President Barack Obama's Orwellian rhetoric has become absolutely pathological. And it's become so blatant that you can almost guarantee that the truth is the exact opposite of what he says. To wit:
The president insisted he had no intention of taking over Chrysler and General Motors.
He did.
The president calls "cap-and-trade" environmental legislation a "market-based" approach, based on "sound science."
It is not.
The president claims his health care reform plan is not "socialized medicine."
It is.
He claims it won't harm private insurance.
It will.
He claims service won't be rationed.
But to control costs as he proposes, it must be. (Even top aides concede the point.)
Mr. Obama says he supports "democracy" in Latin America.
How can he? He also supports the Marxist ways of Manuel Zelaya, legally removed from Honduras' presidency by the constitutional actions of the legislative and judicial branches.
And the examples of this president's mythography go on and on.
Some will dismiss Barack Obama's pronouncements merely as "rhetoric" and "posturing." "Everybody does it," they'll say. "It's politics."
But this is different and decidedly more dangerous: The president of the United States says one thing and does another and claims things that cannot possibly be.
Whether by delusion or by design, Barack Obama is being dishonest with the American people. And that is a harbinger of national disaster. (Source) - emphasis added
President Obama is a veritable Marxist but Americans are either too afraid to say that which is politically incorrect, too ignorant to realize it, or so filled with animus towards the U.S that they couldn't care less.
47 comments:
Right on, again, CBW. This administration is ruining our country.
It wouldn't take much for people to do a web search to find out about the policies that have always failed in any corner of the earth tried. If any policies presented in the USA are comparable it would be expedient to reject them.
It would be helpful to understand why the Constitution shouldn't be treated as a living (thus changeable) document. It is law. Study how it has served this country well and insist that our elected respect, uphold, preserve, and obey the law according to the oath they've taken to do so.
Ha! We couldn't agree more! Alan made the same remark a few days ago...we're being LIED to time and time again.
We now have a running joke in our house: How do you know Obama is lying? His lips are moving!
Hello CBW:
You wrote: "The president claims his health care reform plan is not "socialized medicine."
and commented: "It is."
In the same vein police departments are socialist creations as private security is available to all who can afford it. Fire Departments (once part of Insurance companies) are also socialist and in fact lead to the destruction of fire departments being private and only dealing with buildings that had "insurance".
You wrote: "He claims it won't harm private insurance."
You commented: "It will."
It should, that system is failing and milking the American people. The only people who want to keep this staus quo are the uninformed and the willfully ignorant.
You wrote: "He claims service won't be rationed."
Not even going to deal with your comment, how is it that you complain about "rationing" when one of the right's chief complaints about a national system is that "people will go to the doctor too much". Fascinating.
Great article. I am living in Costa Rica and I never thought I would see a sitting U.S. president support a would be dictator over clear democracy in Honduras.
DJBA you wrote " when one of the right's chief complaints about a national system is that "people will go to the doctor too much".
I'm not familiar with such a complaint by the right. Who said that? But I think the point is that Medicare is failing and rationing NOW because of financial restraints, how much worse will it get with at nationalize health plan.
Theodore Dalrymple wrote that the lies in Soviet propaganda were not intended to deceive but to demoralize and discourage. Persistent official lies demonstrated to the public that the authorities remain in control; that they can say absurd things without fear of contradiction.
Barak Obama generates grand platitudes tat fall apart upon inspection, but most people hear what they want to hear (This reminds me of a joke about Theolonius Monk: he sat in front of a piano for ten minutes. After the performance, one attendee said to another "That was brilliant!" and his friend said "But he didn't do anything", to which the first said "Yeah, but just imagine what he was thinking!"). Barak Obama said, for example "America will stand with those who stand up for their beliefs". Sounds grand and decisive, right? But in every war, fighters on both sides stand up for their beliefs.
Obama worship is self-love. People who adore dictators enjoy the same vicarious power fantasy that Steven Segall or Bruce Willis films provide to normal people. The difference is that most of us in the movie audience understand that it's a fantasy.
