He's not a smawt man, but
he knows what a terrorist is

The top story today from the AP has Barack Obama saying that the president’s comments on the appeasement of terrorists is "exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world.”

Uh…no, Barack. It’s exactly the kind of rhetoric that alienates us further from the terrorists. And you’d have to be a complete imbecile to not know that. Clearly, Obama has confused terrorists with the rest of the world. That would explain his stupid remarks. It also explains yet another reason why he isn’t qualified to be president.

Beyond that, there’s the issue of the media which is trying overly hard to help the American public come to the same conclusion they have—that Barack Obama was targeted by Bush Jr. The prez gave a speech in which he uttered something to the effect of, “some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals.” This was in reference to those who would sit down and attempt to bargain with bloodthirsty murderous thugs. Since Obama has said he would be willing to do just that, he took offense at Bush’s comments, claiming they were aimed at him. Unfortunately, the media is only to happy to jettison neutrality and objectivity in favor of helping Obama get his message out.

From the AP:

“Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for 'dishonest, divisive' attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists, staunchly defending his national security credentials for the general election campaign.”

Did you see it? No??? That’s because it wasn’t there. The paragraph was missing one little adverb: “allegedly.”

“…Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for "dishonest, divisive" attacks in [allegedly] hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists…”

And we all know why that little neutral word wasn’t used don’t we? It’s because the AP took a side when they did this story (surprise!). As a former newspaper editor and journalist it amazes even me what passes for news these days. As far as I’m concerned, these publications will never be anything more than substandard birdcage liner as long as they continue taking sides and inserting their opinions into “news” stories.

Then there’s the matter of Obama’s “national security credentials,” which the article I referenced for this piece said he had to “staunchly defend.” Another article (also from the AP) said that Obama’s “national security credentials have been challenged.” To which I ask, since when did he ever have any? In order to have national security credentials you must first marshal the experience of handling national security matters. What national security experience does Barack Hussein Obama have? To date…he has exactly zero experience in the national security arena. Therefore, he has nothing to defend and nothing has been challenged, except maybe his elitist, overinflated, Ivy League ego.

Editor's Note: The image of Obama Gump courtesy of MTW contributor, T.R. Oglodad.