I Will Attack Obama Every Chance I Get
But this one is not it.
David R. Graham, an apparently new and sporadic commentator at Patterico’s Pontifications (see side-bar), said the following:
C-i-C said in “his” book that if the political winds turn ugly, as now appears the case, he will “side with the Muslims.” On that his word can be trusted.
This very much intrigued me. While I admit I’m ready to believe just about any anti-American and anti-Constitutional assertion regarding Obama, this seemed outlandish. I mean, I would not doubt Obama actually would go full-on Mohammedan in much, along with his socialist agenda and his Ayers agenda, but I highly doubt he’d actually spell things out that clearly and that destructively for America and all freedom-loving countries for all the world to see. I believe Obama is the worst thing to ever happen to the US since King George got too full of himself back in the 18th century. That’s a given.
But this claim about Obama was, on the face of it, way over the top. And, since I knew Obama has said many things and been allied with many people who are indeed way over the top, I wasn’t prepared to set it aside all that quickly. So I requested sourcing information. If this story was real, I wanted to have documentation in my attack.
I got the documentation. And the documentation was a “fail.” It takes a lot of work to get from what he said to what he was reported to have meant. Again, I am ready to believe the worst about Obama because Obama is the worst, but that doesn’t preclude my critical thinking skills. But this particular assertion does not quite fit.
As the documentation shows, Obama said:
The actual quote from the book is from page 261 and is as follows: “Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
Within that context, I find no fault whatsoever. That means no point on which to attack Obama. No point at all. What I see in that passage is Obama saying he will not let another unconstitutional incarceration of whole swaths of people take place just because we are fighting similar-type folk. And that is a good thing. I can agree with that. No unconstitutional incarceration of all Mohammedans just because we are at war with Mohammedan terrorists. FDR was dead wrong. A second FDR-like action would be equally dead wrong. And that’s what that passage is saying, on the face of it.
I am still ready to believe anything bad about Obama. I am also still ready to believe hidden info not available to anyone. But I cannot, with a clear conscience, attack Obama on this point. There is no honor in it.
_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor
ropelight:
I agree, the documentation offered above doesn’t support the assertion. It’s more than a reach, it’s so far beyond support that it undermines Graham’s credibility. If that’s all he’s got, then he’s grasping at straws.
However, I can’t but keep an open mind on the subject itself. Obama has yet to demonstrate he has the best interests of the USA at heart. I don’t have any reason to trust the man, and I have plenty of reasons to view both him and his policies as destructive of freedom and liberty.
So, on the broad question: If things got ugly who would Obama support? Unfortunately, the smart money is on America’s enemies, both foreign and domestic. I’d like to think Obama would man up and do the right thing, but so far all the evidence is to the contrary.
7 November 2009, 9:00 amDana Pico:
Of course, we do have published information about President and Mrs Obama, seen at the left, which I see as a shocking development!
7 November 2009, 10:00 amJeff:
So, on the broad question: If things got ugly who would Obama support? Unfortunately, the smart money is on America’s enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Ropelight, I have no tolerance for statements of this kind, period. Obama might make decisions you disagree with. He might make mistakes that, in your opinion, help our enemies. But being mistaken is not the same as being treasonous.
Criticize Obama freely and mercilessly if you believe he is in the wrong. But don’t accuse him of wanting to commit treason unless you have evidence that 100% backs up your assertions. And you don’t.
7 November 2009, 12:22 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Jeff, you might want to check out my (old) open letter to the President, where I ran through a litany of charges RE: the Constitution. It got a wee bit of blowback. In general, I am in agreement with Ropelight’s cynicism.
7 November 2009, 12:31 pmJeff:
Wow, John, almost 300 comments on that letter. Impressive. I think my longest thread was in the 80s somewhere. In fact, I’m tempted to leave a couple comments there just to get it to the milestone
What I didn’t see in that letter, though, was any documentation, or even any charges beyond cryptic generalities. What, specifically, makes you believe that Obama would commit treason if given the opportunity?
7 November 2009, 2:25 pmblubonnet:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/joe-wilson-says-obama-has-put-the-lives-of-americans-at-risk-due-to-h1n1-vaccine-shortage.php
7 November 2009, 2:46 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Jeff, if you read through the comment section, you will find some documentation of some stuff. You will also find I stated that I piled up a bunch of stuff already talked about on CSPT and put it all in one place. While I understand that, in a vacuum, that particular open letter may appear to be empty blather, when the context of the blogosphere is overlayed, there is much more bite to it. And when the context of CSPT articles by multiple writers is overlayed, again there is more bite to it.