Government has nothing positive to contribute to the health-care industry (I except traditional public health measures like mandatory vaccination, locus identification, vector control, pollution control). One individual's broken leg is his/her problem, and no one else's. Society will get along just fine if I die in an alley. Aggregating resources and authority over the medical treatment industry will make things worse.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick~ you write,"Obama worship is self-love. People who adore dictators enjoy the same vicarious power fantasy that Steven Segall or Bruce Willis films provide to normal people. The difference is that most of us in the movie audience understand that it's a fantasy.
I think that is absolutely profound and would explain why so many of my intimates are unable to fathom why I am not supporting Barack Obama. It would also explain why the UptownSteve's of the world equate non-support of the 1st Black President with self-hatred. I'd been feeling that most black Obama supporters were "invested" in this guy but I guess I didn't follow it through to it's logical conclusion...so Thank you. Here is an email I received this morning from a very dear friend:
If you are going to talk about negative SHIT about my President. Then take me off your email list.
Thank you and I still love You,
S***** W*****
"A President Barack Obama Supporter"
She wasn't kidding.
"people will go to the doctor too much".
I don’t think the concern is that people will go to the doctor too much rather; it’s that people will go to the doctor for petty things that will most likely either go away or are easily treated at home i.e. “I have a bad headache, maybe I should see a doctor, why not it’s free” or “I have a cold, maybe I should see my doctor for a round of antibiotics as opposed to taking some Tylenol.” That’s pretty much what happened in the 60s when Medicare and Medicaid were introduced and in Canada when their Universal Healthcare system came into being.
@Malcolm:
You wrote: "Theodore Dalrymple wrote that the lies in Soviet propaganda were not intended to deceive but to demoralize and discourage. Persistent official lies demonstrated to the public that the authorities remain in control; that they can say absurd things without fear of contradiction. "
You mean lies like AL Qaida had a connection to IRAQ? Or that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction? Do tell...
(CBW): "This was written in response to a joke I made about Barack Obama not being present at Michael Jackson's funeral because he couldn't think of a way to blame it on George Bush--well I thought it was funny."
It's LOL. Literally; I did.
Thanks for the kind words, C.
(DJ) "You mean lies like AL Qaida had a connection to IRAQ? Or that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction? Do tell..."
If anyone lied, it was the CIA (and they didn't, really; they just overstated the confidence in which which they held their estimates).
Sadam Hussein's intelligence service, according to the CIA, had agreements with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (if I recall the name correctly), Ayman Zawahiri's organization which was folded into Al Qaida. That's a "connection" in my book.
Ambassador Wilson's inquiries into Chad's relations with Iraq supported the CIA's belief that Iraq had sought nuclear material in Africa, according to the subsequent congressional investigation. Ambassador Wilson claimed (under oath) that David Corn (the __Nation__ writer) had misunderstood their conversation. Since this was the only point of the conversation (what he found in Chad), that's like "I said 'up' and he heard 'down'" on a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of people, and hundreds of millions of dollars.
Oops. Never mind.
I'd like to see someone ask David Corn about this, sometime.
The most important thing to remember about this "Bush lied about Iraq's WMD" and "Bush administration officials leaned on intelligence analysts" narrative is this: between the Clinton years and the Bush years, the intelligence didn't change, so unless you believe that the Governor of Texas manipulated a Democrat-controlled CIA, President Bush saw the same analysis as did President Clinton. After the 9-11 event, the cost/benefit calculation changed. That is all.
Industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie said it best: "As I get older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."
@Malcolm:
"If anyone lied, it was the CIA (and they didn't, really; they just overstated the confidence in which which they held their estimates)."
Your willful ignorance is astonishing, yet not surprising. The Bush/Cheny administration lied, simple as that, they utilized what they knew to be shakey (at best) information to do what they wanted to do. If they (and their supporters like you) just manned up and admitted that, I'd have at least respect for your ideology.
Adam,
Read this National Intelligence estimate.
Excerpt (From page 13):......
Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate
High Confidence
Iraq is continuing, and in some cases expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
We are not detecting portions of these programs.
Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.
Moderate Confidence
Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (See INR alternate view, page 84)."
The CIA expressed "high confidence" in their estimates that Iraq had WMD and sought to develop nuclear weapons. Read the congressional hearings on intelligence failures. Wilson testified as I wrote. Read Tenet's letter to Congress on Iraq's capabilities.
Start here.
