To avoid being labeled a flip-flopper anymore, Barack Obama has decided to just take both sides of the issue in a single statement. In response to Iran’s missle test this morning, here’s how Barack Obama said he would respond if he were President (video):

“There’s no doubt we’re seeing rising tensions in the area. And it’s part of the reason why it’s so important for us to have a coherent policy with respect to Iran,” Obama told CNN television.

Iran “must suffer threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy opening up channels of communication so we avoid provocation, but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behavior,” he said.

So he wants threats of sanctions but he wants to avoid provocation. Exactly how does that work with a country who says:

The aim of the test was to “to demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language,” said the air force commander of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard, General Hoseyn Salami.

Two other types of missile with shorter ranges were also tested, and state television reported a total of nine launches, showing footage of three missiles firing simultaneously.

“Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch,” General Salami said. “The enemy must not repeat its mistakes. The enemy targets are under surveillance.”

As Ed correctly points out, “Sanctions are provocations; otherwise, they wouldn’t work at all.”

So Obama is basically saying we need to provoke Iran with actions while making sure we don’t provoke Iran with our actions.

Ummm, okay.

Unhappy that Flip-Flopper version 1.0 (aka John Kerry) was unsuccessful in his bid to win the Presidency in 2004, Democrats have unveiled a new and improved version in Barack Obama.

Try not to get dizzy following this roller coaster of positions from Flip-Flopper version 2.0.

Barack Obama was for public campaign financing before he was against it.

He was against wearing flag pins before he was for them.

He was for extended American troop presence in Iraq before he was against it.

He was for negotiating directly with Iran before he was against it.

He was against laws favorable to lobbyists before he introduced 9 such laws to protect *his* lobbyists.

He was against immunity for the telecom companies involved in the terrorist surveilance program before he was for it.

He promised constituents of Illinois that he wouldn’t run for President in 2008… before he announced he was running for President in 2008.

He was against Congressional “micromanagement” of the war before he was for it.

He was against NAFTA before he was for it.

He was against Union “special interests” funding political campaigns… until they started backing his.

He was against a continued embargo against Cuba before he was for it.

And round and round he goes…

UPDATE: When Barack Obama decided to run a campaign of “change”, his supporters didn’t realize it meant he would “change” his mind every five minutes… check out the latest ad called “Barack Obama: Change that works for him“:

If you don’t do it regularly, set aside today, at least, to thank a soldier. If you know one, call or email ‘em your gratitude. If you see one at a restaurant, offer to pick up his or her tab. If you see one in passing, take a moment to personally thank ‘em for his or her service.

As we celebrate America’s independence today, let’s look back and remember those who started it all.

There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence; these men, from the original 13 colonies, participated in the Second Continental Congress, which helped draft and approve the document.

Pennsylvania sent nine delegates to the congress, followed by Virginia with seven and Massachusetts and New Jersey with five. Connecticut, Maryland, New York and South Carolina each sent four delegates; Delaware, Georgia, New Hampshire and North Carolina each sent three; and Rhode Island, the smallest colony, sent only two delegates.

Of the 56 signers, 18 were merchants or businessmen, 14 were farmers, four were doctors, 22 were attorneys and one was an active clergyman. Forty two of the signers served in their colonial legislatures and one, Stephen Hopkins, had served as Governor of Rhode Island. Almost all of the signers were Protestant Christians; Charles Carroll of Maryland was the only Roman Catholic signer.

Maybe if the ACLU had been around back then, they could’ve prevented these closed-minded, Christian-fundamentalists from holding “these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…”

Damn bible-thumping rightwingers….

God bless ‘em!

While the world waits for Democrat John Murtha to apologize to soldiers he accused of “killing Iraqi civilians in cold blood” now that they’ve been fully exonerated, up pops another Democrat, Wesley Clark, attempting to diminish John McCain’s military service, saying McCain’s military service lacks the requisite “executive experience” to qualify him to become Commander-in-Chief. Of course, he makes these comments in an attempt to bolster the campaign of the candidate he supports, Barack Obama, who not only lacks said “exeutive experience”, but lacks even a day of military experience.

As usual, the Democrats show their utter lack of respect for military service, while simultaneously trying to claim they’re actually showing respect for the very soldiers they attack. But this shouldn’t come as any surprise. Hell, the Presidential candidate for the Democrats in 2004 was a man who accused his fellow soldiers of unspeakable war crimes while they were still in harm’s way.

And speaking of John Kerry, it wasn’t so long ago that Wesley Clark was praising his military service in Vietnam as qualifications for the White House.

John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars.

He’s seen the flash of the tracers. He’s lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he’s proved his moral courage too.

John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too.

John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief. And John Edwards with his leadership and extraordinary intelligence, he’s going to be a great member of that command team.

John Kerry is a man who in time of war can lead us as a warrior, but in times of peace, he will heed the call of scripture to lead us in beating swords into plowshares.

John Kerry will lead America with strength and wisdom. He has the will to fight. He has the moral courage born in battle to pursue and secure a strong peace.

What a difference a campaign cycle makes. When confronted with his inconsistency, Clark showed his true colors in trying to explain it way…

ROBERTS: But when it comes to that same type of qualification, you were very robustly behind John Kerry’s military experience…

CLARK: Absolutely.

ROBERTS: … in your speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, where you talked about his experience of being there under mortar fire.

CLARK: Right.

ROBERTS: And let’s listen to the way that you summed that up.

CLARK: Right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLARK: John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: So, you said it’s what we need in a commander in chief. And I’m wondering how different was John McCain’s experience from John Kerry’s?

CLARK: Well, a lot, because John McCain basically served honorably and well in uniform. He did everything the country could have asked.

What John Kerry did is John Kerry got out of the uniform. He took a judgment, a judgment I didn’t agree with at the time, but he had the moral courage to stand up for himself and oppose the conflict in Vietnam.

As John Hindraker correctly points out, “So Kerry’s military experience was better than McCain’s because after serving for four months in Vietnam, he returned to the U.S. and falsely accused his fellow servicemen of being war criminals.”

That sounds about right for a Democrat.

Ed takes a look at what’s happened in the year since Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats in Congress announced “Energy Independence Day” on July 4, 2007. In the face of gas prices having risen 30% in the first few months of the newly Democrat-controlled Congress, Pelosi and crew announced their typical strategy - block efforts to build new refineries or drill into known U.S. reserves, punish “big oil”, mandate more Priuses and sing a chorus or two of kumbaya.

The result? Gas prices jumped another 30% since Pelosi’s speech. Great work, guys. (and their Presidential candidate wants to tack on more costs for “big oil” - and who do you think will end up paying for those)?

As Ed points out, Pelosi even admits the highest prices are in her own district, though she conveniently fails to finish the line with the bit about her state and her district tacking on some of the highest taxes in the country.

How progressive…