Hitchens Indicts Obama

[TriskettheKid]

You have dug in so far on this issue that you are now in bunker mentality like Trisk outright ignoring any evidence that contradicts you.

What position have I taken that's been contradicted?

As far as I can see, all I've done is talk about how I am not going to be quick to judge Obama because of what someone else has said. Am I to believe that there is evidence contradicting this? Is that possible?

And how do I have a bunker mentality? Again, I'm just talking about how ridiculous an issue this is, and how I'm not judging someone because of someone else.

But please, distort my actual position some more. It really helps your argument.

 

[corplinx]

I have to retract my own statement about the radio interview. I first heard it in passing and misunderstood what he said. He makes no such implication about knowing about his pastor's views.

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/03/obama-defends-his-church-000374.php

There is one funny quote though:

This is a pillar of the community and if you go there on Easter on this Easter Sunday and you sat down there in the pew you would think this is just like any other church.

I called my theist mother and indeed Obama was right, they were carrying on like fools in her church about their pastor being lynched too on easter sunday!

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have to retract my own statement about the radio interview. I first heard it in passing and misunderstood what he said. He makes no such implication about knowing about his pastor's views.

I love a good recantation. Are you wearing a linen shift and holding a candle, or are you more of a sackcloth-and-ashes guy?

Not to mention in a radio interview in the past 5 days which I heard excepts of, he implied heavily that he heard this kind of language personally from Wright but admired Wright's community work. I'll dig up a link to the radio interview, but I would probably be wasting my time.
Edited to Add: This is 100 percent incorrect.

You have dug in so far on this issue that you are now in bunker mentality like Trisk outright ignoring any evidence that contradicts you.

When you added the bit about you being 100 percent incorrect, maybe you should also have deleted the bit about my "bunker mentality", and how I'm "ignoring" the "evidence" that you hadn't supplied and that turned out not to exist.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You could take his quote in at least two ways. One is that 'such' refers specifically to "God damn America", or another way of reading it would elicit 'such' to mean statements similar in nature to "god damn America".

I took it to mean similarly inflamatory language. You know, "Kill whitey", "Anyone up for a flag-burning?", "Apple pie is the devil's food", and so forth. Even taken in the broadest sense, there's no evidence that Obama heard this sort of inflammatory language from the pulpit or in private.

 

[Cicero]

I really never had much use for Hitchens to begin with. He is an atheist, attempting to address how a devout Christian should relate to God and his religious community.

I would as soon ask Paris Hilton for advice on pet care.

While Hitchen's atheism is well known, he did have his children Baptized. Paris's recommendations for dog grooming would include submersion of the animal in quick lime. I'll stick with Hitchens.

 

[Kaylee]

Our other Senator is Dick Durbin, if that tells you anything.

I had to look him up. I lived in Illinois in the 1960s and 70s -- this isn't the Illinois I remember! What happened?

Right now I would guess hat Illinois must have lost a lot of population outside of Chicago in order to have two liberal senators. Ususally rurual areas and small towns tend to be very conservative -- even if it is against their interest.

 

[Sefarst]

* sigh *

Now you know how I feel.

Last time you told me that some video backed you up, I wasted eight minutes of my life looking for statements that weren't actually there.

And when was that?

In this case, the temptation to let you waste my time is rather easier to resist, since for some reason my browser won't play aol videos.

Wow, all of a sudden huh? Think of how much time you could have saved if you had just said from the beginning, "Dearest Sefarst, it appears my browser if unable to load and play the particular video you posted. Would you please post the specific quotations from it that you find troubling as it seems I'm also having trouble opening the link Wildcat posted to the full transcript of the discussion? I thank you very much, from the deepest corners of my heart. Have a lovely day."

Now, please QUOTE some specific thing that Obama said that you consider to be a lie.

It appears you found some quotations and are trying to dodge and restructure your argument now. I'll get to that in a moment.

He said that he'd never heard Wright use "such inflammatory language", when asked about "God damn America".

Now we're getting to the heart of the issue. Obama said in his big speech on race:

For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

This quote suggests he had heard such language. More questions: what does Obama consider controversial? What were the controversial statements he admits to having heard? What were the criticisms of American foreign and domestic policy? The AIDS remark? The remarks about drugs? Further, as Hitchens pointed out, both he and Wright recognized a need for Obama to eventually distance himself from the Reverend. Why? Because Obama and Wright both knew about his fiery rhetoric, perhaps?

Then, as you may have noticed from the Olberman interview (or maybe not), Obama first stated that he had no intention of asking Reverend Wright to step down and then, suddenly, Wright does step down. Olberman asks if Obama changed his mind, Obama dodges by saying there was a recognition that Wright was near retirement and needed to step out of the spotlight. The most interesting part about that, though, is the fact that Obama, after seeing the clips and hearing the soundbites when the story first broke, had no intention of asking Wright to step down. Only after the political pressure was put on him by the media did Wright decide to leave the campaign (or was forced out, we don't know).