I was rejected from Procrastinators Anonymous because I never got around to putting off my signing of their proposed contract. But I may revisit that open letter on some future date and fill in linkage to everything. It’s all out there in the blogosphere (with linkage) for non-procrastinators to find.
And, while I believe Obama is indeed treasonous, there is a lesser charge with the same impact that has been levied against many spies that would fit here. If I weren’t being so lazy, I’d go look up that charge. I won’t charge him with treason but I will charge him with that other one.
Treason carries an outrageously high burden of proof, and rightly so. Too many nations in history have used “treason” as a way to
get rid ofkill off political opponents, and we don’t need that here. But that doesn’t preclude my accusations of Obama lieing all the way to where he is and where he is going, nor does that preclude my accusations of Obama doing all sorts of anti-constitutional things.But, like this article says, I am not going to attack where I feel no attack is worthy.
7 November 2009, 3:15 pmblubonnet:
Hmm, sounds like Obama derangement syndrome.
7 November 2009, 3:57 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Contrary to those idiots with BDS, I refuse to attack Obama based on lies (911 truthers, Iraq oil for examples). As I said, there is no honor in it.
7 November 2009, 4:04 pmblubonnet:
Treason? Lying our soldiers into a war, lying to the American people, lying to Congress, and over 4,000 of our soldiers have died. NOT treasonous?
Oh, outing a (proven by many CIA officials) covert CIA operative, when her husband the REAL Joe Wilson actual American hero (vs the Wilson that lies, yelling LIAR out inappropriately, rowdy, so called wingnut “hero”)Joe Wilson, diplomat, and previous warhawk, went to NIGER to see if Hussein had gone to buy yellowcake, of course NO evidence whatsoever, writes and op-ed, declaring George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney (legal profiteers of war personally you know) lying, stating that this war is not necessary, illegal, expensive, and of course immoral. Dropping bombs on people is no lovely act of “bringing democracy” or “We’re here to kill your mean leader” as their families and friends were dying all around them. So, Joe Wilson tried to prevent this. None of the major publications, or networks, were interested when Scott Ritter, weapons inspector tried telling them there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, either. Well, treason is evident here in multiple ways, stop, think, count them.
Well, to get back to the multiple ways of treason GWB, by any legal standard, put upon the United States citizens, outing a covert agent, is supposed to be punishable by death. Outrageous? Too draconian?
Well’s how about using torture, and yes legally, Bush declared ANYONE (Americans have been tortured “legally” while GWB was pres, that were, guess what, trying to alert some federal intelligance agencies that were illegally selling arms while overseas, but he ended up in one of our detainment camps, coming out beaten.)
I could go on, because your FAUX nutwork just lies to you all and keeps you stupid, and helps you defend illegal acts by our US government, most overwhelmingly occurring under GWB. Look up the Patriot Act, and start reading legal analysis of it. Also, their sponsors, the insurance companies, require you to BS of behalf of the hell-th insurance companies.
Another thing, I dare you to look into GWB’s family history…….?
7 November 2009, 4:20 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Who outed Valerie Plame? She and her husband did. And I do not call SERE training torture. SERE training is far worse than what anyone at club gitmo got, give that up, too. Intelligence agencies world-wide said Iraq had WMDs. That book “Love My Rifle More Than You” documented chemical and biological weapons labs on wheels with false bulkheads throughout Iraq after GWBs multinational invasion. I have to wonder what killed all those Kurds in the north country, if not WMDs. Your “dropping bombs” mumbo-jumbo is already a defeated meme.
Oh, and now those evil insurance companies that are keeping the fed from owning every living soul also wrote the Patriot Act?
Honestly, blu, you pants yourself every time you get online.
Another thing, I dare you to buy a clue instead of being so loony toons that most of the rest of the moonbats (just for you, Jeff) laugh derisively at you.
7 November 2009, 5:08 pmJeff:
John, we moonbats thank you for the proper use of terminology there
It’s all out there in the blogosphere (with linkage) for non-procrastinators to find.
I’m sure I’ll get around to checking it someday.
I think the lesser charge you’re referring to is sedition. Ignoring the unconstitutionality of the act which established the charge itself, I don’t think even the most strident conservative criticisms of Obama reach that relatively low bar. To me, it all just amounts to “Obama’s wrong.”