Read the CIA's letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
""As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
Let's hear no more about wilful ignorance, unless you are willing to do a bit of work. I could go on, but anyone with a brain will get the point by now.
@Again Malcolm, you conservatives never cease to amaze me.
Just because Democrats THOUGHT Saddam had WMD, doesn’t change the fact that a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT went to WAR with information and further said that there was a LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAIDA, which were basically, LIES.
No less Lies, just because some democrats agreed with those lies. YOUR RIGHT WING PRESIDENT went to war on that, simple and plain, anyone who can at least be halfway honest, could see that.
Adam,
The CIA is not "some Democrats", it's the President's source of foreign intelligence. The NIE was the summation of all available sources on the subject. It's basically the text of the President's briefing. On what other basis would you suggest he form his policy? Dye his hair, don a fake mustache, and go undercover in Tikrit, himself?
“The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House…”
- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003
President Bush did not lie about Iraqi WMD. The assessment he received was the consensus assessment. Five years on, you, on the other hand, have links to sources which contradict the narrative from the media echo chamber. You have Google access to The NIE and to Congressional evaluations of intelligence failures. What's your excuse?
@Malcolm:
I like how you keep avoiding that whole connection between Al Qaida and Saddam used as a prerequisite of war, in any case the CIA is not "some democrats", that was not what I was trying to say, what I am saying, it was BUSH AND CHENEY who used information they KNEW was shaky as part of the battle cry to invade Iraq as opposed to dealing with Osama. They made the call, and they made the call knowing damn well that they were operating on at least ONE LIE.
Nothing you can say or spin changes that.
(Malcolm): "Theodore Dalrymple wrote that the lies in Soviet propaganda were not intended to deceive but to demoralize and discourage. Persistent official lies demonstrated to the public that the authorities remain in control; that they can say absurd things without fear of contradiction."
(Adam): "You mean lies like AL Qaida had a connection to IRAQ? Or that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction?"
(Malcolm): "If anyone lied, it was the CIA (and they didn't, really; they just overstated the confidence in which which they held their estimates).
(Adam):"...it was BUSH AND CHENEY who used information they KNEW was shaky..."
Let's try one more time:...
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Excerpt (From page 13):......
Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate
High Confidence
Iraq is continuing, and in some cases expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions...
Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.
(Malcolm): "Ambassador Wilson's inquiries into Chad's relations with Iraq supported the CIA's belief that Iraq had sought nuclear material in Africa, according to the subsequent congressional investigation."
(Adam): "...as part of the battle cry to invade Iraq as opposed to dealing with Osama. They made the call, and they made the call knowing damn well that they were operating on at least ONE LIE."
Again...
(Malcolm): "Sadam Hussein's intelligence service, according to the CIA, had agreements with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (if I recall the name correctly), Ayman Zawahiri's organization which was folded into Al Qaida. That's a 'connection' in my book."
Further, this letter from the DCI to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence flatly asserts supportive relations between Iraq and al Qaida. You saw the link earlier. Did you follow it? You asserted "willful ignorance" earlier. Got a mirror?
"We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action."
(Malcolm): "...between the Clinton years and the Bush years, the intelligence didn't change, so unless you believe that the Governor of Texas manipulated a Democrat-controlled CIA, President Bush saw the same analysis as did President Clinton. After the 9-11 event, the cost/benefit calculation changed. That is all."
@Malcolm:
Again, if I concede that "Bush and Chenyey" went with the intelligence they had" regarding WMD, will you concede that there was NO LINK BETWEEN AL QAIDA and SADDAM?
Looking forward to how you blame THAT lie on the Democrats also...
(Adam): "Again, if I concede that 'Bush and Chenyey' (sic) went with the intelligence they had' regarding WMD, will you concede that there was NO LINK BETWEEN AL QAIDA and SADDAM?"
Reality is not negotiable. Give me enough money and I'll say "My name is Bond, James Bond" or even "Two plus two equals seven and three fourths", but that will not change my name or affect the facts of arithmetic.
(Adam): "Looking forward to how you blame THAT lie on the Democrats also..."
Why "also"? I did not blame either the WMD misinformation or the (unrefuted) claims of relations between Iraq and al Qaida on "the Democrats".
