obama: “Well, the, actually, the subcommittee that I chair is the European subcommittee. And any issues related to Afghanistan were always dealt with in the full committee, precisely because it’s so important. That’s not a matter that you would deal with in a subcommittee setting.” (Interview With Sen. Barack Obama, “Obama: Surge Doesn’t Meet Long-Term Goals,” CBS News’ “Evening News,” www.cbsnews.com, 7/22/08)
That's what he said in July. But five months prior to that, in February, he told Tim Russert something entirely different in one of the Democrat primary debates:
But In February, Obama Said He Had Not Convened A Hearing On Afghanistan Because He Became The Subcommittee Chair At The Beginning Of His Campaign. NBC’s Tim Russert: “Senator Obama, I want you to respond to not holding oversight for your subcommittee. But also, do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?” Obama: “Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.” (MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)
Our Take
Barack Obama's political resume is famous for its thinness, but there are patterns that emerge from it nonetheless.
He excels at speech-making and enjoys being the center of attention while in front of huge crowds. But he has a strong aversion to making hard choices and does not like to cast votes on controversial issues. Often he skips votes altogether. Or he will simply vote "present" rather than expose himself to attack by voting for one side or another on a tough issue.
With this in mind, we at CoverUps would like to offer a solution to this problem. We believe a new government position should be created especially for Barack Obama:
Speechmaker In Chief (S.I.C.)©
The holder of this position would have no actual legislative or executive authority. But he would be free, whenever the mood strikes him, to offer stirring oratory to huge crowds bused in for the occasion. Public address announcements could be made before the Speechmaker in Chief takes the stage to remind the crowd that nothing they're about to hear has anything to do with actual U.S. government policy. These disclaimers could be simple boilerplate text, similar to the product warnings that come at the end of drug company commercials. There's no reason, in fact, for the S.I.C. to even be told about them.
We at CoverUps humbly suggest that the Speechmaker In Chief position, which could be funded by a tax on ACORN, represents a genuine win-win possibility for Obama and his supporters, and for the country. Thanks to this new position, Obama will be able to put his oratorical skills to good and benign use. His fans will have something to do other than post angry rants at the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos. Most importantly, the country will be able to carry on its civic affairs without having to worry about the disastrous results that would be brought about by an Obama administration.
Link to article. 
