Open Letter to Barack Hussein Obama :: Free Republic
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008 that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
Sphere: Related Content
1 comment:
A friend of mine sent me this “Open Letter to Barack Hussein Obama” email, wondering how much of it was true. The answer is, “not much.” The original email/letter/memo is in quotes; fact checking is interspersed.
“To Barack Hussein Obama,”
First off, anybody who insists on the middle name is clearly biased. Obama didn’t choose his middle name, and there wasn’t any particular negative connotation to it in the 60’s, when he was named. Someone who insists on using it is looking to stir up hate and racism, and probably can’t be trusted.
Even McCain has asked people to stop doing this. See this link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/another-mccain-palin-intr_n_132996.html
“The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008 that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.”
Here’s the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?ref=opinion
It includes the phrase “Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63.” It doesn’t say he lied. As a matter of fact, it explores how Republicans have tried to make it appear that Obama’s been hiding a secret relationship with Ayers, and concludes that the two men crossed paths but never knew each other very well or were close. So the guy writing this is either intentionally misleading the reader or hasn’t read the article he’s referring to.
By the way, this article was published on the 3rd of October. It was referred to, however, in a speech on the 4th of October. There doesn’t seem to have been any such article in the Times on the 4th.
“The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008 that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.”
Can’t find this one. Nor can I find mention of “The Chicago Sun.” There’s a newspaper called the “Chicago Sun-Times” that has reported several times on Rezko and Obama; it’s reported that they had some contact, but that it was minimal. It’s reported that Rezko contributed to Obama’s campaign, but when it became clear that Rezko was a crook, Obama’s campaign identified the money that came from Rezko and donated it to charity.
“Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 about "race" contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America. While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.”
The transcript of the speech is here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9100.html
The transcript of the interview is here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/14/acd.01.html
The statements that the author appears to be referring to are probably, from the interview:
“Well, first of all, Anderson, you know, I strongly condemn the statements that have been shown on the tape. I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church,”
…and, from the speech:
“Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”
In the first, he seems to be saying that he never heard remarks like the quotes from Wright that made the round on YouTube. In the second, he admits that he’s heard controversial remarks. He might have heard controversial remarks, but not controversial remarks like the ones that were causing problems.
While you can stretch this to seem like a contradiction if you’re looking to prove that, I don’t think an unbiased reader would necessarily take it that way. I can’t say for sure, because I’m somewhat biased myself. That speech on race was a great speech, and probably one of the big reasons I’m an Obama supporter.
“In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without "preparations" at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin .. while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered "I would" to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without "any" preconditions. While your judgment about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.”
No research necessary. “Preparations.” “Preconditions.” Two different things. This is like saying, “Senator Obama, you said in one speech that you didn’t like apples. You said in another that you DID like oranges. Isn’t this a contradiction?”
“On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgment about military strategy as a potential commander in chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.”
Can’t find anything online to support this, and the author’s lack of detail (where was this said?) makes it hard to definitively prove or disprove. What he MIGHT be referring to is that, at about this time, Obama’s website removed some of the rhetoric from his pre-surge position that it wouldn’t work. Seems like Obama might have been wrong on that one. Can’t find any support for the assertion that he lied, though.
“You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgment about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.”
Again, this is hard to argue against. Not because it’s well supported, but precisely because it ISN’T well supported. It’s hard to figure out exactly WHICH vote the author has in mind.
It does seem pretty clear that Obama was against the Iraq war from the beginning (a position on which I agree with him; Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, and Iraq was only ever a distraction at best, a Bush vendetta at worst). Once we were in, however, he seems to have consistently favored a timetable for withdrawal, never an immediate retreat.
Link:
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/13/comparing_iraq_records.php
“You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.”
McCain’s record of reaching across the aisle, in the same period, is comparable. If Obama’s lying, so’s McCain. More likely, both of them are doing what politicians always do while trying to get elected: trying to present themselves in the best possible light.
“In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a "Captain" of a platoon in Afghanistan "the other day" when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan. You lied in that debate.”
One of these quotes (the one-word one, “Captain”) is correct; the “the other day” one didn’t occur in that debate. The army captain in question was contacted by ABC news, and backed up the story, though it turns out he told it to Obama’s campaign, not to Obama himself. Obama didn’t lie about that, though; his exact words were that he’d “heard from” the captain, and if the captain contacted Obama’s campaign specifically to tell them that the army was deploying platoons that were understrength and undersupplied, I’d say it’s justifiable for Obama to claim to have “heard from” that captain.
