This is just one more piece of evidence for "We the People" to believe everything is a setup! The fix is in and we can't do nothing about it. Corporations and their lobbyists have taken over. "We the People" are just too stupid and not privileged enough for our fat-cat politicians. You're a slick one "Senator" Obama. You should consider becoming a televangelist or a used car dealer. Is there ANY candidate out there not on the Fascist bankroll?

Guys, this is total bullshit. KDailyKos has the straight scoop. Yes, the media is still lying to us even when politicians seem to be trying to win our trust:

AP and UPI have totally fictionalized the interview, below is the original text. See if you could have come up with the same thing yourselves, for the life of me I can't. What is very interesting is that both UPI and AP got the same BS. We should be asking for an inquiry. This just seems to clarify everyone's suspicion that anyone with a shitload of money can buy UPI and AP news stories. These so called credible news outlets are nothing more than media whores available to the highest bidder. I guess they are upscale whores, because this full 24 hour fantasy session probably cost in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. I guess it was worth it because in the process we all got fucked (could we get a kiss first next time):

OBAMA: Well, I'm very proud of the fact that I was against this war from the start. I thought that it was ill-conceived, and not just in terms of execution, but also conception.

What I also said way back in 2002 is, once we were in, we were going to have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, and that we had some obligations to the Iraqi people, as well as the national security interests of the United States, to make sure that we handled an exit properly.

And that's what I have tried to be consistently projecting over the last two years of my time in the Senate.

BLITZER: Let me point out what you said back in 2003. And I'll give you the exact quote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion, I said no. And I said no unequivocally, because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You said no then. But, since then, you voted for funding the war.

OBAMA: Well, that $87 billion, I had a very particular concern. And that was, you had $20 billion worth of reconstruction funds that were given out on a no-bid basis. And, as a consequence, I was concerned that you would not see that money spent effectively.

BLITZER: That was largely for Halliburton.

OBAMA: That's exactly right.

And, since that time, we have discovered that in fact the money wasn't spent wisely. We still have $9 billion that's missing somewhere in Iraq that we still aren't clear about. Some of those procedures were tightened in the votes that I took.

But, most importantly, I have said consistently that I think it's important, if we're sending our young men and women into battle, that they have got all the resources they need to come back home safely and also to execute their mission.

BLITZER: Because some ardent opponents of the war, like Dennis Kucinich, for example, who is a Democratic presidential candidate...

OBAMA: Right.

BLITZER: ... he takes a principled stand. He's not going to vote to fund troops going off to this war, because he believes that would help bring the troops home.

OBAMA: Right.

You know, the problem is, is that you have got an obstinate administration that has shown itself unwilling to change in the face of circumstances on the ground.

And, in that situation, what you don't want to do is to play chicken with the president, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor, you don't have reinforced humvees, you don't have night-vision goggles.

Now, there is a ratcheting-up of pressure on the president. And I am very pleased about the vote that took place yesterday, where a majority of the Senate for the first time said we need to have a timetable.

BLITZER: But he says he is going to veto that right now.

OBAMA: I understand.

BLITZER: And there is a game of chicken going on right now.

OBAMA: I understand that he says he is going to veto it. There is no doubt he will veto it. But what you are starting to see, I think, is a bipartisan movement in the direction of having a clear endgame.

And I am very pleased that the bill that I presented back in January calling for a phased withdrawal starting on May 1 of this year, with the aim of getting all combat troops out by March 31 of next year, that many of the elements in that bill ended up being part of this package that was voted on yesterday.

BLITZER: If the president does veto it, as he vows he will, what do you do next?

OBAMA: Well, I think we continue to put these votes up to the Senate. We put more pressure on many Republican colleagues of mine, who I think recognize that the Bush approach has not worked, but are still unwilling to put pressure on their president.

BLITZER: Because he says the money starts drying up in mid- April...

OBAMA: Right.