So what are we being asked to do here? That in 20 years and close personal time, he never heard Wright utter anything like the controversial statements we've heard so far. Even after we know Obama HAD heard those statements, Obama intended to keep him on the campaign and Wright only left the campaign after the political pressure heated up.

If the statements Obama had heard that were controversial were no different than any controversial statements other Americans may have heard in their churches, mosques or synagogues, why did Obama feel the need to eventually distance himself from Wright?

 

[Cicero]

Of course. There is a difference in vetting, and the character assassination on Obama that Hannity and others are carrying out though.
TAM

Yet, FOX News Chris Wallace reprimanded Fox & Friends during his segment on the show for their overboard criticism of what Obama said about his "typically white" mother.

When was the last time MSNBC's twin twerps, Matthews and KO, ever rapped the other on the knuckle for being a grandiloquent gas bag when the other goes overboard? And this situation happens on a weekly basis at MSNBC.

 

[corplinx]

I love a good recantation. Are you wearing a linen shift and holding a candle, or are you more of a sackcloth-and-ashes guy?

When you added the bit about you being 100 percent incorrect, maybe you should also have deleted the bit about my "bunker mentality", and how I'm "ignoring" the "evidence" that you hadn't supplied and that turned out not to exist.

I didn't delete where I was wrong nor where I was right.

 

[Sefarst]

Of course. There is a difference in vetting, and the character assassination on Obama that Hannity and others are carrying out though.

Well, you're free to criticize Hannity however you'd like. I'm only speaking to my own motivations.

It is his call for change, his stand on the issues, his communication ability, his charisma, his biracial heritage, and more...it is the sum total, not any individual piece...It is also about the right person at the right time.

What matters are his stands on the issues and his willingness to get those issues accomplished. Everything else is hype.

I am glad you distingiuished between cynicism and skepticism, as the difference is important here. I agree everyone should be skeptical, but I think to go in assuming he is the same old politician, more of the same, more of what everyone dislikes (aka cynicism) is what people should lose, or at least tone down.

Aside from being charismatic and half-black, what's new about him?

MORE OF THE SAME.

Now who's being cynical?

 

[carlvs]

Well, you're free to criticize Hannity however you'd like. I'm only speaking to my own motivations.

Right. Especially the one mentioned in this post...

As a McCain supporter ...

 

[Sefarst]

Right. Especially the one mentioned in this post...

And I've criticized McCain as well:

Its the same bad judgment McCain demonstrated in the last few years as he began sucking up to the religious right in this country (which I loudly criticized then as well).

 

[Dr Adequate]

Now you know how I feel.

I doubt it.

And when was that?

Yesterday.

Wow, all of a sudden huh? Think of how much time you could have saved if you had just said from the beginning, "Dearest Sefarst, it appears my browser if unable to load and play the particular video you posted. Would you please post the specific quotations from it that you find troubling as it seems I'm also having trouble opening the link Wildcat posted to the full transcript of the discussion? I thank you very much, from the deepest corners of my heart. Have a lovely day."

I believed I had already made it quite clear that I wanted some quotations.

It appears you found some quotations and are trying to dodge and restructure your argument now.

You're wrong a lot, aren't you?

Now we're getting to the heart of the issue. Obama said in his big speech on race:

This quote suggests he had heard such language.

Well, in the same way that random newpaper headlines "suggest" to a paranoid schizophrenic that the CIA is out to get him.

To me, however, these statements "suggest" that, as Obama said in the Olberman interview, he had heard Wright say controversial things. 'Cos that's what he says. And not that he heard him use "such inflammatory language" as "God damn America", which is not what he says.

More questions: what does Obama consider controversial?

I'll go out on a limb here and guess that he considers things controversial if they're the cause of controversy.

What were the controversial statements he admits to having heard? What were the criticisms of American foreign and domestic policy? The AIDS remark? The remarks about drugs? Further, as Hitchens pointed out, both he and Wright recognized a need for Obama to eventually distance himself from the Reverend. Why? Because Obama and Wright both knew about his fiery rhetoric, perhaps?

Am I a mind-reader?

Then, as you may have noticed from the Olberman interview (or maybe not), Obama first stated that he had no intention of asking Reverend Wright to step down and then, suddenly, Wright does step down. Olberman asks if Obama changed his mind, Obama dodges by saying there was a recognition that Wright was near retirement and needed to step out of the spotlight. The most interesting part about that, though, is the fact that Obama, after seeing the clips and hearing the soundbites when the story first broke, had no intention of asking Wright to step down. Only after the political pressure was put on him by the media did Wright decide to leave the campaign (or was forced out, we don't know).

I notice that you're not a mind-reader either. But enjoy speculating about hypothetical circumstances under which Obama might have been dishonest.

So what are we being asked to do here? That in 20 years and close personal time, he never heard Wright utter anything like the controversial statements we've heard so far.

No.

If the statements Obama had heard that were controversial were no different than any controversial statements other Americans may have heard in their churches, mosques or synagogues, why did Obama feel the need to eventually distance himself from Wright?

