Posted by Tina
Our president is in playing peacemaker. Making such gestures is thoughtful but perhaps better left to diplomats. Speaking to our shared better angels is fine but as the leader of our nation (cough cough) he has no business ignoring significant facts and rewriting history to placate and assume moral equivalence. President fails to to come across for one very simple reason, he just can’t let go of a core need to ridicule America.
According to Obama, the decision to drop the bomb followed the old pattern of war made from, “…humanity’s worst instincts, including,”nationalist fervor or religious zeal,” and was “amplified by new capabilities without new constraints.”
Nationalist fervor and religious zeal had NOTHING to do with the decision to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nor was it the result of some tribal instinct or imperialist desire to oppress. The decision came strictly from reasoning and a strong humane desire to limit casualties for both sides in a war we did not start.
His decision to make this speech on the eve of our Memorial Day, when we honor the thousands of Americans sacrificed in war, including the WWII Pacific front, is particularly offensive.
Obama has fought the terrorist enemy from a reluctant, morally equivalent stance. But the truth that all people have the same capacity for aggression does not mean we share the guilt for those who actually choose to act aggressively or should refrain from aggressively defeating them. It’s unsettling that Obama, and those he represents, do not recognize or honor the America that has acted as defender and liberator for the victims of oppressive leaders who use war to conquer and oppress.
This blind spot, or whatever you’d call it, should exclude any similar candidate from ever serving as our Commander-in-Chief…let us take note.
Some history–
http://b-29.org/315BW/last-mission/last-mission1.html
(For some reason, Explorer gaged on this link, but Firefox worked fine)
Side note—Boomerang’s navigator was Tony Cosola. His son Patrick was the producer for Bruce Session’s show on KPAY.
On a more inspiring note—
http://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/memphis-belle-gunner-revisits-england-dies-at-battle-of-britain-bunker-1.411512
That’s a bit of history I did not know, thanks for sharing RHT447.
I really enjoyed reading the Memphis Belle gunner story. Imagine traveling that far at 94 and bringing a significant chapter in ones life to a fitting and peaceful end. People remember those who sacrificed for freedom, his memorial tells that story. They were all so young to be carrying such a big responsibility which they met with strength and honor. Bless them all….
I too was appalled at the self-serving inaccuracies in Obama’s speech. If I thought he was stupid I would say this demonstrated a total lack of historical knowledge. I don’t believe he is stupid. In that case the only conclusion is he is willing to sacrifice the truth and rewrite history to satisfy his agenda. I’m so embarrassed by his actions.
As a freshman in college I was given an assignment to write about the decision to drop the atomic bomb. This was 1972; the Viet Nam War was winding down and, along with many other college students I was a 17 year old anti-war Liberal. I relished the chance to rip into such a terrible decision and demonstrate that in just 17 years of life I knew better than all of the people involved in the decision. Of course, after doing my research I discovered the truth. The paper I wrote and presented to my class fully supported the decision to drop the bomb. It was a difficult decision for the people that made it. I’m sure they were haunted by the thought of all the people that did die or were injured. But, it was the right decision. It saved lives!
Back then college professors were liberal but definitely not as much as they are now. My paper was well received by the other students in the class. However, my professor expressed his displeasure with the fact that I concluded that the decision to drop the bomb was correct. Even so, I did receive an A on the paper. After the class that day he approached me before I left and we spent some time debating the issue. I was dismayed at the shallowness of his argument and the fact that his ridged idealism prevented him from considering all that was necessary to consider to make such a decision.
This experience was definitely one that started me questioning things I had taken for fact. By the time I finished college I had abandoned Liberalism and was well on my way to being the Conservative I am today.
More Common Sense, as I explained below, Obama did not, at any point in his speech, say that dropping the bomb was the wrong decision or criticize that decision in any way. The remarks quoted in this article were in reference to the war as a whole, and did not implicate the US at all. Breitbart seems to have been the first to claim Obama was referring to dropping the atomic bomb, but they took his words out of context to decieve their readers. This worked, and the lie was repeated by several conservative blogs, including this one. If you read the full speech, which I linked to below, you will see that everything I have said here is true.
I hope that clarifies the issue and you will join me in calling for a correction to this article.
Tina: “According to Obama, the decision to drop the bomb followed the old pattern of war made from, “…humanity’s worst instincts, including,”nationalist fervor or religious zeal,” and was “amplified by new capabilities without new constraints.”
No, that is most certainly NOT what Obama said. And you really need to stop getting your information from Breitbart, which is lying about what Obama said.
Here is the relevant excerpt from Obama’s actual speech:
“It is not the fact of war that sets Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very first man. Our early ancestors having learned to make blades from flint and spears from wood used these tools not just for hunting but against their own kind. On every continent, the history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have been subjugated and liberated. And at each juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless toll, their names forgotten by time.