And I think I’ve addressed the constitutional charge previously. Obama’s expansive view of the federal government is for the most part based in using the Commerce Clause as an end run around the Tenth Amendment. Erwin Chemerinsky explains that view with respect to health care reform here. You certainly have the right to view that as wrong, but it’s not anti-Constitutional.
blubonnet, GWB wasn’t treasonous either. He was just wrong. Like I said, HUGE difference.
7 November 2009, 5:21 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Actually, Jeff, I was not referring to sedition. I find the Sedition Act to be worrisome, to put it mildly. There have been spies that have been charged, found guilty and summarily sentenced without use of Sedition or treason.
7 November 2009, 5:33 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Maybe I misread. Maybe those evil insurance companies are buying commercial time on that evil Fox network (just like they’re buying commercial time on all the other networks) and maybe that was blu’s (non)point.
7 November 2009, 5:38 pmThere Is No Honor In It « Truth Before Dishonor:
[...] Hitchcock on Maine’s Same Sex Marriag…Jeff on Maine’s Same Sex Marriag…Common Sense Politic… on I Will Attack Obama Every Chan…John Hitchcock on Maine’s Same Sex [...]
7 November 2009, 6:12 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Patterico has an example of someone going with the “no honor” tactic in his writing. This is why I refuse to look at any Grenn Gleenwald references.
7 November 2009, 6:16 pmJeff:
Patterico apparently failed reading comprehension. Greenwald was using Allahpundit as a good aggregator of the various claims made by the the MSM and the blogs. He was criticizing the media in general, and was if anything friendly towards Allahpundit. It was certainly no smear.
7 November 2009, 6:51 pmJeff:
Oh well. Color me unsurprised that a prosecutor made up an accusation out of whole cloth
7 November 2009, 6:52 pmPatterico:
Jeff says:
Duh. Who ever said anything different?
7 November 2009, 7:41 pmPatterico:
While Jeff is, at times, in support of Obama, one must wonder why he chose to write this:
I certainly do intend to praise Jeff, but I think he should be more specific in his criticisms of Obama.
7 November 2009, 7:44 pmPatterico:
More Jeff from above:
Why is Jeff so down on Obama?
7 November 2009, 7:48 pmJeff:
Patterico:
Aw shucks, Patterico, thanks… /blushing
Anyway, I don’t think Greenwald was criticizing you or Allahpundit on that particular post. Or at least I never got that impression. Seemed to me that his target was mainstream media rumor-mongering, and he was using Allahpundit as a useful summary of all the claims being thrown about. He excludes Allahpundit’s caveats because they’re not really germane to the argument. Maybe there’s something I’m missing?
7 November 2009, 8:25 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Perhaps you missed Grenn Gleenwald/Green Glenwald/Wald Greenglen’s dishonest sock-puppetry. To borrow from Red Eye, if you give that turd the benefit of the doubt, you’re worse than Hitler.
7 November 2009, 8:55 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Jeff, I sent your comment over to PP, which is why he appeared here to pants you. He used GG tactics to do it and not his own style. Perhaps you want to go over there to debate him? (There is another Jeff (without a blog link) posting there.)
7 November 2009, 9:08 pmJeff:
Yeah, John, kinda picked up on that. Thus my response in kind.
I read Greenwald’s article, and obviously didn’t see what Patterico saw, nor did I see any evidence that Greenwald was attacking him or Allahpundit. Patterico didn’t address that…
7 November 2009, 9:45 pmCommon Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » Donald Douglas respectfully disagrees with me.:
[...] Hitchcock wrote that he would attack (rhetorically) President Obama every chance he got, but that one particular bit of criticism he saw, from someone else, was [...]
8 November 2009, 9:08 amropelight:
“Tolerance” Jeff, you have no “tolerance” for my opinions? Now isn’t that special. I didn’t know you were the comment police, ya got a badge and all?
Obama ran as a moderate and promised to govern from the center, instead we get a Stalinist out to “fundamentally transform” our nation. The nationalization of our banks and financial institutions, auto makers, health care, energy, education, and who knows what else. The more Obama grows government the more individual freedom and liberty is lost. That’s not what Americans want, nor will they tolerate a communist take over of our institutions, our economy, or our thoughts and our voices.
Hells bells, Obama’s even got little children lined up in classrooms singing about what a great and wonderful leader he is, just like Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Obama’s new best pal Hugo Chavez. That’s a clear sign of a cult of personality, typical of communist dictators the world over.
