In February,2008, Obama sent out a mailer which stated that Hillary Clinton was for NAFTA and Obama had always been against it. Fortune Magazine conducted an interview with Obama where he seems to admit his NAFTA talk during the primary, was "rhetoric".
Exactly what we should expect from Obama. Now he cries: NAFTA not so bad after all. His score from the judges on that flip-flop should be a 10.
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.I never approved of NAFTA myself. I saw that it would take jobs from Americans and send them first to Mexico, then when that became too expensive, overseas. It was a bad idea and a bad treaty.
"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
Now, however, Obama says he doesn't believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA. On the afternoon that I sat down with him to discuss the economy, Obama said he had just spoken with Harper, who had called to congratulate him on winning the nomination.If this was his only flip-flop I could understand it. But it isn't. Barack Hussein Obama has flip-flopped on his position on Jerusalem. At first he said:
"I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people."
Then his adviser said he really meant:
But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."And then his adviser finally came out with:
"Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."Which is it going to be Senator? Divided the way the Palestinians want, or undivided the way the Israelis want? You can't have it both ways. You have to anger someone. Which groups votes do you want more? Jews or Muslims. You are angering both sides. Just yesterday you angered Muslims when 2 of your staffers barred Muslim women wearing headscarves from being seen behind you.
I can understand why you want to distance yourself from Muslims Senator. After all your own website says:
Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.Yet your own half-brother Malik has said differently.
Barack Obama's half brother Malik said Thursday that if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background.I expect Senator Obama to throw dear brother Malik under the bus in the coming weeks. He has to distance himself from his Muslim background in order to win votes in the US.
If Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh were running for President of the United States, he "would promise to support Israel and guarantee its security, and would move the United States embassy to Jerusalem," wrote Abdul Rahman Al Rashed, General Manager of the Al Arabiya news network.
He stated that Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama's enthusiastic support for Israel is standard operating procedure for every American candidate. "Even the Israelis cannot believe the promises," wrote Al Rashed.
No Israelis don't believe them. They see right through them as if they were made of glass. They know when a politician is lying to them. They understand lip service when they hear it.
You could say that with Israel, the US has gotten more bang for its buck. But to Barack Hussein Obama the money spent on Israel is wasted money. And privately he has told people that he would cut all funds to Israel. Again the flip-flop.
Al Rashed reminded readers that every American president must commit himself to Israel's security because Israel was the most loyal Middle East country to the U.S. during the Cold war with the Soviet Union."The United States considers Israel as its big stick, which it uses when needed, a service that none of the friendly Arab countries can do," he wrote. "The price is relatively inexpensive [because] the United States spent funds in Iraq in five years, to no avail, more than it has spent on Israel in 60 years. This viewpoint does not seem clear to Arabs."
Obama can't seem to make up his mind which side of the fence on these issues to sit on. He really should come clean with the American people. For the American people are beginning to wise up to the fact that Obama will say anything to get elected.