Here’s an interesting article that our friend Pie came across and wanted to share with you. I liked it, hope you will too. The more you know – the smarter you will vote!
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
Jack: “The more you know – the smarter you will vote!”
Agreed, which is why I think it’s important that all readers of this blog know that, like most everything Pie Guevara posts here, the IBD article he links to here is based on a complete lie.
The U.S. never planned to apologize for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. On Friday, Steve Doocy apologized for incorrectly reporting on this story on his show “Fox and Friends.”
From Politico:
Fox sorry for Japan apology remarks
Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy apologized Friday morning for the shows reporting on a WikiLeaks cable, during which the program’s hosts inferred the White House planned to apologize for the United Statess 1945 atomic bombings of Japan, despite denials by the Obama administration.
Wed like to clarify a story we reported on yesterday on this program, Doocy said. We want to make sure this is very clear. There was never a plan for President Obama to apologize to Japan. We should have been clearer about this, and we are sorry for any confusion.
According to a 2009 cable — which made the media rounds this week though it was released in September as part of a massive document dump — U.S. ambassador to Japan John Roos was told by a Japanese official that though there might be high expectations in Hiroshima for an apology, the idea was a nonstarter.
As chronicled by Mediaites Tommy Christopher and left-leaning watchdog Media Matters, Fox & Friends twisted the meaning of that cable during Thursday mornings broadcast. Foxs Brian Kilmeade said that as President Obama headed to Japan for Obamas visit, the White House had a great idea. Lets apologize for dropping that bomb on Hiroshima. Host Gretchen Carlson framed the trip as a chance to visit Hiroshima to basically say hey, we’re sorry that this happened.
Doocy himself riffed Thursday on a statement put out by White House spokesman Tommy Vietor that denied any plans for a White House apology. As stated by Doocy, Vietor said yesterday (Wednesday), I know we don’t comment on WikiLeaks dumps but, quote, there was never any plan for the president to apologize. So there you go. Tommy Vietor settles it. They were never going to do it. Even though the documents looked like they were going to do it.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1011/Fox_sorry_for_Japan_apology_remarks.html
Pie’s article also alludes to Obama’s alleged “apology tour,” which also never happened. Similar accusations have been rated false by Politifact.
Personally, I think the U.S. government should apologize for slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima. That was one of the most immoral things our country has ever done, and nuking civilians should not be an acceptable tactic of war.
Nevertheless, I wonder if Pie will now claim that there is “no difference between” the twisted version of events in the article he linked to, and the truth. After all, that’s what he did when he lied about the two union members accused of beating Kenneth Gladney, claiming that they both admitted to beating him in open court. This never happened, and when confronted with that fact, Pie then argued that there is no difference between admitting to being involved in an altercation, and admitting to beating someone. Yes, he actually said that.
When are you going to learn not to trust anything this guy says, Jack?
Chris since the Heritage Foundation published a list of B.O.’s top 10 apologies, the Japan apology seemed quite believable so I’m still trying to find the truth of this matter. Now here are some apologies we have verified:
1. Apology to France and Europe (“America Has Shown Arrogance”)
Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[1]
So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we’ve allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there’s something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
2. Apology to the Muslim World (“We Have Not Been Perfect”)
President Obama, interview with Al Arabiya, January 27, 2009.[2]
My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.
3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas (“At Times We Sought to Dictate Our Terms”)
President Obama, address to the Summit of the Americas opening ceremony, Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009.[3]
All of us must now renew the common stake that we have in one another. I know that promises of partnership have gone unfulfilled in the past, and that trust has to be earned over time. While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values. So I’m here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration.
The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made.
4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders (“Some Restoration of America’s Standing in the World”)
News conference by President Obama, ExCel Center, London, United Kingdom, April 2, 2009.[4]
I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we’ve made, that you’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world. And although, as you know, I always mistrust polls, international polls seem to indicate that you’re seeing people more hopeful about America’s leadership.
I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions. Just to try to crystallize the example, there’s been a lot of comparison here about Bretton Woods. “Oh, well, last time you saw the entire international architecture being remade.” Well, if there’s just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that’s an easier negotiation. But that’s not the world we live in, and it shouldn’t be the world that we live in.
5. Apology for the War on Terror (“We Went off Course”)
President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[5]
Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us–Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens–fell silent.
In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach–one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
6. Apology for Guantanamo in France (“Sacrificing Your Values”)
Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[6]
Our two republics were founded in service of these ideals. In America, it is written into our founding documents as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In France: “Libert”–absolutely–“egalit, fraternit.” Our moral authority is derived from the fact that generations of our citizens have fought and bled to uphold these values in our nations and others. And that’s why we can never sacrifice them for expedience’s sake. That’s why I’ve ordered the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay. That’s why I can stand here today and say without equivocation or exception that the United States of America does not and will not torture.
In dealing with terrorism, we can’t lose sight of our values and who we are. That’s why I closed Guantanamo. That’s why I made very clear that we will not engage in certain interrogation practices. I don’t believe that there is a contradiction between our security and our values. And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure.
7. Apology before the Turkish Parliament (“Our Own Darker Periods in Our History”)
Speech by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6, 2009.[7]
Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That’s why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That’s why we prohibited–without exception or equivocation–the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard.
Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.
Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future.
8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas (“The United States Has Not Pursued and Sustained Engagement with Our Neighbors”)
Opinion editorial by President Obama: “Choosing a Better Future in the Americas,” April 16, 2009.[8]
Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas. My Administration is committed to the promise of a new day. We will renew and sustain a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and our common security.
9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA (“Potentially We’ve Made Some Mistakes”)
Remarks by the President to CIA employees, CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, April 20, 2009.[9] The remarks followed the controversial decision to release Office of Legal Counsel memoranda detailing CIA enhanced interrogation techniques used against terrorist suspects.
So don’t be discouraged by what’s happened in the last few weeks. Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that’s why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.
10. Apology for Guantanamo in Washington (“A Rallying Cry for Our Enemies”)
President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[10]
There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law–a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.
So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.
13 Oct 2011 – Wizbang: Wikileaks says yes, the Obama administration is saying no:
In September 2009, US Ambassador to Japan John Roos reported to the Obama administration that the Japanese government did not think it was a good idea for President Obama to visit Hiroshima to apologize for the US having dropped an atomic bomb on that city, a secret cable published by Wikileaks revealed.
Roos wrote the cable after his August meeting with Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka, reporting to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the Japanese government felt the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a non-starter. While a simple visit to Hiroshima without fanfare is sufficiently symbolic to convey the right message, it is premature to include such program in the November visit.
A senior White House official asserts to ABC News that there was never any plan for the president to apologize for Hiroshima. The cable does not state that the idea was from the U.S. Rather, Roos writes that Yabunaka thought that following President Obamas call earlier that year for a world free of nuclear weapons, anti-nuclear groups would speculate as to whether he would visit Hiroshima.
Yabunaka recommended that President Obamas November 2009 visit be focused mostly in Tokyo.
The cable was first reported by the Japan Times.
ABC News: Now, new Obama apology drama may be on the horizon. The story today is that back in 2009, at least one Japanese officials allegedly assumed the president might express regret for Americas World War II-era atomic attack on the Asian nation, and an attempt was made to stop such a proclamation.