The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/world/asia/text-of-president-obamas-speech-in-hiroshima-japan.html?_r=1
So as you can see, Tina–and as I hope you will concede, if you are an honest person–Obama did NOT say that the decision to drop the bomb grew out of humanity’s worst instincts, including “nationalist fervor or religious zeal.” He said the war itself grew out of those elements. He never blamed the United States for that war, or for any actions taken during the war.
Again, Breitbart lied about what Obama said, inserting a quote into a paraphrased statement that they simply made up. You (rightfully) condemned an anti-gun documentary for engaging in similar deception. Will you condemn Breitbart for being just as dishonest?
I “got my information” from the transcript of the speech itself. Obama would never criticize directly. He prefers subtle inference. It’s unfortunate that you cannot see what a covertly dishonest person Obama is.
“History filled with war – fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations – the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest – old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.”
Nothing to indicate awareness or inclusion of an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, or the relentless suicide bomber missions, or the horrendous Bataan death march, or the incredible pride and ego of the Emperor and his designs of imperialist rule. The speech reflects what Obama apparently believes, that Japan was the victim of white wealthy imperialists.
The speech had possibilities for greatness…they went unmet. I do not agree with your assessment at all.
On march 9, 1945, General Curtis Lemay sent 334 B-29’s to attack Tokyo. They flew at night, single file, two minutes between each bomber, at staggered altitudes between 5000 and 10,oo0 feet. They were loaded with incendiary bombs. The resulting fire storm (aided by 30 mph winds) reduced 16 square miles of Tokyo to ash. Estimates of the number of dead range above and below 100,000. Bright aluminum finish bombers returned black with soot and reeking of burnt flesh.
By mid June, the six largest industrial cities in Japan had also been reduced to ash, along with many others. Total death estimates from the fire bombing of Japan range above and below 500,000.
How is it that this is rarely mentioned? Is all the breast-beating and teeth-gnashing over the August attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki truly heart felt, or merely selective?
I’d also like to ask that you change the headline of this article as well. You’re criticizing Obama for an “inaccuracy” he never made, while at the same time forwarding an inaccuracy of your own.
This is a fair request, and would be honored by any honest blogger.
Today’s Piss Chris attack : “This is a fair request, and would be honored by any honest blogger.”
What no charges of bigotry, racism, and xenophobia? Only dishonesty? Dude, you are slipping.
Drop dead.
As always Chris you’ve decided to set the terms. If you can’t see the flaws in this speech I feel bad for you but I will not be changing anything. That you think this makes me “dishonest” means zot to me.
I don’t agree with your assessment of me or the title of the piece. A fairly good speech about the state of humanity was marred for the reasons I stated.
America didn’t wake up one morning to find that it’s leader, a religious zealot, had suddenly decided to conquer the world and had decided to begin his quest by dropping a bomb on Hiroshima. Future generations need to know this mythology is BS.
Tina: “America didn’t wake up one morning to find that it’s leader, a religious zealot, had suddenly decided to conquer the world and had decided to begin his quest by dropping a bomb on Hiroshima.”
And Obama never SAID that it did. Show me exactly where in the speech he said this. You can’t, because he didn’t. Breitbart lied by claiming he did, and then you spread that lie, and you are incapable of admitting that.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Another sickening display by Obama and his groveling local toad Chris.
I thought this analysis from Charles Krauthammer enlightening —
Obama’s naive idealism has caused havoc as America makes the same mistakes over and over again
Speaking of honesty, I thought this might lighten the mood after Piss Chris’ latest juvenile attack …
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cjc58A1UkAA5u9a.jpg
Dear Japan, we’re sorry for kicking your *** because you launched a sneak attack on the American Navy and committed innumerable atrocities on the people in the countries you declared war on.
Regards, America.
Well said, Pie!
Brian Williams Still Leads Katie Couric In The Moron Department
Excerpt —
MSNBC breaking news host and ex-NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams was allowed out on MSNBC’s airwaves early Friday afternoon to discuss President Obama’s visit to Hiroshima so he could resurrect a taped report that aired in 2005 on the 60th anniversary of the nuclear bomb’s dropping on the Japanese city.
In the course of discussing the event afterward, though, Williams threw some shade in the direction of the U.S. military and then-President Harry Truman by complaining that “we’re the only nation to have used them in anger” against the horrifying Axis Powers member.
“Used them in anger”…now there’s a real moronic statement! Adolescent really, with zero awareness of what it is to be a decent human being faced with very difficult choices that, regardless the choice you make, will result in suffering and death. Were I faced with making that choice I too would opt for the fewest casualties and, please God, an end to the war.
Wait–you two seriously don’t know what the phrase “fired in anger” means?
Maybe you can have Jack explain it to you. Or another Jack:
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/05/29/the-right-wing-media-tries-a-gotcha-on-brian-williams-and-looks-ignorant-biased-and-unfair/
Tina, your latest defense of your own dishonesty may be your worst yet, and you have now chosen to compound what could have been an honest mistake with more lies and dishonest rationalizations.
