A brief history lesson for Hillary

Not that she cares about history, or rules, or fairness, or consistency, or democracy, or anything else other than her own power.

Comments

[Alasdair]

In the interests of Equal Opportunity, I offer some shining moments from the Obama side - offered from a source that is equally supportive of both Senators - Clinton and Obama ...

[David K.]

Just when you think Alasdair can't get any stupider, he offers us the above. Congratulations on missing the point entirely. This isn't some simple mis-speech, this is a blatant and utter disregard for the rules and an attempt to re-write history completely for her own purposes.

Oh. Wait. I forgot that for you, the latter wouldn't even be problematic given your political leanings. It makes more sense now.

You lost me as soon as Turbin Durbin came into the picture. Had to stop playback.

David K. is always the first person with the ad hominem attack.

[David K.]

"anonymous" - What would you call Alasdair's attempt to equate the two distinctly different situations?

[Sandy Underpants]

I love laughing at Michelle Malkin. I have to wonder how people believe what they believe when they must know better than to actually believe the garbage in her column. Dan Quayle was stupid for mis-spelling potato(e), but it didn't cost him the election. GWB has said so many stupid things he became the least visible president in American history. The right-wing media absolutely crucified Al Gore for statements that he never made that people to this day don't know that he never claimed to invent the internet and that the main character in "Love Story" actually is based on Al Gore (and Tommy Lee Jones). But let's not let facts get in the way of a good smear job.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore

The truth of the matter is Obama is a human being and makes mistakes, although most of what MM points out is straight-up made-up or misrepresented like the attacks on Al Gore. None of which matters, as Obama will kick McSames ass all over the political map in 6 months, and it has everything to do with the failures of the current president and the Republican led Congress and Senate of the first 6 years of this decade.

[Alasdair]

David K - "Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed" - a "simple mis-speech", eh ? Not an "an attempt to re-write history completely for herhis own purposes" ?

David - your davidness has yet to cease to amaze me !

[Joe Mama]

What would you call Alasdair's attempt to equate the two distinctly different situations?

Certainly not ad hominem.

The truth of the matter is Obama is a human being and makes mistakes, although most of what MM points out is straight-up made-up or misrepresented like the attacks on Al Gore.

Obama makes mistakes alright . . . here is another "straight-up made-up" attack:

Obama in 2004:

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. . . . And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point." . . . Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently. "With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations. . . ."

Obama now:

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela--these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet."

Whatever suits the present moment, I suppose.

[Becky]

Joe Mama, are you seriously contending that Iran poses the same threat to us right now, today, that the Soviet Union did in say, 1962? Are you a moron or do you just do a magnificent impression?

Moreover, those quotes are entirely reasonable. The Soviets had some sense of avoiding mutual annihilation. The Iranian Shahs do not. It appears from their rhetoric that they would gladly sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their own people to a retaliatory strike in the name of Allah if it means that they can nuke Israel. The restraint that we saw in the Soviets doesn't seem to be present in Islamofascists. What's your objection to what Obama is saying?

[Angrier and Angrier]

Hillary will say or do anything to win. She is mentally ill.

[Joe Mama]

Becky,

I'll pass over the moron crack since up until now I haven't viewed your comments on this blog to be ignorant for the most part.

Suffice to say that I don't contend that "Iran poses the same threat to us right now, today, that the Soviet Union did in say, 1962." That wasn't the point at all. Rather, the point -- which I thought was clear to any fair-minded observer -- is that back in 2004 Obama was saying that Iran should be treated differently than the USSR because the latter "operated on a different model" than the former. Now, however, Obama is saying that since we had formal negotiations with the USSR, we should therefore have formal negotiations with Iran, i.e., they should not be treated any differently.

In other words, Becky, while you are correct that "those quotes are entirely reasonable", when taken separately, they are glaringly inconsistent when spoken by the same person. That is my objection to what Obama is saying.

[David K.]

What would you call Alasdair's attempt to equate the two distinctly different situations?

Certainly not ad hominem.

Still doesn't mean he's not being stupid. Try again.

[Angrier and Angrier]

There is nothing contradictory in what Obama said in 2004 and what he is saying now. Can you read???

[Joe Mama]

David, whether Alasdair is "being stupid" is beside the point of whether you made the first ad hominem attack, which you just effectively confirmed that you did.

A&A, I clearly stated exactly what was contradictory in Obama's statements, which you can only discount in conclusory fashion without any argument whatsoever as per usual, so between the two of us, I'm hardly the one who cannot read.

[Becky]

Joe Mama, I think your reading is garbled and Obama's position is relatively consistent. In the first quotation, he's expressing concern over Iran becoming a nuclear power and the difficulty of negotiating with its leadership. In the second quotation, he's noting that the US has dealt with bigger fish than Iran and managed not to get nuked before, that diplomacy CLEARLY has a place in dealing with hostile powers.

This obvious disparity between the quotations is rather...uh, not obvious at all.

Moreover, even if Obama's position did and continues to evolve with regards to Iran, I think that's a good thing. While I'm no Jimmy Carter, I do believe that the Bush administration has made a mockery of diplomacy and undervalued its surprisingly potent potential.

[Angrier and Angrier]

"Rather, the point -- which I thought was clear to any fair-minded observer -- is that back in 2004 Obama was saying that Iran should be treated differently than the USSR because the latter "operated on a different model" than the former. Now, however, Obama is saying that since we had formal negotiations with the USSR, we should therefore have formal negotiations with Iran, i.e., they should not be treated any differently."