A recently leaked cable (via Wikileaks, of course) seems to highlight the Japanese governments supposed efforts to dissuade the president from expressing remorse for U.S. action in the region. The secret document was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by U.S. Ambassador to Japan John Roos prior to the presidents 2009 visit to the country. The Japan Times Online has more:
The cable indicates the Japanese government was then effectively discouraging Obama from visiting Hiroshima despite growing expectations over it following his call for a world free from nuclear weapons in a speech in Prague in April 2009.
The cable, dated Sept. 3, 2009, and sent to U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton, reported Japans then Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling Ambassador John Roos on Aug. 28 that antinuclear groups would speculate over whether the president would visit Hiroshima in light of his Prague speech on nuclear nonproliferation.
Chris, the question here is who are we to believe? It seems plausible that Obama was going to apologize, but the idea was cancelled for reasons previously stated. The fact that he did all this apologizing was the heart and soul of the real story, not anything wikileaks came up with. I see nothing wrong with the link that Pie supplied to us. He didn’t create it and he didn’t lie about it, he just submitted it as food for thought. Wish you two could get along! lol
Jack: “Chris, the question here is who are we to believe? It seems plausible that Obama was going to apologize, but the idea was cancelled for reasons previously stated.”
So you believe that a good way to inform your readers is to post anything that “seems plausible” to you? It’s hypocritical for you to acknowledge the link between being informed and voting smart in a post where you link to an article that is giving false information which has already been corrected by both the government and FOX News.
“I see nothing wrong with the link that Pie supplied to us.”
Seriously? You see nothing wrong with the fact that the author lied? He wrote:
“Whatever Tokyo’s motive, Obama’s motive was to once again apologize for defending freedom, this time for winning with devastating finality the war Japan started.”
There is no evidence that Obama ever intended to apologize for dropping the atomic bomb, so this statement is a lie.
“He didn’t create it and he didn’t lie about it, he just submitted it as food for thought.”
But he could have done five seconds of research to find out that it wasn’t at all true. I would never post a link to a claim like this without checking out multiple sources to see if it’s correct, because I know it’s irresponsible to disseminate false information.
I wish I could get along with Pie too, but he lies all the time, and never admits it when he’s caught. It took him a month to respond to his false claim about the union members accused in the Kenneth Gladney trial, and when he finally did he still wouldn’t admit that his claim about them was false. Instead, he made another jaw-droppingly stupid claim in order to justify his previous lie.
Sorry, but I’m not going to “get along” with someone who does things like that.
Jack, none of the statements on that list were apologies. An admission of error is not the same as an apology. Nowhere does Obama say the word “sorry.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/15/mitt-romney/obama-remarks-never-true-apology/
And the articles you quoted confirmed that this whole issue came about due to Japanese speculation, not anything the White House put out.
Chris, you’re wrong – they are apologies. You’re saying the Heritage Foundation made up of some of the greatest minds in America doesn’t know as much you know? Seriously…Chris…
Jack,
Investors Business Daily is a respected news gathering organization with an excellent editorial staff.
Our favorite lefty wind bag sources the extremely biased, George Soros funded, blatantly radical left wing propaganda machine “Media Matters” and then has the gall to try and discredit Fox News! Hmmm, interesting, the article linked too is an editorial on IBD. (Here we have yet another of the endless, rabid, “Faux News” rants from the left, ho-hum…)
Ask yourself this simple question, “Why on earth would the Japanese send such a cable?” (I’m sure you already know the answer, but I’ll detail it for our friend in case he read this.)
Duh. Because someone in the Obama Administration led them to believe it would be expected. Otherwise, why bother? Does our radical left-wing windbag really think that Japanese foreign policy/diplomatic agency officials base their decisions on mere speculation and supposition? Oh, those poor, dumb, backward Japanese foreign relations people!
What sort of idiot would think that? A radical left-wing idiot who, in fact, thinks our Obama should apologize! How brilliant the left is. Go against the wishes of the Japanese government. (Those stupid Japanese are going to get an apology whether they want it or not!)
Jack, you don’t have to trust me. I don’t expect you to. (Not that I am trying to lead you or anyone astray.) I have no doubt you are an intelligent, rational person, can make up your own mind, and can check up on my sources and any contrary views from half-baked left-wing radicals anytime.
The bottom line here is that our favorite left-wing radical has had it in for me ever since I gave him a good solid dose of his own medicine a month ago or so. He will never forgive me for that and will grasp at any straw to try and discredit me and cast aspersions on my integrity.
The bottom line here is also this: Some people will believe ANYTHING the Obama administration says, no matter how implausible.
Japan sent the cable, they had a reason to send the cable. The Obama administration denies giving them a reason to send the cable. If they didn’t, then the Japanese based a significant and important foreign relations communication on what? Speculation? News reports? The Obama Apology Tour (that did not exist according to our favorite left-wing radical blowhard)?
Dang, those simpleton Japanese diplomatic officials must spend too much time getting their pea-brains washed by watching Fox News!
Jack, an appeal to authority is always a fallacy. But it’s even worse when the authority you cite has an obvious bias.
Heritage may have some intelligent people working for them, but the purpose of their organization is to get Republicans elected to office. There’s nothing inherently wrong in that, but it should make one evaluate their claims with a skeptical eye.
Politifact is made up of some pretty smart people too, and unlike Heritage, they are unburdened by political bias. They evaluate claims from both Democrats and Republicans, and give their ratings based on the truth or falsity of their claims.
Regardless, neither of our authorities are infallible, and it is of course possible for either one of us to “know more” about a specific issue than either one of these organizations. So let’s stick to the facts and our own debating skills instead of appealing to authority.
President Obama did not say the word “sorry” in any of the speeches Heritage lists. He admitted that the United States has made mistakes in the past, but that is not the same as apologizing.
Yes, that left-wing radical Steve Doocy must get all his talking points from Media Matters. That’s why he apologized and admitted that the apology story was false, because…George Soros made him!
Pie Guevara: “The bottom line here is that our favorite left-wing radical has had it in for me ever since I gave him a good solid dose of his own medicine a month ago or so. He will never forgive me for that”
As I told you the other day, I still have no idea what you’re talking about.
Pie, have you read the cable itself? I ask because the reason for the Japanese’ suggestion that the president not apologize is stated right there:
“Anti-nuclear groups, in particular, will speculate whether the President would visit Hiroshima in light of his April 5 Prague speech on non-proliferation.”
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/foreign-policy/was-obama-going-apologize-1945-bombing-japan
In your above comment, you aggressively mocked the idea that the Japanese would tell Obama not to apologize based on “speculation.” You called me a “radical left-wing idiot” for believing this. But right here is the proof that they did exactly that. I don’t see why it was hard for you to believe this before, or why you think it was stupid for the Japanese to give a simple recommendation based on speculation.
The cable makes it clear that concern over a possible apology from Obama resulted from “his April 5 Prague speech on non-proliferation.” NOT from the president ever saying that he intended to apologize for Hiroshima. And certainly not from any bogus “apology tour” meme invented by right wing media.
