The Hypocrisy Of Barack Obama

The dubious anecdote about ill equipped troops that Barack Obama shared at the Democratic primary debate, Thursday night, has caused a stir in the right wing blogosphere. The story is being ably covered by blogs like Ace of Spades, Gateway Pundit, Flopping Aces, and The Jawa Report who see this story as a possible chink in Obama’s political armor. If he’s knowingly lying, or carelessly passing off faulty information about the troops, then he should be made to answer for it.

But let’s not forget what is undeniably another outrage in all this, whether Obama’s story turns out to be mostly true, or not.

I’m talking about the absolutely breathtaking hypocrisy of the man.

After complaining about the platoon getting split up, he argued that the soldiers were left without the necessary troops and weapons:

“And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees,” Obama said. “They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”

First of all, if there were now fewer troops, why would it then follow (”as a consequence”) that they would not have enough ammunition? I never got that. And how the hell were they even capturing all those “tallyban” weapons, if they were not properly equipped? Kung Fu? …But that’s neither here nor there.

The main thing is….what @#$%&! nerve this guy has trying to blame the President for this supposed lack of equipment when he himself voted not to fund the troops:

ABC News, May 24, 2007:

After a nearly four-month standoff between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the White House, the House and Senate passed a war funding bill Thursday evening that does not contain timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

In the Senate, the bill passed overwhelmingly, 80-14, though three of four Democrats running for president — Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Barack Obama, D-Ill. – were in the minority voting against funds for the wars.

You see, staying on good terms with a big sugar daddy was more important than funding the troops.

ABC News September 17, 2007:

Seventy-two hours after MoveOn.org threw down the gauntlet, telling ABC News that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., needed to speak out “sooner and more vocally” in opposition to voting for an Iraq funding measure that does not include a timetable for withdrawal, both Democratic presidential contenders have done exactly that.

“If there is a funding bill that does not have a timetable for when we begin withdrawal, and the completion — a plan for how that withdrawal will proceed – I will not support it,” said Obama on Sunday during a wide-ranging foreign policy discussion at Des Moines’ First Christian Church.

Nov. 16, 2003:

…then-state senator Obama told a cheering crowd that it was wrong to vote to fund the war.”Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said ‘No,’” Obama said to applause as he referred to a bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say ‘No’ to George Bush,” Obama said. “If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.”

Sure, the troops eventually got their funding… without Obama’s help, but the delays may have caused problems for the troops. For instance, back in March 2007:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that if Congress fails to pass a measure funding the war efforts by April 15, it will slow down training of troops scheduled for future deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Gates says it would also delay repair of equipment.

Let a Republican play that game: Delay funding of something vital, and finally vote against it. Then complain when the project falls short of perfection.

Yeah, that would go over real well.