BLITZER: ... for the troops to head over to Iraq.

OBAMA: Right. I think that we continue to put a series of votes up and try to convince our colleagues on the Republican side that the only way that we are going to change circumstances in Iraq is if you see a different political dynamic; that there are, at this point, no military solutions to the problems in Iraq; that what we have to do is get the Shia, the Sunni, the Kurd to come together and say to themselves "We, in fact, are willing to start making some compromises around oil revenues, around the arming of militias and so on."

In the absence of that, we can send 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, we're not going to see a significant change.

BLITZER: Yesterday, I interviewed Republican presidential candidate John McCain and he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: Failure is catastrophe. Failure is genocide. Failure means we come back. Failure means they follow us home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: What if he's right? What if he's right, and what you're proposing and a lot of Democrats are proposing results in genocide in Iraq?

OBAMA: Well, look, what you have right now is chaos in Iraq. After having spent hundreds of billions of dollars, after seeing close to 3,200 lives lost, what you now see is chaos. And there's no end in sight.

Now, John McCain may believe that it's an option for us to maintain an indefinite occupation of Iraq, regardless what happens in terms of the politics within Iraq, so that we're, every year, sending $100 billion over to Iraq, so that, every year, we're seeing hundreds or thousands of young Americans dying, so that we continue to see a deterioration of America's standing in the world.

I don't think that serves the best interests of the United States. And I don't think it will ultimately result in the kind of...

BLITZER: So...

OBAMA: ... stabilization in Iraq that's necessary.

Now, these are judgment calls. I don't question John McCain's sincerity in believing that the approach that he wants to take, which is essentially a continuation of Bush policies over the last six years, are the right ones to take.

BLITZER: If you're president of the United States in January of 2009, and the situation is basically the same in Iraq as it is right now...

OBAMA: Right.

BLITZER: ... what would be your immediate first step?

OBAMA: Well, the bill that I put in I think...

BLITZER: But assuming that bill doesn't go in.

OBAMA: No, no, but I think assuming that things are the same, I think the same dynamic will be at work, which is to say we're going to pull out our combat troops out of Iraq in a phased, systematic way, that we continue to provide the Iraqi government with logistical and training support, that we have those forces over the horizon to respond to crises that spill over into the remainder of the region.

And most importantly, we have an aggressive diplomatic initiative with those countries in the region to make sure that we are part of a broader conversation about how can we stabilize Iraq and stabilize the region?

TRUTH -

As I mentioned in my article, I'm always dubious of AP, and wouldn't put it by them to swiftboat, anybody.

That said, the AP article direct quotes, among other things, Obama saying: "I think that it's important for voters to get a sense of how the next president will make decisions in a foreign policy arena"

...And yet, that quote doesn't appear in the CNN interview you posted here. Are you sure that was the interview AP was working from? Because it sure doesn't look like it.

(Happy to UPDATE my original article if we can get this nailed down, of course!)

It seems that some are unaware that this is bu$hit week (starts on april fool day) and the bu$hies are being "awarded" (let out) by Media Matters. Just bu$hin ya ...

On April Fools day the MSM fools do their darndest to get the bu$hie award. Any MSM AP journalist who can lie as lamely as a bu$hie gets the award.

On the real front (back in reality), Steny Hoyer makes the real case:

Despite the threats, Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.

"I suppose there's always a risk of going too far," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), "but the risk of not going is far greater."

Backed by a unified party and fresh from a slew of legislative victories ...

(Washington Post, emphasis added).

The AP wins the bu$hie.

April Fools day is now over. Lets leave the fools and get on with the rescue of the republican party from the neoCon fools, and the nation from about a decade of neoCon republican dictatorial misrule.

Joe Lieberman's bird dog, Matthew Dowd, who left the dems and went to work for bu$hies, has now recanted.

He said Kerry was correct and Bush was and is wrong. Yawn. I thought everyone knew that.