But you will believe anything that makes the Obama administration look bad, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
Chris, you are wrong about the word apology or apologize. Expressing regret is sufficient to qualify as an apology:
You are also wrong about The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-Conservatives-Outnumber-Moderates-Liberals.aspx
According to the survey 29% of democrats self describe as conservative (although most have moved further left) and 36% of Independents consider themselves to be conservative.
Keeping these figures in mind the heritage foundation serves Americans across the political spectrum. Their mission statement is not about promoting republican ideas but American heritage and ideas:
http://www.heritage.org/About
Tina, I still don’t agree that Obama’s statements amounted to apologies, but I’m gonna go ahead and chalk that one up to a difference of opinion and leave it at that. Giving it some extra thought, perhaps it would have been more fair for Politifact to give that story a “half-true,” since I think reasonable people can disagree over whether those statements were apologies or not. I do think it is significant that Obama never says “we are sorry” or “I am sorry” in any of those statements.
I also think my statements about Heritage were accurate, but again, difference of opinion.
Chris: “I’m gonna go ahead and chalk that one up to a difference of opinion and leave it at that.”
I hope you will be as generous with others.
“I do think it is significant that Obama never says “we are sorry” or “I am sorry” in any of those statements.”
Significant? Maybe. My opinion is that his ideological underpinnings won’t allow him to consider differences. All people, all countries and all ideas are on equal footing. This is a cause, not reality, and as such requires that he attempt to say, in essence, “we’re bad sometimes too…now can’t we all get along”.
Leaving out the word sorry means nothing…the intent was known.
Your statements about Heritage were incorrect, opinion doesn’t have anything to do with it. I didn’t catch it the first time you made this erroneous claim. thanks for the opportunity to clear it up for our readers.
it’s called The Heritage Foundation because those who created this think tank wanted to educate so that america would maintain her heritage. If we fail to teach the values of the founding we will fail future generations and we will cease to be the United States of America.
Look around, that is exactly what has happened over the last forty to sixty or so years of socialist retraining of our young people…and at warp speed.
Early Americans would never have considered taking, through the power of government, the wealth that others have earned…the very idea runs absolutely against founding principles and ideals. Taxes were voluntary in the beginning. Private charity and neighborliness was the avenue for helping those in need. Hard work and obtaining an education or training was the key to providing for oneself and ones family.
The OWS gang don’t have any of those ideals in their grounding. I am pleased to discover they are not in the majority as they claim.
Tina: “My opinion is that his ideological underpinnings won’t allow him to consider differences. All people, all countries and all ideas are on equal footing.”
Really, Tina? You’re entitled to that opinion but I think it is quite a stretch.
President Obama has called America an exceptional nation many times.
“Early Americans would never have considered taking, through the power of government, the wealth that others have earned…the very idea runs absolutely against founding principles and ideals.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this, because you can’t possible be speaking literally. The top tax rate during WWII was 94%. That amounts to a much larger “taking” of the wealth of others through government power than any proposal out there in the public debate today.
Sheesh, talk about going into exotic contortions to create a little spin!
How ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH is the Japanese government expressing concern that “Anti-nuclear groups, in particular, will speculate whether the President would visit Hiroshima in light of his April 5 Prague speech on non-proliferation” PROOF that THE GOVERNMENT — NOT ANTI-NUCLAR GROUPS — was basing their concerns for an Obama apology on speculation? Huh?
Is English Chris’ second language?
This is really so simple and logical that even the most stupid left-wing radical from the bottom of the Marxist moron pit should be able to follow along.
Clearly, from the cable, the Japanese feared an apology would be exploited by anti-nuclear groups and those opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the U.S.the Japanese, as the IBD piece notes.
So, read this slowly and carefully now so there is no confusion …
1) The Japanese had reason to believe that Obama might apologize for the bombing of Hiroshima when visiting. They were so convinced that Obama might apologize that they sent a cable expressing their concerns and letting the US know that such an apology would be an unwelcome “non-starter”.
2) If members of the Obama administration did not communicate with the Japanese government of Obama’s desire to apologize then how were the Japanese led to believe he might? Did they pull such concern out of thin air?
3) No, of course the Japanese government did not pull such a concern out of thin air. They were led to believe Obama might apologize BY OBAMA HIMSELF. It was Obama’s previous behavior on his (non-existent) Apology Tour that raised their concerns.
4) While the administration claimed there were no plans for an apology, the Japanese were wise to believe it was a distinct possibility and proactively nipped it in the bud.
Chris I might come right back at you and ask you, what part of the definition of Islam that defines it as both a political system and a religion… DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
It’s a religion and its a political movement Chris! George Washington said, Every man… “ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” And that is just great…worshiping…that is the key word here Chris. Anyone can “worship” all they want, but when worship turns political and gets aggressive then we’ve got a new animal.
Islamism (Islamist+-ism; Arabic: al-islmiyyah) also Arabic: Islm siys , lit., “Political Islam” is set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, and that modern Muslims must return to the roots of their religion by uniting politically against non-Muslims. Islamism is a controversial term, and definitions of it sometimes vary. Leading Islamist thinkers emphasized the enforcement of Sharia (Islamic law); of pan-Islamic political unity; and of the elimination of non-Muslim, particularly Western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world, which they believe to be incompatible with Islam.
This situation of a religious/political meld that has been prone to millions of acts of violance around the world for decades and centuries and therefore it bears a higher standard of scrutiny than other religions that are A-political. This is especially so when its a faith that has been used to manipulate the faithful into declaring war on America and killing innocent men, women and children.
Consider this Chris: Just being a member of the infamous KKK will get you bumped from the military and we all say that’s fair – right? Okay, now consider that we have yet to have any subset of those members from the big KKK club declare war on us, hijack our aircraft, go jihad on our military personnel, here or overseas, while wearing our military uniform and after pledging under oath to protect, support and defend the United States. That sucks, huh?
We have no cases where the KKK bombed military recruiting offices, openly called for the beheading of homosexuals or issued fatwahs (death warrants) on offending book authors or offending newspaper cartoonists! The KKK never bombed our largest business center hoping to kill tens of thousands of people. They never plotted to plant bombs on aircraft and did genocide in the name of their Christian religion…and those people in the KKK get bumped from service and shunned from elections and we say good!
Chris your liberal political correctness is getting the best of your common sense! Get a clue Chris this isn’t about worshiping! This is a political thing a very aggressive and a dangerous political thing that we can’t simply ignore.
Pie: “2) If members of the Obama administration did not communicate with the Japanese government of Obama’s desire to apologize then how were the Japanese led to believe he might? Did they pull such concern out of thin air?”
No, Pie. They pulled it from the anti-nuclear groups who speculated that Obama might do so in light of his Prague speech on non-proliferation.
At least, that’s what the cable says.
That is the only reason given by the cable.
Is it possible that there were other reasons? Sure, it’s possible. But that’s all speculation. You are free to speculate that the Obama administration initially planned on apologizing, and that they told the Japanese government this, and that they were convinced not to by the Japanese, and that they later lied about all of this.
But there’s no actual evidence that any of this is true, and it is unacceptable to state this speculation as fact, which is what you and your article did.
