Obama’s case against Obama

Some weeks back I asked why most of people hurting Sen. Barack Obama were either part of Team Obama ( think who said “a downright mean country” and the Team’s wanting the Brandenburg Gate for a campaign stop prop) or long-time associates and mentors such as convicted felon Tony Rezko and the raving racist, anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

Now Townhall columnist and Wizbang blogger Lorie Byrd moves the ball further down the field:

It would be hard to make a better case against a Barack Obama presidency than the one Obama has made in his own words.

The most memorable thing about Obama's speeches is not generally what he says, but rather how large and enthusiastic the audiences are. If voters pay attention only to the symbolism and get caught up in the excitement of the Obamessiah and his throngs of fainting disciples, he stands a good chance of winning in November.

If voters pay attention instead to the things Obama is saying, the case against an Obama presidency will be clear. …

Citing Michelle Malkin, Lorie continues:

Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed."

The actual death toll: 12. …

Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born."

Obama was born in 1961.

The Selma march took place in 1965.

Some of Obama's gaffes go beyond simple slips of the tongue and confusion over numbers though and display a lack of knowledge on important issues as was the case when he commented on the war in Afghanistan and the lack of translators: "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan."

As Malkin pointed out, the real reason it's "harder for us to use them" in Afghanistan is because Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish, while Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

Worse than the lack of knowledge of the languages spoken in other nations is that he lacks an understanding of the threat posed by some of them. Or maybe he doesn't. It is really a bit confusing.

In Portland, Oregon, Obama said of Iran, "They don't pose a serious threat to us." The following day in Billings, Montana he said: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Maybe it depends what the definitions of "grave" and "serious" are. As I said, it is all bit confusing. Maybe that is why so many focus on the crowds at Obama's events, rather than to what Obama is actually saying to them.

If voters are paying attention to what Barack Obama says they will see not only a lack of knowledge of important issues, but on some of the issues where he is informed, an attempt to hide his true position and past votes. …

Lorie goes on to shire the lights on Obama’s past votes. You can read it all here.

And be sure to check in at Wizbang. It’s a great blog.