Now "Bush lied" is a lie which I blame on Democrats and their union and media allies. Convince independent voters that Republican politicians are evil, lying, greedy warmongers and voters then will incline toward Democrats.
As to...
(Adam): "...NO LINK BETWEEN AL QAIDA and SADDAM."
From the CIA letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:...
"We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
O.K. Malcom, since you want to act like you know, I am obliged to pull your card.
Lets start with the CIA: "In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency, under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, V.P. Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet."
From: Frontline: The Dark Side," PBS, aired June 20, 2006 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
CHENY AND RUMSFELD RE-EXAMINED the evidence.
O.K., for the right wing sychophants, let's look at that little tid bit again.
The CIA under GEORGE TENET INISISTED that there was NO LINK, Cheney and Rumsfeld continued to PUSH THE FALSEHOOD.
Malcolm, save that stress you are selling for the fools who want to believe as you do.
The CIA letter to Congress is not "Frontline", it's __The Congressional Record__.
Adam, I probably know as many ways to insult people as do you. I have tried to exercise restraint in this exchange, but this "willful ignorance", "sycophants", etc. from you is wearing thin,
You have seen a link to the NIE which expressed "high confidence" in Iraq's possession of WMD. You have seen a link to the letter from the DCI to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which asserted supportive relations between Itaq and al Qaida.
One last...
Senator John Edwards, on Hardball:...
(EDWRADS): "But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.
I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.
And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.
@Maloclm:
You want to cherry pick and put that agianst investigative journalism, fine by me, doesn't change the fact.
I'll take their conclusions over yours, as yours seem to be much more biased and generous to Bush and Cheney than I can stomach.
Adam,
You'll take "journalism" over original sources, like the NIE and the DCI letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Okay. That's where we differ.
We also differ in style. You have now added "biased" to "willfully ignorant" and "sycophantic". Do you suppose that insults will persuade me to adopt your view,
?
@Malcolm:
You wrote: "Adam, I probably know as many ways to insult people as do you. I have tried to exercise restraint in this exchange, but this "willful ignorance", "sycophants", etc. from you is wearing thin, "
Malcolm, you have no idea how THIN it is wearing on me the crap that continues to come out of the mouths of you right wingers. I at least had respect for the right 12 years ago, now I have nothing but contempt as you all continue to INSULT the intelligence of people regurgitating the b/s of the last 9 years, you continue fear mongering and take no responsibility for your own screw ups.
So if I am bothering you with my attitude towards people who decide to champion the cause of the right (such as yourself) my apologizes, I won't go back and forth with you further, because my patience for the ideology you continue to defend has long since evaporated.
The right is comprised of fear mongering, self righteousness, intellectual fraudulent fiction weaving, hypocritical, selfish and greedy ideologues.
You are correct, I have nothing left but insults, because ration, and constructive discussion is impossible with you all, you are every bit as bad as the left and as of late considerably worse.
So again, I don’t know you personally, so I mean you no personal insult, you just seem to take up with one of the most demonic mindsets of the last 50 years.
@Malcolm:
You worte: "We also differ in style. You have now added "biased" to "willfully ignorant" and "sycophantic". Do you suppose that insults will persuade me to adopt your view,"
I don't rightfully care if you adopt my views, it never is about that. It is about bneing able to self examine, and the right proved to me that they are about as willing to do that as the lefgt, which is why I have very little if any repsect for either.
(Adam): "...lies like AL Qaida had a connection to IRAQ? Or that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction?"
The NIE on WMD and the CIA letter to Congress on the Iraq/al Qaida connection rebut the contention that President Bush lied. Quotes from Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, and Representative Pelosi indicate that the intelligence they saw and the information on which the administration relied were consistent . This had nothing to do with ideology. Congressional majorities in both parties supported the resolution giving the President authority to go to war.
The "Bush lied" LIE has everything to do with partisan politics.
@Malcolm:
You wrote: "The "Bush lied" LIE has everything to do with partisan politics."
Sure does, the people who posit that Bush DIDN'T lie are clearly partisans who refuse to acknowledge any actuality that requires them to look introspectively.