It’s also unlikely that the Obama administration told the Japanese that they planned to apologize, because if that were so, the cable would most likely have mentioned that. Why would the cable cite speculation by anti-nuclear groups as the basis for their request, if they had gotten word straight from the horse’s mouth that the president was going to apologize? Why wouldn’t the cable specifically cite Obama’s intention if your version of events is true?
Once again, Pie, your version of events is full of holes. It just doesn’t add up.
Jack, did you really just try to compare the KKK, a fringe hate group, with the third largest religion in the world?
You really think a comparison like that is useful?
Also, I would like to ask, do you believe it is possible for one to identify as Muslim and believe in the separation of church and state?
Here is a Wikipedia page on that subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism
All cabinet members should be properly vetted, regardless of religion, and we should ensure that their primary loyalty belongs to our country. I don’t believe this is impossible for Muslims; do you? Apparently the founders didn’t, otherwise they would have made an exception.
Once again, it seems that when it comes to the war on terror, those who call themselves defenders of the Constitution are extraordinarily willing to deny it’s principles to those they are suspicious of.
Re Jack’s Admonishment: “your liberal political correctness is getting the best of your common sense!”
Political correctness is almost always at odds with common sense. In fact, it is my considered opinion that a person must first dispense with common sense order to engage in political correctness.
Guys! Such an expenditure of energy to no purpose.
First, Pie’s info is dated.
Second, Pie’s source is bogus.
Third, Whatever the OA may have thought about doing, back in ’08, the Japanese government scotched as detrimental to it’s current nuclear policy … and
Fourth, that was before the tsunami … and Japan’s nuclear policy has been shifted by popular horror … and
Fifth, Obama can now make our apologies.
What is there about all this that gets your knickers into such a twist?
I mean, come on, you might make some geopolitical case for Hiroshima … but Nagasaki was an abomination, and they are, no question, entitled to an apology.
Nagasaki happened because the Japanese refused to surrender. No apology needed. 99% of everyone who fought in WWII would disagree with you Libby. I would never go against them, they were there, they fought, they made the sacrifices, we didn’t.
Suspicious is a word that is used to convey doubt. I have no doubt. Political Islam is a threat to every civilized, free nation on earth.
Jack: “Political Islam is a threat to every civilized, free nation on earth.”
Agreed.
But I was not talking about Political Islam, I was talking about Muslim people.
I hope you will answer the question I posed to you above. You have said in the past that you believe in the existence of loyal, peace-loving Muslims. Do you believe it is possible for one of these Muslims to believe in the separation of church and state, and to uphold this constitutional provision in their service to the U.S. government?
Libby, I completely agree with you.
Pie, I would like to ask you another question as well: Do you believe Steve Doocy was wrong to apologize and to state that the story was untrue? You still believe it even after FOX issued a correction, so I’m curious as to your opinion on this.
Chris, I just tried to make the point that this religion you are defending is largely a political force and a dangerous one at that. therefore, we owe to ourselves to be wary and vigilant of all people who call themselves Muslims for that reason. Sure, I feel bad for the good people who are Muslims and may feel slighted, but the followers of their religion created this situation not me. They should be angry at them, not us and they should understand our concerns and most do I think.
After reading most of the argument about intent verse application, it seems the Chris was winning on semantics alone but a loser on common sense. There is a nice picture of Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan,(someone needs to capture and post)that puts this in prospective for me. This bow was not a White house courtesy or Presidential in any way other that what it depicts, Obama is a self proclaimed apologist to the world powers , but he does so without the backing of the American people.
But I digress, I said ‘Chris was winning’ then Chris tried to turn Jack’s comment about the KKK verse Political Islam into comparable issues by indicating Jack was comparing the KKK to Islamic worship, Chris that was a far from the truth as anyone can take something, and if he expects with a ounce of common sense to believe that dribble about Jack, he is mistaken. In fact just like Steve Doocy, Chris needs to apologize for his inflammatory statements about Jack.
Hiroshima made the point. They were entitled to a week or two to assimmilate. Nagasaki happened cause we wanted to see what “this other, bigger bomb” would do.
It was inexcusable. How come you can never face up to the shitty things we’ve done?
We do nice things too, our post-WWII policies were thoroughly enlightened. But that don’t eradicate the bad stuff.
Man up.
Harold, I strongly disagree. How is what I said “inflammatory?” Jack clearly did compare Muslims to the KKK, in fact he seemed to be implying that Muslims are worse than the KKK. That is far more inflammatory than anything I have said.
Jack, I would appreciate it if you answered my question.
Chris disagree all you want, but as just a reader of these post I did not see Jack attact the Islamic religion, and frankly I do not understand how you were able to extrapolate that, unless you were just being liberal with your words. Jack statement was referring the the terrorist kinship and strong implementations of both the KKK and their wrongful activities as well as the similarity of a Political Islamic jehadist. However you are motivated in your thinking, right or wrong you made a very unfounded and inflammatory accusation that was so far from the truth that only a hate filled mind could find a parallel. Frankly if I was Jack, I would not give credence to your challenge, and I would even give you a ‘time out’ on your posting should you continue such twisted fabrications.
Libby: “Nagasaki happened cause we wanted to see what “this other, bigger bomb” would do.”
Nagasaki happened because Emperor Hirohito was just that prideful and stubborn! He refused to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. The Japanese people know this even if you do not!
What you call the “bad stuff” was a monstrously difficult decision to make and was made simply because it was calculated that it would bring a quicker end to the Pacific war with the result that more lives could be saved…both American and Japanese lives.
Chris: “I’m not sure what you mean by this, because you can’t possible be speaking literally. The top tax rate during WWII was 94%.”
WWII happened long after the founding. My point was that the people who founded this nation believed in making their own way in life and depending on each other through personal charity and endeavors rather than through government coercion. It’s a mind set with which you don’t seem to be familiar, mores the pity.
“Jack, did you really just try to compare the KKK, a fringe hate group, with the third largest religion in the world?”
No. He compared the way we in America treat members of the KKK with the way we treat radical Islamists and asked you to acknowledge the difference, the inconsistency, and the insanity of that.
We openly shun the KKK. We are asked or expected to tread litely on radical Islamists. We are asked to pretend there isn’t a real threat and we are shunned if we wish to speak out against the radical ideas that drive the enemies. This is not healthy or wise.
You, being ALL ABOUT political correctness, are incapable of speaking about such things. There really is no point in discussing the subject with you.
You have been self-silenced. That’s fine with me. Just knock of the crap intended to mark anyone who does wish to acknowledge it and talk about it as racist or religiously bigoted. You are WAY OFF THE MARK!
Libby, this is for you: You’re 100% wrong about us doing something evil when we dropped the 2nd bomb on Japan. We did the right thing-and ultimately because we did, fewer people died, especially our own soldiers. History has been quite clear on this point.
We demanded the surrender of Japan days before the first atomic bomb was dropped, they refused to reply, even though we made it clear they were in for it. After the first a-bomb was dropped we again demanded an immediate surrender, however Japan had been trying to develop and atomic bomb too and they knew the difficulties and complexity of such a weapon and they thought the chances of a us having a second A-bomb was extremely remote. Why would they surrender if we had no means to inflict further damage, that would be pointless?