Because the media brought up stuff that he hadn't heard from his pew, including such inflammatory language as "God damn America".

Haven't you been following this story at all?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally, either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew. He always preached the social gospel and was sometimes controversial in the same way that many people who'd speak out on social issues are controversial.

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely

I'm still not seeing the discrepancy.

This would be why I asked you for actual quotes, you see. I wanted to know if you were telling the truth.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I took it to mean similarly inflamatory language. You know, "Kill whitey", "Anyone up for a flag-burning?", "Apple pie is the devil's food", and so forth. Even taken in the broadest sense, there's no evidence that Obama heard this sort of inflammatory language from the pulpit or in private.

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure when I read you here:

He said that he'd never heard Wright use "such inflammatory language", when asked about "God damn America".

Overall, I agree with your position here DR A. I think Obama's defense that he has heard his pastor say some controversial things, but not those controversial things, is solid. Everything else is speculation until somebody can pinpoint him at a speech, for instance, where Wright said that "the white man created AIDS" or something similar.

 

[Sefarst]

Yesterday.

Proof, please.

I believed I had already made it quite clear that I wanted some quotations.

And you all ready had the entire transcript.

You're wrong a lot, aren't you?

You're really making a habit of vacuous rhetoric, aren't you?

To me, however, these statements "suggest" that, as Obama said in the Olberman interview, he had heard Wright say controversial things. 'Cos that's what he says. And not that he heard him use "such inflammatory language" as "God damn America", which is not what he says.

As has all ready been said, "God damn America" was one of several controversial statements. Hence the need for elaboration or was that too hard for you to follow?

I'll go out on a limb here and guess that he considers things controversial if they're the cause of controversy.

Hey then, what kind of controversy did those other controversial statements cause? What were the statements? These are questions we need answered. More was said than just "God damn America".

Am I a mind-reader?

Are you a reader at all?

No.

Yes. (See, I can do that too)

And you ignore the fact that Obama had originally planned to keep Wright on his campaign even after we know he definitively heard those statements.

 

[leftysergeant]

While Hitchen's atheism is well known, he did have his children Baptized.

That just indicates a rather narrow view of religion, not any understanding. Not believing, but taking part in the sacrements is total hypocracy. I beleive "hypocrite" is derived from the Greek for "actor." If anyone knows better, please correct me.

 

[Sefarst]

That just indicates a rather narrow view of religion, not any understanding. Not believing, but taking part in the sacrements is total hypocracy. I beleive "hypocrite" is derived from the Greek for "actor." If anyone knows better, please correct me.

I don't think it's very important, but does anyone know if he actually had them baptized or if they were just baptized?

 

[BPSCG]

To me, however, these statements "suggest" that, as Obama said in the Olberman interview, he had heard Wright say controversial things...

...I'll go out on a limb here and guess that he considers things controversial if they're the cause of controversy.

Overall, I agree with your position here DR A. I think Obama's defense that he has heard his pastor say some controversial things, but not those controversial things, is solid.

As has all ready been said, "God damn America" was one of several controversial statements. Hence the need for elaboration or was that too hard for you to follow?

...

Hey then, what kind of controversy did those other controversial statements cause?

I'm getting tired of seeing Wright's foul language being described as "controversial."

• "I think people should be allowed to own guns," is a controversial statement.
• "The death penalty should be repealed," is a controversial statement.
• "Abortions should not be allowed except for when the mother's been raped," is a controversial statement.

These are all controversial statements because the pros and cons of all of them can be intelligently argued and defended.

• "George Washington hit more home runs than Jonas Salk," is not a controversial statement.
• "Tiger Woods was born on December 17, 1770, in Bonn, Germany," is not a controversial statement.
• "Your cars will get better gas mileage if you press your foot lightly on the brake the entire time you're moving," is not a controversial statement.
• "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color," is not a controversial statement.

These are not controversial statements, because none of them can be intelligently argued and defended.

Stop excusing Wright's vicious rants as being "controversial." They are not. Obama knew what he was doing when he carefully chose to misuse that word. "Controversial" is not a synonym for the word he should have used to describe Wright's language. That word is "inflammatory."

 

[T.A.M.]

Well, you're free to criticize Hannity however you'd like. I'm only speaking to my own motivations.

which is why we are having a civil discussion.

What matters are his stands on the issues and his willingness to get those issues accomplished. Everything else is hype.

Your opinion of course, and you are entitled to it. I personally feel the inspiration he brings to many people is more than just hype. I agree the issues are important, though more to you than me as a Canadian. From the nomination pov, Hillary and Obama are so close, that the issues are less important in nominee selection.

Aside from being charismatic and half-black, what's new about him?

I am not going to parse his characteristics, as it is the sum total that makes him different.

Now who's being cynical?

Touche, but I am the first to admit that the recent OVER THE TOP bashing of Obama has beaten a good deal of the cynicism back into me.

TAM