Page 4 - cnyusa2

brought to light by you precisely as Obama had brought to light the then 'past' issue of
Iraq war resolution in 2008 which had been long dead.

Obama had said to the effect (not exact words) "I spoke against Iraq war ,Hillary voted
in favor of the Iraq war resolution in US senate.Hence she is a pro--war person, but I am
an anti-war man." This was the key argument which had turned the tables.It was the
game changer which laid the foundation of his victory and thereby that of Obama's
presidency.

On the face value it sounded a correct statement to a common person, but it was
fundamentally flawed and absolutely misleading statement . But how ?

He was comparing 'speaking' anywhere with 'voting' in the senate just on the basis of
'favor' and 'against’ and arriving at a conclusion in his own favor.He twisted the fact by
telling less than half truth and by concealing more than half of it. It was fundamentally
wrong statement.He was not taking the common bench mark without which you cannot
compare the things.It is like someone comparing high jump with a long jump just
because both are measured in feet.But both are fundamentally different.

One claims "I jumped 20 ft in one leap, he jumped only 5ft and ten inches, hence I am
the winner and better athlete-a champion." Without disclosing he jumped 'long' jump
and the other a 'high' jump.Hence it is a trickful , misleading statement.To befool those

who cannot see the truth.
Another example, one heat athlete A claims , he is superior to B just because B had
staggered and fallen on the track in the stadium in an earlier race, whereas he( A) had
not. Without disclosing that he (A ) was not even a competitor in the heat and was not in
the stadium either.He was a spectator outside the stadium .How could he fall? He was
not there in the race.He was not even there in the stadium.It is a wrong, befooling
comparison.

Obama was not a senator at the time of Iraq war.He 'spoke' against' the war like millions
of others spoke in US. He was just one of them .He could not vote in the Senate as he
was not a member of the senate in the first place. He was elected to it long after that.
Hillary was a member of the Senate and she had to vote one way or the other.She voted
in favor of the resolution ,but with solid strings attached to it.She was privy to
intelligence reports, hence she took the decision to vote in favor.Obama was not a
member ,hence no question of his seeing the reports, nor was he eligible to vote.He was
comparing two absolutely unrelated /or incomparable things. And merely on the basis of
pro and against he was asserting himself and won the first primary, then won the
primaries as a whole and thus later got the nomination, and then eventually won the
presidency.All through misleading, befooling the American people ,in other words
through cheating. It was very hurting to half the democratic party.