Actually, we didn’t have a second bomb like we dropped on Hiroshimabut, we had developed the Fat Man bomb concurrent to the Little Boy bomb.
Libs did you know that on August 8th the US began dropping leaflets on Japan warning about a second nuclear blast, and leaflets were dropped on the Nagasaki area on August 10th? We dropped the 2nd bomb next day, which was actually early because bad weather forced us to move up our drop time.
That forced the Japanese to surrender because we told them we were prepared to drop a 3rd and even more devastating bomb. Many believe we threatened Tokyo was next, although this and the high possibility that we didnt have a 3rd bomb, remains a secret to this day.
“Nagasaki happened because Emperor Hirohito was just that prideful and stubborn!”
I’m sorry, Tina, that is BS, wrong, and wildly obtuse.
Hiroshima … nobody had ever seen the like.
The Japs were entitled to at least a week to sort it out, and they didn’t get three days … because … we really wanted to see what this other, bigger bomb would do.
You can cloud it all you like; that’s how it was, and it was inexcusable.
“That forced the Japanese to surrender because we told them we were prepared to drop a 3rd and even more devastating bomb. Many believe we threatened Tokyo was next, although this and the high possibility that we
didnt have a 3rd bomb, remains a secret to this day.”
I’m intrigued. Who’s fed you this revisionist nonsense?
Cause that’s what it is. Don’t be such an eager feeder. Man up.
Tina: “No. He compared the way we in America treat members of the KKK with the way we treat radical Islamists”
Tina, please read Jack’s comments again. He clearly compared the way we treat KKK members with the way we treat MUSLIMS IN GENERAL. That’s why he says he would not allow Muslims to serve in congress.
No Chris….Tina got it right, you got it wrong. I completely agree with Tina’s take on it and I completely disagree with your take. I wrote it, I know what I meant…you got it wrong.
Harold: “Chris disagree all you want, but as just a reader of these post I did not see Jack attact the Islamic religion”
Harold, I think I know why you are confused. Jack started posting in the wrong thread. Our conversation on this issue started on the article about Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. It was there that Jack said that he would not allow Muslims to serve in Congress.
That is of course an attack on the Islamic religion. More importantly, it’s an attack on Muslim Americans and their constitutional rights as citizens of the United States.
Jack made the comparison to KKK members not being allowed to serve in order to justify why he thinks Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to serve in congress.
If you go to that article and read Jack’s other comments, I think the issue will be cleared up for you and you will see why my statements were accurate and fair, not inflammatory.
Chris, this is getting tedious and boring. Give it up will ya? You are wrong. Here are snippets from things I tried to explain to you. Any rational thinking person will see who is right and who is parsing words and spitting hairs trying to make a point that is at best confusing.
ChrisI only take exception to those people who want to kill us or geo-political-religious movements that want to dominate us. So be clear on what you are saying and be fair.
Chris, I just tried to make the point that this religion you are defending is largely a political force and a dangerous one at that. therefore, we owe to ourselves to be wary and vigilant of all people who call themselves Muslims for that reason. Sure, I feel bad for the good people who are Muslims and may feel slighted, but the followers of their religion created this situation not me. They should be angry at them, not us and they should understand our concerns and most do I think.
Chris I might come right back at you and ask you, what part of the definition of Islam that defines it as both a political system and a religion… DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? It’s a religion and its a political movement Chris! George Washington said, Every man… “ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” And that is just great…worshiping…that is the key word here Chris. Anyone can “worship” all they want, but when worship turns political and gets aggressive then we’ve got a new animal.
Chris my meaning for the nation of Islam is simply that Muslims recognize their own Islamic style government. Fundamentalist Muslims believe no other government is legitimate. They belong to a Muslim government or authority first before any thing else.
Chris. Good thing I’m not president, because it’s my belief that being a fundamentalist member of the Islamic faith is to subscribe to their politico-theocratic system, in that they believe its one’s highest calling to spread this political-theocracy until the world is put right under one religion/one government and that obviously puts America out in the cold. The more fundamentalist they are them more emphasis is given to this religious-geopolitical movement. I called this the nation of Islam movement, but that is a misnomer and I should not have done that (because it is only my term). I hope this will clarify what I meant?
Chris. Islamic Sharia law that goes with it is wholly incompatible with the idealism that is in free America where we recognize equality and inalienable rights. Ya put these two things together and we have a potentially big problem,
Chris: ” He clearly compared the way we treat KKK members with the way we treat MUSLIMS IN GENERAL.”
KKK members of today are banned from the military because of their forebears past acts against blacks and ALSO because of their general beliefs and creed today. Yet we have not banned Muslims, who have been allowed are still allowed in our military, even though in several instances Muslims have committed acts of terrorism against fellow soldiers and other Muslims have committed even greater acts of terror against people of all faiths all across the world. Can you explain the logic behind this obvious prejudice? Not all KKK have commited acts of terror or murder yet they are all banned and I imagine would be looked at with suspicion if they cared to try to infiltrate our government through elective or appointment. Also…there are several card carrying communists in our congress and their purpose has been to fundamentally transform our government to a Marxist state. Haven’t the American people been stupid in not vetting these people and exercising a bit of caution about their intentions so as to preserve our republic and the freedoms we enjoy? The interesting poinbt about all of this to me is that political correctness is the thing that drives all of these decisions. The PC left will not condemn Marxist blacks who want to fundamentally transform our government…they are black. The Muslim religion is given a blanket pass by the PC left; the Chritian religion is not given this same treatment. The Jews can be openly blamed for the ME troubles and called greedy controllers of the worlds wealth. These assertions are patently false but very PC. On the other hand, in a discussion about the problem of Muslims who wish to establish a caliphate and are a danger is an off limits topic becaise of PC.
Jack suggested that a measure of caution should be understood and encouraged…radical Islamisats don’t wear identifying badges. In fact, many of them believe in using covert means to destroy us from within. They are all too willing to put on a mask as a means to an end. This reality requires skepticism and caution when considering them for ANY government position but especially those which require (or should require) security clearance. It has nothing to do with bigotry. It is about defense of the nation.
As Jack clearly said it is unfortunate and sad that we find ourselves in this situation but WE did not create the conditions. If Muslims, or you, want to vent anger and frustration I suggest, as did Jack, that they (you) irect that upset toward the extremists in the Muslim world that believe they have a religious mandate to take over the world by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
TINA………..THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU – -Jack
Jack, I do not understand why you can’t answer my very simple question. I will keep asking until you give me a straight answer.
Do you believe it is possible for a loyal, peace-loving Muslim to believe in the separation of church and state, and to uphold this constitutional provision in their service to the U.S. government?
You sort of alluded to this question in the 9-9-9 thread, when you said that “being a member of the Islamic faith is to subscribe to their politico-theocratic system, in that they believe its one’s highest calling to spread this political-theocracy until the world is put right under one religion/one government and that obviously puts America out in the cold.”
This would indicate that you don’t believe it’s possible for a Muslim to put loyalty to the U.S. government above loyalty to their religion.