Link:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
“In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a "professor of Constitutional law" when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you "taught a law class" and never mentioned being a "professor of Constitutional law." You lied last spring.”
“Professor” means “A teacher at a university, college, or sometimes secondary school.”
Link:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professor
Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years. He was a professor.
“You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.”
McCain’s voted against funding for troops, especially when that funding would have been tied to withdrawal of troops. Link:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/773/
In other cases, McCain voted for funding, depending on context. Just as Obama has voted for some bills funding the troops and against others, depending on what else is in the bill.
“You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.”
McCain has voted against government incentives for solar or renewable energy sources. Note that in the paragraph above, the author doesn’t really support his argument; he says McCain voted against one source, doesn’t mention any others, and still claims that Obama and Biden were lying.
Here’s the proof on the others:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10699142
“You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America.”
Can’t find this one (and given this author’s batting average so far, that tempts me to conclude that he made it up).
The $42,000 number seems like it might have come from a McCain ad that claimed Obama voted to raise taxes on families earning that much a year. That was a lie; Obama voted for a measure that might have raised taxes on some individuals in that tax bracket, but wouldn’t have raised taxes on families making that much.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html
Currently, Obama’s plan is to reduce taxes for everyone making less than $200K per year, and raise taxes slightly on those making more. McCain’s plan is to lower taxes for everyone, but he’s not going to give nearly as big a break to the people on the bottom.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/30/eveningnews/main4559479.shtml
Neither could realistically implement their plans, though. These are just campaign promises on either side.
“You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.”
McCain himself has admitted that he voted with Bush over 90% of the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uThoBMfcFRc
As for spinning facts, yes, Obama does that. As does McCain. So did Bush. And Clinton. And Bush Sr. And Reagan. And Carter. And Ford. And so on…
However, studies have found that in this election cycle, McCain has distorted the truth more than Obama:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/09/mccain-leads-ob.html
I’d say this is understandable, since McCain can’t win by telling people the truth, but admittedly I’m biased.
“You did not take an active roll in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn .. who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuch Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.”
That’s one way to look at it. Another is that Obama was being truthful, and McCain was being deceitful, claiming to “suspend” his campaign to work on the bailout in the hope that working on the bailout would reflect positively on his campaign. Either way, it’s interpretation. Since we’re talking about motivation here, not what either candidate actually DID, only Barack Obama knows if Barack Obama was being deceitful. Similarly, only John McCain knows if John McCain was being deceitful.
“You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state enator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate subprime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America.”
As mentioned above, the Rezko thing has been pretty well disproved. This author is attempting to mislead. Also, notice the description of Rezko as an Arab; he’s not just trying to mislead, but to inflame racial hatred.
“During your campaign, you said: "typical white person." "they cling to their guns and religion." "they will say that I am black." You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America.”
The “typical white person” was a description of his grandmother. The “they cling to their guns and religion” quote was unrelated, delivered in another time and place, and was a description of blue-collar workers whose jobs are disappearing, and the things they cling to for comfort. Can’t find the “they will say that I am black” quote because the Internet is currently so swamped with this very letter; it’s the only thing that comes up. It was unrelated to the other two quotes, though.
“You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America, but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 Billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 Trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it.”
Flat-out lie (although possibly this author didn’t understand the proposal). Obama’s plan is to reduce taxes from current levels for 95% of Americans, partially by letting Bush’s tax cut on the other 5% expire.
Yes, it’s true that he can’t do it. It’s a campaign promise. But keep in mind, McCain can’t fund his tax cut, either.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/30/eveningnews/main4559479.shtml
“While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern,”
This appears to be an overstatement of a McCain ad that claims Obama wants to add 23% to the size of government. That McCain ad is itself a gross overstatement. If we assume that Obama is going to go forward with every program he’s proposed (and how many politicians ever do that?), the growth is more like 7%.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/639/
“…the greater concern is that you are deceiving America. The drain to America's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 Billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 Billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America.”
The U.S. has less than 3% of the world’s supply of oil.
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/fensec.asp
In addition, any change we see from drilling in the US would probably take about five years.
http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=21001
So presumably, if we ramped up drilling as much as possible, we could see a 3% drop in oil prices, five years from now. Instead, Obama suggests weaning ourselves off of dependence on foreign oil by investing in alternative energy sources. This doesn’t seem like that bad of an idea.
It’s arguable whether he’s claimed to have “always” been for more oil and nuclear power; as the campaign’s gone on, he’s talked more about both. You could view him as contradicting himself (though since when is it a horrible thing to think a problem through and change your mind?) or you could view it that he provided more information about his position over time.
