A Free Voice

Poll: Most Democrats wanted Bush to fail
March 10, 2009, 12:20 am
Filed under: Iraq War, Media Bias, Obama | Tags: , , , , ,

Not so surprising, a  Fox News poll that goes over public  from 2006 shows that a majority of Democrats wanted Ex-President George W. Bush to fail despite the fact that we were at war in Iraq and Afghanistan,


This is nothing new. We already knew that Bush-haters wanted him to fail, no matter what to cost to America. — Most interestingly, this comes while many Democrats and the anti-Bush crowd are still complaining about Rush Limbaugh’s bold statement that he wants President Obama to fail. — I guess it’s okay for them to hope Bush fails, but that it is treason to wish for Obama’s failure in the attempt to establish a big government nanny-state.

Well I guess that as long as it is the all compassionate messiah Obama . . .


Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son’s Bracelet… Where is Media?
September 28, 2008, 7:10 pm
Filed under: Democrats, Iraq War, McCain, Obama, Republicans

From NewsBusters.org,

Barack Obama played the “me too” game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son’s name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.

Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show “Route 51” asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama’s positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son’s name on the campaign trail. (h/t D. Keith Howington of www.dehavelle.com)

Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because “she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan’s name.” Jopek went on to say that “she wasn’t looking to turn it into a big media event” and “just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself.” Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.

But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son’s sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte. This begins at about 10 minutes into the radio program. (Download radio show HERE)


Brian Jopek: Because of some of the negative feedback she’s gotten on the Internet, you know Internet blogs, you know people accusing her of… or accusing Obama of trying to get votes doing it… and that sort of thing.

Radio Host Moberg: Yeah

Jopek: She has turned down any subsequent interviews with the media because she just didn’t want it to get turned into something that it wasn’t. She had told me in an email that she had asked, actually asked Mr. Obama to not wear the bracelet any more at any of his public appearances. Which I don’t think he’s…

Moberg: It has been a while since he’s brought it up.

Jopek: Right. But, the other night I was watching the news and he was on, uh, speaking somewhere and he was still wearing it on his right wrist. I could see it on his right wrist. So, that’s his own choice. I mean that’s something Barack Obama, that’s a choice that he continues to wear it despite Tracy asking him not to… Because she is a Barack Obama supporter and she didn’t want to do anything to sabotage his campaign, so, if he’s still wearing the bracelet then, uh, that of course is entirely up to him.

Moberg: Maybe there’s a difference between wearing it and making a point to bring it up in your speeches?

Even the snow job that the radio host tried to pull off to cover for Barack’s refusing the wishes of the family of the KIA soldier who’s bracelet he wears doesn’t pass the smell test. After all, now that Obama has made it a big point in the debates, I guess the silent observance of Sgt. Jopek is no longer so silent and Obama is back to exploiting the death of a soldier even when he was asked NOT to do so by that soldier’s parents.

To pile insult onto injury here, the Mother doesn’t even want to force the issue of telling Obama to stop exploiting her son because she wants to see him win the election. Obama is not only taking advantage of this brave soldier’s death, he is taking advantage of the good wishes of the man’s Mother who doesn’t want to hurt the campaign.

And, why is the media not playing this story? The radio show on which this interview is heard happened all the way back in March. How is it the media missed this? Is it because they are also don’t want to hurt Obama’s campaign?

 I can only say that if the parents of the soldier whose bracelet John McCain is wearing had said in public that they want him to stop wearing their son’s bracelet the news would have been coast to coast, and wall to wall, not just ignored in Madison, Wisconsin.

Obama’s use of this soldier that fell in the line of duty is tainted by his ambition and callousness. And the media is letting him get away with it.

(Sourced Link here)

The War In Iraq: What You Ought To Know
September 23, 2008, 3:57 am
Filed under: Democrats, Iraq War, McCain, Media Bias, Republicans

Obama Tried to delay Troop Withdrawal from Iraq
September 15, 2008, 6:26 pm
Filed under: Democrats, Iraq War, McCain, Obama, Republicans, Sarah Palin

Interesting: He says he wants the soldiers to come home from Iraq, but he is trying to convince the Iraqi leaders to delay any such agreement. What a hypocrite —

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is “illegal,” he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the “weakened Bush administration,” Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date.” They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama’s administration wouldn’t be fully operational before February – and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament – which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Click here to read the article from the New York Post.

Bush may have skrewed up, but he didn’t lie about WMDs
June 13, 2008, 9:03 pm
Filed under: Iraq War | Tags: , , ,

Let me get this out of the way: I used to support the Iraq war, but now I think it was a mistake. However, despite all the claims that “Bush lied, people died” I never saw any real evidence that Bush had intentionally mislead us into war with Saddam Hussein.

Because of the lack of evidence of deception on Bush’s part and also because of the later proof that there were indeed no weapons of mass destruction, I then concluded that Bush was wrong but that he didn’t lie to go to war.

Now I see a 60 Minutes interview CBS (with an FBI agent that won Saddam’s trust) from last January as proof that I was right in concluding the way I did. — To read a transcript of the interview click here. — Also, to watch the first part of the interview, click here, and here for the second part.

Pay special attention to part 2 of the interview. George Piro, the FBI agent, after winning Saddam’s trust, mannaged to bring up the topic of weapons of mass destruction, he was told that most of them had been destroyed partly by the U.N. and partly under his own orders.

When asked about why Saddam kept the secret that he disarmed Piro answered that Saddam wanted there to be the perception that he did in fact still have them. This was because he was afraid of his neighboring countries and it kept him in power. — Saddam also confessed to George Piro that he was planning to on reviving his plans for WMDs. — He also said he didn’t expect Bush to actually invade Iraq because Clinton didn’t in 1998.

However, it does in fact turn out that Saddam Hussein had no connections with Usama bin Laden. Piro said,

He considered him to be a fanatic. And as such was very wary of him. He told me, ‘You can’t really trust fanatics.” [ . . . ] He didn’t wanna be seen with Bin Laden. And didn’t want to associate with Bin Laden.

The implication of this interview with a man that came to know Saddam intimately is that President George W. Bush didn’t lie when he said that he did have weapons of mass destruction. This shows me, at least, that charges that the President manipulated intelligence to politicize it either have no, or very little, merit. — After all, it would be really understandable for such a perception given by the Iraqi dictator would work to distort the intelligence of the FBI and the CIA.  — However, Bush’s belief that Hussein was tied to bin Laden was disproved.

However, I do think that the president made a huge blunder by going into Iraq partly because we made a mess that is difficult, if not impossible, to clean up. And also because I don’t think we have the right to stop other countries from getting weapons. –If Saddam were in fact connected to 9/11, which he wasn’t, then my opinion may be different.

I think that this interview would convince any unbiased and reasonable person that even though Bush did make huge blunders that he didn’t mislead intentionally.