But then in your above snippets, you edited* your previous remark by adding a qualifier, writing, “being a FUNDAMENTALIST member of the Islamic faith is to subscribe…”
Obviously, not all Muslims are fundamentalist Muslims, so this qualifier complicates the issue a bit and makes me wonder how you would answer my question.
I actually agree that a fundamentalist Muslim would believe all the things you say they would, and for that reason would not be a good choice for any government position. (I also believe this is true of fundamentalists from other religions as well, but I acknowledge that they would not likely pose the same kind of danger to the U.S. as a fundamentalist Muslim, given the exceptionally violent and imperialist strain in fundamentalist Islam today.)
But that does not justify placing a blanket ban on all members of a specific religion. That is unconstitutional. But it is not unconstitutional to refuse to hire a specific person because they have shown evidence of conflicting loyalties, for whatever reason.
Some people believe that Mitt Romney’s Mormonism should disqualify him from serving as U.S. president. Some of their arguments resemble your own. They believe that Mormons, by their very nature, cannot be fully loyal to the United States.
This may be true of some Mormons. It may be true even of most Mormons, for all I know. But it is not true for all. Romney should be evaluated on his own merits, and not discriminated on based on his religion.
And the same is true for Keith Ellison, or any other member of a religious minority that would like to run for public office.
I understand your mistrust of Muslims given our current climate, I really do. But that does not justify your assertion that you would prohibit Muslims from holding office in the U.S. As I have pointed out, that is unconstitutional, and you haven’t seemed to challenge that point. I understand there are factors other than the constitution to consider, but I thought you and Tina, like most Tea Party members, considered yourself constitutional purists? If so, you need to address the constitutional concerns in your arguments. So far, I haven’t seen you do so, and this weakens your position as “constitutional conservatives.”
I would also like to add that arguments which ignore constitutional rights out of fear of the other, no matter how justifiable that fear, eventually lead to immoral policies. The internment of the Japanese during WWII is one such example. Even conservatives now acknowledge that this was wrong…don’t they?
*By the way, I’ve noticed you’ve edited a lot of your comments since we started debating this issue, but I haven’t seen you acknowledge that you have been doing so.
Tina: “KKK members of today are banned from the military because of their forebears past acts against blacks and ALSO because of their general beliefs and creed today. Yet we have not banned Muslims, who have been allowed are still allowed in our military, even though in several instances Muslims have committed acts of terrorism against fellow soldiers and other Muslims have committed even greater acts of terror against people of all faiths all across the world. Can you explain the logic behind this obvious prejudice?”
It’s not a “prejudice,” but it is obvious.
The KKK is an organized hate group.
The Muslim religion is the third largest in the world, and has intimate ties to both Judaism and Christianity. It is also the fastest growing religion in the world. Millions of people throughout the world identify with this religion. Many of them are patriotic Americans.
It is unconstitutional for the government to reject someone from the military or any other government service based on their religion.
It is not unconstitutional for the government to reject someone from the military or government service because of their participation in a hate group.
This is not hard to understand.
“Also…there are several card carrying communists in our congress”
Please name them.
“This reality requires skepticism and caution when considering them for ANY government position but especially those which require (or should require) security clearance.”
Of course! I have never suggested otherwise. I have said before that all candidates should be thoroughly vetted, and that ties to radical groups is grounds for qualification. What is NOT grounds for disqualification is simply being a Muslim! By all means, vet a Muslim applicant more thoroughly than anyone else. Make damn sure they are loyal to this country above all else. I’m not against that. I am against banning Muslims from public office completely!
Not only is this unconstitutional, but have you thought at all about the impact that would have on Muslim Americans? Radicalism usually comes about due to marginalization. Islamic terrorists recruit others by playing on their feelings of persecution, economic despair and disconnectedness from their societies. Forbidding Muslims to fully participate in our government would only feed that complex and add justification to their grievances. Jack suggested making Muslims second-class citizens in our government, and no matter how you two justify that, it is bigoted, unconstitutional and would not at all be helpful in combating Muslim extremism.
“We are asked or expected to tread litely on radical Islamists. We are asked to pretend there isn’t a real threat and we are shunned if we wish to speak out against the radical ideas that drive the enemies.”
Please let me know who has asked you to do this. I certainly never have, and I haven’t seen anyone else say anything like this either. Have you opened a newspaper lately? Not a day goes by that doesn’t have a story about Islamic extremism. This isn’t a bad thing; Islamic extremism is a serious threat, and we should have all the information we can on it.
I have only objected to your and Jack’s statements that all Muslims should be held accountable for the actions of radical terrorists. You equate that to a total denial that Islamic terrorism exists, and constantly accuse me of ignoring the problem even though I acknowledge it all the time in our debates…it’s very tiring to have to constantly rebut these false accusations.
“WWII happened long after the founding. My point was that the people who founded this nation believed in making their own way in life and depending on each other through personal charity and endeavors rather than through government coercion. It’s a mind set with which you don’t seem to be familiar, mores the pity.”
So do you believe this mindset was more or less prominent in the U.S. during WWII than it is now?
You constantly act as if our country has been on a slow lurch toward socialism. You talk of “creep.” And you use the fact that progressives demand higher taxes on the rich as evidence for this claim. Yet you ignore the fact that tax rates on the rich are at historic lows. Do you honestly believe that our government was more socialist and less free* in the 1940s than it is today? I don’t think you do, but that’s the logical conclusion of your statements.
*For the record, I think our nation was definitely less free in the 1940s than it is today, but not because taxes were higher. I believe it was less free because segregation was still legal in many states, women and minorities had much less opportunity, internment camps were set up for a specific minority group, and for many other reasons as well.
“Jack, I do not understand why you can’t answer my very simple question. I will keep asking until you give me a straight answer. Do you believe it is possible for a loyal, peace-loving Muslim to believe in the separation of church and state, and to uphold this constitutional provision in their service to the U.S. government?”
Chris, I have answered and I’ve answered several times before in earlier posts. As clear as I can be now: Y-E-S, it is possible.
I feel compassion and empathy for Muslims who abhor violence and wish to live in peace with others. I have no agenda with any religion. The only issue I have is with the religious-politics that seek to undermine my security and my rights that have been found in the aggressive two part Islam that is half political and half religious.
Can we drop it now? I’m really bored with this interrogation. I know you’re trying to indict me on some racist conduct or something and then have this wonderful [AH HA!] moment, but it ain’t gonna happen. It’s just not here for you to find.
Jack, I’m not trying to “interrogate” you, I’m trying to understand you.
Thank you for answering the question.
You said, “Chris, I absolutely have answered this and I’ve answered several times before in earlier posts. YES, it is possible. And let me also say, I feel compassion and empathy for stand-up, decent, Muslims who abhor violence and wish to live in peace with others.”
That’s a good answer.
But if it’s true, then why would you feel the need to ban all Muslims from holding political office?
If Muslims can be loyal, peace-loving, patriotic, and committed to the principles of the constitution, then why should they be excluded from full participation in our political system?
Why can’t we vet them as individuals, make sure there are no skeletons or suicide vests in their closet, and then let them in once that has been done?