McCain was also trying very hard to get the bu$hie award this April Fool day too. He said Iraq is doing great and it is the MSM who is not portraying it in a light that would have all of us buying land there:

So here's John McCain Sunday in Baghdad, proclaiming that the city is safer than ever.

He and a congressional delegation that included Senator Lindsay Graham went to a market that just weeks ago had been the scene of a bloody suicide bombing. Today, it was peaceful...except for the noise of the US helicopters circling overhead. And despite McCain's claim last week that General Petraeus can now tool around Baghdad in an unarmored Humvee (which McCain had to retract when it was immediately disproved) Petraeus and the congressmen went to market in a heavily armored convoy. The congressmen were wearing body armor. Senator Graham says he bought rugs.

But McCain said the media aren't giving the American people "the full picture."

(Huff Po).

McCain comes in second and almost gets a bu$hie (a hard on for oil).

Receiving NO coverage, the best candidate is Dennis Kucinich.

What I want to know, isn't the FCC suppose to hold people and news agencies accountable for printing LIES!
Come on Kevin Martin, DO YOUR JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Raw Story is reporting that Senator Reid is now going to co-sponsor Feingold's Iraq withdrawal bill if the president vetoes the current bill.

This is the opposite direction that the AP indicated Obama set forth.

It is interesting to figure out what exactly was said to whom. I also think it is important. However, I have never understood the love for Obama. The guy is a great speaker but I don't recall him ever forcing any issue he supposedly stands for. I recall him once saying that there is too much disenfranchised black during elections...yet when Kerry lost due to suspect voting machines and other issues Obama was one of the first to throw him under the bus. He didn't even stand up to contest the EC. So I have believed since day one that while Obama can talk a great game, that is about all he is capable of...at least until he proves that he can stand up for himself in the face of political diversity.

Obama had a town hall forum in Sioux City, Iowa on Sunday... I suspect the AP article was reporting on his comments there.

Brad, thanks for the quick response.

I have gone over the CNN interview and the excerpts from the supposed new interview and agree with you that the full text of this AP interview would be helpful as well as a clarification from Barack himself. But after reading it a few times it is easy to see the incredible talent that the writer had in inventing most of the story and filling in quotes as necessary. Take the lovely opening paragraph:

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker “wants to play chicken with our troops,” Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

Only seven words are attributed to Barack. The rest of it (the real juice of the story) prophesizing about the future actions of Congress that directly contradict everything we know about Barack have absolutely no reference.

Then after some generic Hillary bashing there is this incredible paragraph :

Given that Bush is determined to veto a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Congress has little realistic choice but to approve money for the war, Obama said.

Where are the f-n quotes??? Did the author pull this out of his ass??? Where is the raw transcript??? Sadistically, in the very next paragraph, the author expands the opening paragraph's quote:

“I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground,” said Obama. “I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq.

The effect of expanding the sentence then adding another sentence (no matter the time difference between them) is to give some type of credibility to the first paragraph. It is like saying, "We are too scarred to do anything, even though we know it is wrong." This gives the reader the impression that Barack is a pussy and there is no hope to end the insanity.

I think that the propaganda wheels are slowly coming off thanks to everyone's comments showing the techniques that are used to distort reality.

Although Barack did not issue a statement yet (perhaps by responding, it puts him in some corner that he does not need to be in), Russ and Harry did fight back on the veto theat.

My default is to believe the stuff on Barack's website and leave it up to the hallucinating Mike Glover at AP to verify his Alice in Wonderland reporting.

Hey Brad if I didn't know better I might have thought you were a republican. Taking cheap shots at our most hopeful Dem puts you in a funny light. Please reconsider this poor tactic or lose a reader.

Mark Sununu

Mark,

To tell you the truth, I had very similar thoughts until I read a little further. But during these trying times, holding politicians to the utmost scrutiny (no matter what their party affiliation) is admirable, patriotic, and necessary.