But it is not contradictory. In both instances Obama starts by saying Iran is not the same as the Soviet Union and should be "treated" differently. That isn't the same as saying "we won't negotiate" in 2004 and "we will negotiate" now. THAT would be contradictory. But Obama never said anything like that. Talking and treatment aren't necessarily the same thing.

For instance, we can talk to the Iranians. If we don't like what they have to say, we can do air strikes on them. No way in hell we would have ever had that as an option with the Soviets.

[David K.]

*yawn*

An ad hominem is only a logical fallacy if you base your argument on it. I comment on Alasdair's being stupid for his repeated insistance on posting partisan hackery such as the above which clearly has no relevance to the actual point being discussed. You might have a point if I had said he was wrong BECAUSE he was stupid, but i called him stupid because he was WRONG. There is a difference.

Beyond that Alasdair's behavior towards me personally (and towards others) with regards to continual ad hominem attacks that are in fact arguing for us being wrong because of some mental deficiency, etc. has earned him my scorn. I endeavour to give people the benefit of the doubt and will refrain from insulting those who are willing to engage in honest debate, but for someone like Alasdair who long ago demonstrated a contempt towards me personally? Sorry I'm not losing any sleep over calling him stupid when he gives me a reason to do so such as above. The word stupid exists for a reason, sometimes it just fits.

[Joe Mama]

Becky,

Again, I don't have a problem Obama expressing concern in 2004 about Iran going nuclear and the difficulty of negotiating with its leadership. In fact, I 100% agree. What you left out, however, is how he specifically distinguished the USSR from Iran in his explanation that negotiations with the latter may not be as fruitful as negotiations with the former (because Iran "doesn't make the same calculations" that the USSR did). Then, 4 years later, Obama specifically invokes our successful negotiations with the USSR as a reason why we should have formal, President-to-President negotations with Ahmadenijad. Well, what's changed in the last four years that makes Obama think that where in 2004 the two countries "operated on different models", now what worked for one will therefore necessarily work for the other (I mean, besides the office he is now running for and who he is running against)? What is so hard to understand about that? I'm all for evolved thinking, I'm just a little skeptical when such evolution happens to take place in 4-year cycles.

[Joe Mama]

David,

I appreciate your nuance with respect to when an ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and thank you in advance for not whining about ad hominem attacks the next time someone calls you stupid because you are wrong.

For someone who claims not to be "losing any sleep", you sure seem to *yawn* a lot.

[Becky]

Joe Mama, we may have to agree to disagree. And forgive me my crankiness. I blame sleep deprivation. ;)

[Joe Mama]

Becky,

Much appreciated, and there is nothing at all to forgive! I'll be experience infant-induced sleep deprivation in due course :-)

[Sandy Underpants]

Anyone with basic reading comprehension understands that Obama didn't change his beliefs from 2004 to today based on those quotes, as demonstrated by the comments in this thread.

If you want real contradictions look at GWB's debates in 2000 with Gore where he said he would not involve the US in Nation Building and then his Presidency was defined by just that.

Look at Dick Cheney in 1993 saying that invading Baghdad would be a total disaster and we knew over-throwing Saddam would lead to a quagmire, which he pretty much described exactly what has happened. And then acting surprised 10 years later when everything he knew would happen, happened.

Look at John McCain in 2001 saying he opposed all of bush's tax cuts and now that he's running for pres he supports them, or what he said on Torture for 6 years and what he votes and supports today.

Now those are examples of contradictions and flip-flops.

[Angrier and Angrier]

"and the difficulty of negotiating with its leadership."

Once again, Joe Mama, you are showing yourself to be disingenuous, stupid or both. There is nothing in Obama's 2004 quote about "negotiations." There is no contradiction.

[Joe Mama]

You're quoted Becky, dumbass. I was just repeating her. But more the point, what do you think Obama was saying in 2004 when about being "surprised if Iran blinked at this point" and that "certain elements within the Islamic world right now don't make those same calculations" that the USSR did that made negotiations tenable during the Cold War . . . that negotiating with Iran's leadership wouldn't be difficult?! You're embarrassing yourself, A&A . . . and frankly you're becoming as boring as Sandy Underpants.

[Sandy Underpants]

I didn't know "boring" was a euphimism for "Someone who kicks your butt in every political debate".

[Alasdair]

Joe Mama - what do you think - are A&A and Sandy Underpants just support hose puppets of David K ?

[Joe Mama]

I don't think Sandy Underpants even knows what a euphemism is.

[David K.]

Now that is an ad-hominem attack. Thanks for stepping up to the plate and proving what I said before Alasdair. You are nothing if not predictable.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Joe Mama's just pissed because he knows he got it wrong and he's too conceited to admit it. Hopefully having a kid will make him a little more modest (congratulations, by the way, if you are indeed going to be a father soon).

[Joe Mama]

A&A, you haven't even responded to a single point I've made except to simply say, "No, you're wrong." Sorry, but no one is just going to take your word for it.

congratulations, by the way, if you are indeed going to be a father soon

Like I would lie about it?! Good grief. At least you're giving me some good experience in how to handle immature children.

[Alasdair]

Joe Mama - you are likely to find the experience remarkably rewarding ... the little monster(s) will drive you bananas a lot of the time, and yet you are likely to feel that it was all well-worthwhile ...

[copndor]

In a way, aren't we all Joe Mama's kids (depending on the person of reference)?