Why should we sacrifice one of the most important principles of our constitution to keep these people out?
I know you feel exhausted by this debate–trust me, I do too–but this is important, and I feel like we’re coming to more of an understanding.
Jack, you can make a vaguely pertinent comparison of the KKK to AQ; they’re both terrorist organizations. You cannot make any sort of valid equation of the KKK and Islam.
This would be the same as tarring all yer white southern protestants with the KKK brush, which happens from time to time, but we know it’s wrong.
Are we clear now?
Exactly, Libby.
Would that the Pizza King saw it so clearly. Fortunately, Mr. Cain digs the hole deeper every time he opens his mouth.
Palin down, Bachman down, Cain down … whatever’s next?
Maybe that 40-some portion of our electorate will suddenly grow brains that work!
(Or perhaps the wine was a little too good.)
Libby, speaking only for myself, I think that Romney now has the best chance to unseat Obama. He’s not my favorite candidate, but he is the clear choice to win in a head to head with the B man. Romney and Perry have impressive credentials as governors, but Perry has blown it in the debates. Cain rose to the front of the pack so fast there was no where else for him to go but down. Once the vetting process started on Cain the cracks in his armor started turning up and he looks as mortal as any of the rest. Everyone likes Cain’s bold approach to reforming the IRS and we love his straight talk, but his 9-9-9 plan won’t make it and it’s probably hurting his chances right now. No matter how you feel about that one, it is controversial and it’s drawn a lot of fire from both sides. Romney is a sophisticated candidate, more so than all others. He holds his ground, he seems unflappable and he looks the part of president. He’s good on foreign affairs and domestic affairs, or at least as good as anyone in the race. He is confident, poised, deliberate and this all looks like the man who could be president. He also has the election team in place and the money to back him and lets face it, money buys votes and wins elections. Overall, I think he would make a pretty good president. Not my first choice, but not a bad choice.
Obama? Romney? They’re both corporate stooges. There is absolutely nothing to choose between them. Neither of them will get us universal health care, and neither of them will rein in the capitalists.
Me, I’m putting in the winter vegetables.
Re: Pie: “2) If members of the Obama administration did not communicate with the Japanese government of Obama’s desire to apologize then how were the Japanese led to believe he might? Did they pull such concern out of thin air?”
No, Pie. They pulled it from the anti-nuclear groups who speculated that Obama might do so in light of his Prague speech on non-proliferation.
At least, that’s what the cable says.
That is the only reason given by the cable.
Interesting, Chris’ argument reinforces my original analysis. In fact he makes it for me with a slight modification. I am pretty sure at this point the snot-nosed left wing radical college kid argues for the sake of arguing and doesn’t really give much thought to it. He has given me hundreds of examples already.
OK, so this is hopeless. Chris will probably never learn to think for himself or, like many left winger’s I know, engages in intentional obtuseness simply to wear people down.
For example, look at the total horse pucky Libbya posted about Nagasaki. If that isn’t obstinate, mindless, “hate America first” radical left-wing drivel in the face of the historical record, I don’t know what is. Her perverse view of that history boils down to this: We bombed Nagasaki to test the hydrogen fusion bomb.
Yeah, right.
Sorry kids, but that is sick and demented. The charge is wicked and absolutely baseless. That is the left for you, sick, demented, wicked, and base.
In any case Libby does the same thing Chris does. This is a left wing game.
So, according to Chris’ view the only reason the Japanese government sent the cable is because anti-nuclear groups speculated that Obama might do so in light of his Prague speech on non-proliferation. OK, I can work with that. It only raises some rather obvious questions and begs a minor re-analysis.
1) Is it reasonable to conjecture that the Japanese government would base its foreign policy and diplomatic decisions in this instance simply on the speculations of some anti-nuke citizens and citizens opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the US?
2) Well, let us suppose they did. Then why on earth did the anti-nuke Japanese and the anti-defense alliance Japanese believe Obama might issue an apology? Surely they do not have personal, independent diplomatic communications with the White House.
3) So we are back to square one with a little rewording if we are to accept Chris’ scenario. The Japanese government based their decision to nix any possibility of an apology based on the belief that Obama would issue an apology because anti-nuke Japanese and the anti-defense alliance Japanese believed he might apologize because of Obama’s previous behavior on his Apology Tour, and, in particular, because of his behavior in Prague. *Whew*
4) So, here Chris has sent us around in circles back to my original point. (To what purpose is obscure and only known to Chris, but I think it has to do with what I noted about left wing games above.) Moreover Chris himself helps make my point for me (with a little diversion) himself.
5) Lastly, I don’t believe for a minute that the Japanese government’s concern over an apology was based merely on some concerns about activist group speculations. I believe they were genuinely concerned based upon Obama’s recent behavior and the real possibility of an apology on his visit.
I think they did put that in the cable to explain how an apology, or the potential for an apology could cause a problem. But even if it were based solely upon activist speculations, the Government was concerned and it was the behavior of Obama on his Apology Tour that created the concern in the first place.
Thank you Chris for helping me to make my point for me.
Now run along and stop annoying me. I am perfectly happy to watch you make an ass out of yourself completely on your own without any input from me. Get it? You don’t need my help and I am no longer interested in helping you. You bore me son. I prefer Jack and Tina carry your burden. They are more tolerant of your sophomoric shenanigans than I.
Besides, IMHO, anyone who is so obtuse, self absorbed, and self aggrandizing as think that the US Government (e.g. Obama since he is in office) should apologize for Hiroshima and force such an apology down the throats of the Japanese government contrary to their express wishes is simply not playing with a full deck. You are a few fries short of a Happy Meal, kid. Go bug someone else with your lunacy. And stay away from a career in diplomacy. You don’t have the analytical skills required. You would be laughed out of the service.
“Sorry kids, but that is sick and demented.”
It certainly is. And you know what else? Nagasaki was chosen as the target because it had never been bombed before, and so we what know just exactly what “Fat Man” (as opposed to “Little Boy”) could do in the way of collateral damage.
“The charge is wicked and absolutely baseless.”
But Pie, that font of common knowledge, Wikipedia, backs me right up.
Wikipedia, backs you up? Common Knowledge?
Really? Citation please. Link please. A quote with link and citation of authorship. I would love to see in print something from Wikipedia that back you up. Don’t be shy, Libbya.
I’ll tell you what, I’ll actually take a leap of faith and assume some Wikipedia entry actually backs you up. So? Plenty of other historical accounts do not. Do you depend upon Wikipedia to be your central master authority? Let’s see that authoritative entry. Give it up. Put up or shut up you pathetic poser. Put up or shut up, English major.
I am still waiting.
By the way, I am quite well read on WWII and the Pacific theater and have already been down this road. You need to come up with something compelling or drop dead.
It is up to you, Libby! You go girl!
Pie, many of us are WWII history buffs, would you be willing to send in a story of your choice on any WWII battle? You’re a great writer and I’m sure anything you write would be a big hit.
I’ve read a bit on the fall of Wake Island and Singapore, the invasion of Normandy, the siege at Bastogne, the Battle of Britain, and the Russian front, in particular the tank battle at Kursk, it’s really interesting and it was the most significant time in world history, IMHO.