Try not to get lost in the Democrats good and Republicans bad world. No good ever came from it. Just hold politicians to account for what they say and do. After reading this site twice a day since Hacking Democracy came out, I can safely say that our rights are being preserved in this country because of people like Brad.

(Side note to Brad - the headline could use a little tweeking in consideration to those that do not read past it.)

You're totally wrong. Also, Kos gets $4,900 a WEEK from Hillary Clinton, enough to buy two Mercedes Benz sedans!

Read:

Kos gets rich from Hillary!

Does it occur to anyone that maybe Obama is trying to get * to keep his promise and veto the bill, instead of merely signing it and issuing a signing statement that he will ignore the withdrawal provision? You will have to agree that's more *'s style, no matter what he's said so far. If he vetoes the bill, it can just go in a drawer and he is the one who won't support the troops. Maybe they're playing a little Br'er Rabbit on him. Probably not, but that is a possibility. Seems to me there's plenty of serious indictment of everyone in Congress right now, and singling out Obama is just being unfair.

TRUTH -

I agree with you, about the headline needing a tweak to take into account the questions on AP's reporting (which I'm proud to add that I questioned here from the get-go). Have tweaked.

That said, if AP was inaccurate, the silence from the Obama camp continues to be deafening, even while I completely agree that AP should release the full interview. But, frankly, that's Obama's job to call for it at this time, and it is notable that he's not done so to date, as far as I know.

"Mark Sununu" - Please contact me via email asap at: Brad@BradBlog.com. Thanks! If you're unable to contact me, I may well have to presume you are another user who has previously been banned here for using a series of fake names and posting purposely disinformation. So I'd appreciate the contact ASAP. Thanks!

Brad,

Yeah, the deafening silence sucks ass, but there is an update on Kos, where LiquidCola writes:

"I for one am sick to death of news story "interviews" that leave you with absolutely no idea what the person actually fucking said."

There seem to be even more questions with this enhanced reporting. Perhaps I should not second guess your instincts too soon. Although I have not swayed on my stance that the AP needs to turn over the raw data, there needs to be an absolute stand here, as in "let's get the fuck out of the insanity in Iraq." Our kids who are willing to die for our country over there need true leaders here. Leaders willing to fight for their departure from Bush's mess with the same voracious courage.

It is now overwhelmingly obvious that the "surge" was not meant to secure Baghdad but as a way to spread our stretched forces into Iran. Can't anyone else see this shit from a mile away? Just look at the latest article in the Independent:

http://news.independent...._east/article2414760.ece

Or this one in Jerusalem Post:

http://www.jpost.com/ser...t%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

___

Here is the reference material on Union Leader:

...U.S. Sen. Barack Obama says he has not softened his position on Iraq, despite suggestions to the contrary from other presidential camps and liberal blogs.

For more on this interview with Obama, see the New Hampshire Union Leader and UnionLeader.com tomorrow.

An article by Richard Behan at Common Dreams explains why Dems might be daring Bush to veto. Let him veto it, and they can give him a "clean" bill without the benchmarks for Iraq, including the one that requires Iraq to partially privatize their oil industry.

http://www.commondreams..../archive/2007/03/30/201/

TRUTH -

The UnionLeader article you quote (and, btw, please try to quote key passages with a link to the full article when possible, instead of the full article), does seem to underscore his less-than-strong stance on this.

Even giving credence to the Bush line and suggesting a weaker bill in the face of a veto, is a terrible negotiation technique.

That said, it also sucks that Brit Hume of Fox "News" quoted me today during his "Political Grapevine" bullshit segment (see the late update on the original article above tonight) without any of the caveats offered here. But, oh well. Gotta call 'em like I see 'em.

In case anybody thinks my post is a sop to Hillary, I'll remind you that I was one of the first to post the great anti-Hillary Obama ad (take off on the Apple commercial).

For the record: I ain't got a candidate at this time. Period.