“Mr. Obama, you claimed that you "changed" your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America.”
It’s a bit more complicated than that.
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/19/the-problem-with-obama-s-public-financing-acrobatics.aspx
The simplest answer is probably that Obama decided to go with private fundraising rather than public money because he could get more money that way.
However, 90% of Obama’s donors give $100 or less. By comparison, McCain got a much greater percentage of his funding from people who donated the maximum legal amount. This sort of suggests who each candidate appeals to: Obama’s supporters are “little guys,” while McCain’s supporters are “big shots” (the kind who expect, and receive, special consideration after they get a candidate elected):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-05-08-713154007_x.htm
“Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA. They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America. Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America.”
Yeah… those horrible teachers. Teaching people not to hate others because they’re gay. Teaching first graders to talk to someone if they’re being molested. Brainwashing children. If it wasn’t clear that this author is a fool by now, this paragraph should clinch it.
Though Obama isn’t as pro-education as he could be. He’s supported charter schools, which are a failed model, and pretty anti-union to boot. The author neglects to mention this, because it doesn’t fit the picture he’s trying to paint.
http://www.politicswest.com/19711/obama_we_need_support_charter_schools
Obviously, Obama’s dead wrong on this. McCain, by supporting charter schools AND vouchers, McCain is even MORE dead wrong. McCain not only wants to support a failed model, but also to give a handout to rich people who already send their kids to private schools.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Education.htm
This is one where I disagree with Obama; Clinton was actually a better education candidate. But that’s neither here nor there; the point is that, again, this author was trying to mislead his reader.
This is the point where the author stops trying to make points that even vaguely mention facts and goes on an extended tirade calling Obama a liar and comparing him to the antichrist. Fact checking will be spotty from here on out, as there are even FEWER facts here than there have been in the earlier parts of the essay.
“Oh Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else. Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
1. You lied to America. You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer. 2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements. 3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations. 4. You divide America about race and about class.
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race bating, and associations to John McCain:
War hero. Annapolis graduate with "Country first."”
McCain graduated ranked 894th of 899. Given his family connections, one is justified in suspecting (though unlike the author I’m responding to, I’ll clearly state that this is my own suggestion, not necessarily fact) that he’d never have been admitted if he hadn’t been a McCain, and, once admitted, may only have graduated because of his family connections.
“Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy Officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark.”
He has, however, accepted quite a few contributions from major corporations, and in some cases passed laws to favor them.
“The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.”
The way McCain has run his campaign, consistently distorting the truth and whipping up racial bias to try to win, also constitutes a blemish. His choice of an unqualified VP candidate in a sexist attempt to win votes also constitutes a blemish.
Yes, these are the objections of an Obama supporter. I’m biased. The point is still that what one considers a blemish depends largely on one’s point of view.
“Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.”
Notice the glancing way the author mentions Obama’s education, which is much more impressive than McCain’s. The rest of this paragraph is meaningless; it’s accusations of lying, but this author has already proved himself a much bigger liar than Obama.
“Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.”
As was mentioned above, McCain has distorted the truth during this election cycle much more often than Obama. If it’s “time for America to vote for honesty,” it’s clear that Obama is nearer that ideal than McCain.
“Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? .... of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty?”
Perhaps because this dishonesty is nowhere near as pervasive as the author suggests? Perhaps because the alternative, McCain, is much less honest?
“Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for "change" like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are .. and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.”
Reductio ad Hitlerum. Usually, when a person makes this argument, they’re trying to distract you from the fact that they’re wrong by eliciting the negative reaction that a mention of Hitler is sure to produce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
A Hitler comparison had to pop up eventually. Although of course, McCain has campaigned on fear to a much greater degree than Obama has.
“Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
“Mr. Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.
“Mr. Obama, you are not the "change" that America deserves. We cannot trust you.
“Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander in chief.
“Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race bating, lack of operational leadership experience, and general dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention to your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves ... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those gentlemen lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgments are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
“Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.
“Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.
“Michael Master McLean, Virginia”
Mr. McLean has spent the entire length of his “memo” distorting the truth, whether intentionally or through ignorance. I lean toward the belief that he’s done it intentionally, as he occasionally refers to sources that exist, but say the exact opposite of what he claims. If you allow him to influence your vote without checking his facts and discovering that he’s lying to you, you will be getting exactly the government you deserve: a plutocracy, in which you’re led by the nose to the conclusions that other people want you to reach. Think for yourself instead.
Post a Comment