“Really? Citation please. Link please.”
Well, you get on Wikipedia, and type “Nagasaki.” I mean, I can’t live your life for your.
As for my original source, I think we did this in high school, which was quite some time ago. Didn’t you pay attention?
“Really? Citation please. Link please.”
Well, you get on Wikipedia, and type “Nagasaki.” I mean, I can’t live your life for your.
As for my original source, I think we did this in high school, which was quite some time ago. Didn’t you pay attention?
Yep, I knew you had nothing! Liar Libby. Serial Liar Libby!
I know, you can’t even be bothered to back up your asinine crap because you can’t. No historian of any repute has ever posited that tripe and backed it up with true and valid research. You can’t name one nor quote one, nor even link to or quote Wikipedia because no such reference exists supporting your evil drivel.
This is precisely what I expected from you, Libby. You got this nonsense from some left wing idiot in High School. Sheesh, what a tool.
I won’t be holding my breath ever for anything of substance to ever come from the mindless, ugly, hate filled, bigoted, ignorant, putrid, evil old harpy witches of the left.
Thanks Libby for full filling your chosen role in life! You have been no disappointment. In fact, you are a paradigm of the left.
Pie: “1) Is it reasonable to conjecture that the Japanese government would base its foreign policy and diplomatic decisions in this instance simply on the speculations of some anti-nuke citizens and citizens opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the US?”
Not their entire foreign policy, no. But all they did was make a simple request of President Obama. I do think it’s reasonable that they made this request based on speculation.
“5) Lastly, I don’t believe for a minute that the Japanese government’s concern over an apology was based merely on some concerns about activist group speculations. I believe they were genuinely concerned based upon Obama’s recent behavior and the real possibility of an apology on his visit.
I think they did put that in the cable to explain how an apology, or the potential for an apology could cause a problem. But even if it were based solely upon activist speculations, the Government was concerned and it was the behavior of Obama on his Apology Tour that created the concern in the first place.”
OK, let’s say that it was Obama’s behavior, or at the very least the Japanese government’s interpretation of his behavior, that created this concern. I have no problem believing this.
But that doesn’t get you to where you started out from in this debate, and it doesn’t get you to the central premise of the article that you linked to.
The article doesn’t simply say that the president’s behavior led to Japan thinking he was going to apologize. The article says that Obama’s “motive” was to apologize. It acts as if an apology was something that the White House had all planned out until the Japanese nixed it. And you have treated this idea as fact throughout this debate, even though the White House has denied it and there is no evidence in the cable that the White House ever actually planned on apologizing.
That is what I object to, reporting on something as fact when there is nothing to back it up. Even FOX News apologized for this…do you believe they were wrong to do so? Should they have stuck by their original story despite the lack of evidence?
Even if the president is at fault for his previous actions in creating the impression that he was going to apologize, there is no evidence that he actually planned to do so. While it’s possible that he did have this intention, it is unlikely because the cable probably would have mentioned it. And it is simply wrong to report as fact the notion that President Obama intended to apologize when there is no evidence that he ever had this intention.
“anyone who is so [insert ad hominem attacks here] as think that the US Government (e.g. Obama since he is in office) should apologize for Hiroshima and force such an apology down the throats of the Japanese government contrary to their express wishes”
I have to revise my opinion on this. I would have thought before that the president should issue a formal apology for the mass slaughter of innocent civilians in Japan that the U.S. oversaw during WWII. HOWEVER, given that the Japanese government has explicitly stated that they do not want our government to apologize, I no longer think that we should do so until the Japanese indicate that they will accept such an apology.
“You don’t need my help and I am no longer interested in helping you. You bore me son. I prefer Jack and Tina carry your burden.”
Pie, if you are genuinely not interested in engaging in an argument with me anymore than it should be easy for you to just ignore my posts and not reply to them. It is tiresome for you to constantly go on for paragraphs about how inconsequential I am. I would rather you attempted to debate me respectfully, but if that’s too much for you then just don’t reply to me at all.
Re Chris: Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and then BINGO!!!
“I would rather you attempted to debate me respectfully, but if that’s too much for you then just don’t reply to me at all.”
Holy cow, our left-wing college indoctrinated doofus FINALLY gets it!
In this regard, dear boy, have only extended EXACTLTY THE SAME TO YOU THAT YOU HAVE EXTENDED TO ME.
When I turn the tactics and treatment around on you that your have applied to me and others in this forum YOU DON”T LIKE IT!
Funny how that works.
Dear Chris, I sincerely invite you to never, ever again reply to anything I post in this forum. I have been hinting at that and explicitly saying it for several posts now. I think you are a malleable left-wing radical idiot who fantasies that he actually engages in real debate while abjectly failing in that debate. While committing every classical fallacy in the book you have, at the same time and in the same posts, posed as some sort of arbiter of fallacious reasoning. The only debates you have ever won in your short and miserable life is when you have declared yourself a winner! (Seriously folks, how funny is that? I did a spit take and had to clean my keyboard.)
Seriously, Chris, you have presented yourself in this forum as little more than a self-aggrandizing liberal stooge. So much for what passes as a college education these days. Your professors have done you a severe disservice.
Tell you what, Chris, I am perfectly content to let others engage your half-baked, dogmatic, ideological, intellectually impoverished and dishonest drivel. Stop inviting me to do so. I am happy to let Tina and Jack handle you. They are far nicer and far more civil to you than you are to them, but if you expect me to treat you the same as they do, fuggedit chump.
Stop begging me, OK?
Pie, I’m not going to go digging back to our first ever argument to find out what exactly it is that I did to offend you so much. But I don’t agree that the way you’ve treated me since you started posting here is at all equivalent to how I have treated you. Your tactics are your own. Do not blame me for your overly aggressive responses. “You started it!” is not a very good argument.
I will continue to reply to you when I feel like you have said something inaccurate or wrong. But if you really feel like I have treated you disrespectfully, I will try and make sure to reply to you in ways which can’t be construed as personally insulting. I only ask that you extend the same treatment to me.
From now on, can we agree to just stick to the arguments and not make personal insults or judgments? We should be able to let the facts speak for themselves without resorting to meanness.
The main point of my last comment was that while President Obama may be at fault for creating the perception that he would apologize for Hiroshima (and I concede that this is a possibility), there is still no evidence that he ever actually intended to apologize or made this intention known to the Japanese government, and it is therefore wrong to report as fact that the president did intend to do so. I think this is a valid point; characterizing this as merely “blah blah blah blah blah” seems unfair to me. If you disagree with this point, can you explain why?
“… mindless, ugly, hate filled, bigoted, ignorant, putrid, evil old harpy witches of the left.”
Such vituperations are not argument. And this is something else that did not sink in during your schooling … such as it was.
But me and Chris, happy campers that we are, are just going to keep hammering away until it does sink in. Us liberals are an eternally hopeful bunch.
Libby the high road doesn’t quite fit. If memory serves you have had your moments of ugly vituperation.
Let’s see if we can all step back a bit and stick to the topic and opinion about the topic. The slings and arrows are getting a bit out of hand.