Adam,
You went from "lie" to "knew to be shaky" to ""introspection"". I gave you links to the NIE that established whhat the CIA told the administration (Both administrations, Clinton and Bush II). I gave you a link to DCI Tennet's leter to Congress which established that the CIA aserted a connection between A Qaida and the Hussein (Iraqi) government. I supplied quotes from Senator Hilary Clinton, Senator John Edwards, and Representative Pelosi that established that Congress had seen intelligence which matched what the CIA supplied to the administration. I can supply lots more of these (from VP Gore, Pres. Clinton, Sen. Kerry, etc.) I can hunt down the Congressional testtimony of Ambassador Wilson if you like, wherein he says that Iraq sought refined uranium ore in Niger. Or you could do it yourself with a little effort.
II'm tired of an argument that consists of sources and facts on one side and name-calling on the other.
Go "introspect" yourself.
@MKirkpatrick
Do you know anything 550 metric tons of Saddam's yellowcake that was removed and is now being used for nuclear energy in Canada?
Information is minimal on this. I wonder why so quiet. Could it be because it helps explain who the real liars are?
@Malcolm:
Oh, you want to get grammatical, eh? You used facts to create a fiction, just like the Bush administration did, no wonder you have no problem with what they did.
You sound like Bill Clinton: "Define LIE"....fascinating the hypocrisy of the right....
@Mr Kirkpatrick
Last year the whole world (minus u know who)found out (for sure) that Bush didn't lie when the AP reported on the secret mission to remove a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium from Iraq, the last remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, had arrived at it's destination safely. Do you think everyone actually knows this but some won't admit?
Also, do you think everyone in the world knows Bill Clinton was a President on the left/Democrat Party?
@Smile:
"Also, do you think everyone in the world knows Bill Clinton was a President on the left/Democrat Party?"
And did you know people with a clue, know that there is no difference from the Blind Zombies of the RIGHT than the ones on the LEFT, silly is as silly does, rather you wrap it in left wing propaganda or right wing propaganda...
I said like Bill Clinton and contrasted that with Right Wing hypocrisy, as you all DO everything that you accuse the LEFT of like in this case purposed deceit hiding behind semantics. I don't know what is more pathetic, the fact that you all do it so well, or the fact that sycophants like you defend it?
Smile, you are a simple circus clown, just another boot licking lackey of the right. Move along toady you don't have the intellectual depth to keep up in most discussions with me...
Adam,
I will engage in this much introspection:...
I wonder why I bother to continue this conversation with someone who exhibits so littlle interest in evidence and who prefers to fling abuse rather than argue from facts and logic.
"Bush lied about Iraqii WMD" is a media liie promoted by Democrat politicians and partisan journalists for purely partisan purposes.
I am not a fan of George Bush (I or II). I preferred Steve Forbes or Alan Keyes in the 2000 Republican primmary. I won't defend the domestiic policies (e.g., immigration, medicare expansion, mortgage subsidies, bailouts) of either Bush I or II, so this isn't reflexive partisanship on my part: President Bush (II) acted responsibly on the (erroneous) intelligence that the CIA supplied. This intelligence did not change between the Clinton administration and the Bush (II) administration. The 9-11 event chhanged the relative cost benefit ratios of proactive versus rective strategies. Majorities of both parties in both the House and Senate voted to authorize force to remove Saddam Hussein.
With what statement as to fact do you disagree?
You might exercise a littlle introspection concerning why you cannot respond with documentaton for your side of the arguument.
Smile,
I agree. The retention of the refined ore makes no sense unless Hussein's government intended to makke a weapon, eventually.
@Mr Kirkpatrick
There was also a politician who went to Iraq to 'discuss' the position of our government. I'm under the impression it was an opportunity to warn Hussein to remove 'the problem' prior to the invasion. I can't remember his name or which House of Congress. Are you familiar and do you have a link?
Smile,
I have a vague recollecton of the inccident to which you refer. I don't know how I'd begin a hunt for references.
LATEST NEWS! they located Obama's birth certificate from KENYA!
Folks this proves OBAMA DEFINITELY BORN IN KENYA!
Folks, the document is REAL.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764
http://americangrandjury.org/
Good work Orly!
Ace linked this. Brooks writes: "I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us."
Translation: "He reminds me of me."
Obama worship is self-love for expensively-schooled half-wits.
Post a Comment