So is the effort to silence opposition like Obama’s attack on FOX NEWS, so is sending SEIU thugs to Town Hall meetings to silence citizen dissent, so is supporting criminal organizations like ACORN to stuff ballot boxes and enable child prostitution. The evidence is overwhelming to anyone with the courage to look at it, but invisible to wishful thinkers, fellow travelers, enablers, pinkos, and useful idiots.
Obama is fast taking this country down a road that leads directly to totalitarianism, and that’s not where I’m going.
So Jeff, here it is: My opinions are not subject to your approval, you ain’t runnin’ the show here, and if what I have to say falls outside the bounds of your collectivist agenda, that’s just hard cheese. This blog belongs to Dana, not you and you know it, my comments are subject to his review, not yours. As long as your glorious leader hasn’t trashed the Bill of Rights yet, I’ll continue to say what I think, it’s the American way.
8 November 2009, 10:15 amcmbc:
ropelight’s a treat, eh? is there a cable news point he fails to regurgitate? it must be terribly embarrassing for conservatives that the public face of their ideology is crazy dudes ranting like streetcorner end-time preachers. stalinism! collectivism! dictators! lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
8 November 2009, 10:53 amJeff:
Ropelight, don’t be a schmuck. You know what I meant.
8 November 2009, 11:30 amropelight:
So, Jeff, are you now claiming you aren’t the little Eichmann who said, “Ropelight, I have no tolerance for statements of this kind, period.”
Read your comment, it’s in the #3 spot above.
8 November 2009, 11:40 amropelight:
cmbc, let me refer you to the words of George Orwell, he said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
8 November 2009, 12:03 pmblubonnet:
ALBERT EINSTEIN: “The minority, the ruling class, as present, has the schools, and the press, usually the Church as well, under its thumbs. This enables it to organize, and sway the emotions of the masses, and it makes tools of th them.”
You all Righties, are tools. Always for the corporatocracy!
8 November 2009, 3:05 pmJohn Hitchcock:
All anti-corporatists are, by definition, communists. And any idiot who claims the schools are run by conservatives, well, is an idiot, or legally insane, or both. Same goes for any idiot who claims MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN are conservative shills. Has to be an idiot, or legally insane, or both. Unless, of course, she’s just out-and-out lieing.
But this particular idiot didn’t even take the time to read the article before spouting her idiotic nonsense.
8 November 2009, 3:14 pmblubonnet:
So, John Hitchcock, is JAMES MADISON a communist? You apparently think Einstein is, by your degradation of it.
JAMES MADISON: “The growing wealth acquired by the corporations never fails to be a source of abuses.”
DWIGHT EISENHOWER: “The problem in defense, is how far can you go without destroying from within, what you are trying to defend from without.” I believe EISENHOWER was referring to the military industrial complex, which he so warned of.
So, ya think ABRAHAM LINCOLN was a communist, John Hitchcock? ABRAHAM LINCOLN, in a letter to a friend: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. The money power preys upon the nation in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarch, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureacracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who qhestion its methods, or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army, in front of me, and the financial institutions at the rear, the latter is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in higher places willfollow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of the few, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this momen, more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”
8 November 2009, 9:19 pmblubonnet:
THIS is interesting also. HITLER: “The main plank in the National Socialist party is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and to substitute for them, the folk community, rooted in the soil, and bound together by the bond of its common blood.”
8 November 2009, 9:30 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Blu, your lust for Hitler was seen in my open letter. Guess what? Liars have often co-opted words and redefined them (Don’t bother following that link. It’s to my site where I prove this point beforehand.) to their benefit. The term “liberal” is one of them. During your lust interest Hitler’s time, “liberal” actually meant something completely different than it does now.
8 November 2009, 10:11 pmcmbc:
I hardly think the guy who typed the phrase “during your lust interest Hitler’s time” gets to tell people about how words have meanings and so on
8 November 2009, 10:55 pmJohn Hitchcock:
And I hardly think cmbc has yet written anything worthy of higher-level intellectual debate. Get back to me on that once you do, if that ever happens.
8 November 2009, 11:01 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Do note that your quoted “phrase” is actually a clause.
8 November 2009, 11:03 pmEric:
I doubt that Einstein ever said this. It sounds like a quote from Lenin falsely attributed to Einstein for the sake of gaining more credibility with rational people. That quote just drips with paranoia (The Church! The Schools! The Press! All class enemies! Oh My!) and I don’t think Einstein was a paranoid.
9 November 2009, 11:32 am