“I “got my information” from the transcript of the speech itself.”
You know how I know you’re lying? Because what you wrote is almost word-for-word what Breitbart wrote.
Breitbart:
President Obama told the world on Friday in Hiroshima that the American decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945 arose from humanity’s worst instincts, including “nationalist fervor or religious zeal.”
The war that ended in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he said, “grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.
You:
According to Obama, the decision to drop the bomb followed the old pattern of war made from, “…humanity’s worst instincts, including,”nationalist fervor or religious zeal,” and was “amplified by new capabilities without new constraints.
Since Obama never even mentioned America’s decision to drop the nuclear bombs in relation to either of the quoted segments, it is impossible to believe that both you and the Breitbart author read the original transcript and came to the same wrong conclusion that Obama was somehow criticizing America. Really, this borders on plagiarism; I wouldn’t believe your defense of it was given to me by a student, and I certainly don’t believe it coming from you.
“Obama would never criticize directly. He prefers subtle inference.”
This is a really fancy way of saying Obama never said what you claimed he said. Why didn’t you say he “suggested” or “implied” that dropping the bomb was wrong, and a result of war-like instincts? Instead you claimed that he “said” that, blending direct quotes from the speech with inaccurately paraphrased sentence frames. You did this because you never read the transcript; you read what Breitbart, or another conservative blog told you, and because you have the loyalty of a gang member, you refuse to admit that they misled you.
“The speech reflects what Obama apparently believes, that Japan was the victim of white wealthy imperialists.”
Hallucination. There is no indication Obama is saying that *we* were the imperialists during the war. Did it ever occur to you that he might be criticizing Japan and Germany, both of which were more imperialistic than the US during this war?
“I do not agree with your assessment at all.”
The great thing about facts is that they don’t care whether you agree with them; they’re still true.
Obama never said what you claimed he said. At best, you could argue that he implied them–you’d have to twist the evidence to get there, but you could at least claim that as an opinion. But he never said them. Your refusal to admit that marks you as just as dishonest as the person you are criticizing.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Piss Chris calls Post Scripts liars. The usual tripe from the hype.
Pie, I didn’t just call people liars. I proved that this article lied. See the difference?
Of course you don’t.
You didn’t prove anything, you nutcase.
I didn’t?
Tina said:
“According to Obama, the decision to drop the bomb followed the old pattern of war made from, “…humanity’s worst instincts, including,”nationalist fervor or religious zeal,” and was “amplified by new capabilities without new constraints.”
What Obama actually said:
““It is not the fact of war that sets Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very first man. Our early ancestors having learned to make blades from flint and spears from wood used these tools not just for hunting but against their own kind. On every continent, the history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have been subjugated and liberated. And at each juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless toll, their names forgotten by time.
The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.”
That’s proof, Pie. You can’t possibly argue that “the war” means “the decision to drop the bomb,” which is why you haven’t; there is no defense of the obvious misrepresention Tina made, which is why neither of you have made one.
You prove your dishonesty by refusing to concede this.
“… Nationalist fervor and religious zeal …”
Once again I feel compelled to point out that certain psychological issues may be coloring your perceptions. Other commentators seem to think that he was talking about Japan’s motives for going to war (not pulling any punches there; that Bushido shit was highly problematic) and then carrying it through to the Islamist trouble-making.
Something to consider.
Wow, talk about contortions to try and run cover Obama’s idiotic speech. Moral equivalency gone wild.
Did you at lest consider the context of this speech? The anniversary of the deployment of an atomic fission bomb and then a fusion bomb deployed to end a inconceivable vicious and bloody war waged by an axis of fascists, socialists, and dictatorships?
Well, of course not.
Yep, dropping the bombs on Japan and ending the war was all about ”nationalist fervor or religious zeal.”
Boilerplate left-wing hippy-dippy 60’s liberal pinhead lunacy.
If you are able to consider, that is.
To Obama And His Gang Of Idiots
World War II was not about ”nationalist fervor or religious zeal.” Those were merely propaganda tools used by both the Axis and the Allies. WWII was about Democratic freedom fighters stopping a brutal war, that was sometimes nearly genocidal, launched by fascist-socialist-totalitarians.
The proverb “All left-wing liberal socialists are complete idiots” continues to hold true.
Pie Guevara said that the choice to drop the atomic bomb was made by “fascist-socialist-totalitarians.”
See? I can take people out of context too. It isn’t hard, and it isn’t impressive.
The idiot Piss Chris thinks he is being clever.
And you think “Piss Chris” is clever, so that pretty much speaks for itself.
Obumble gets an F for his History grade. That adds to his other F grades in Geography (57 states), Math (Your health care will cost less) and Economics (the state of our economy).
The only thing Obumble gets a passing grade for is his ability to $pend taxpayers $$, and then only a D ’cause he OVERSPENDS!
J, what did Obama say in his speech that misrepresents history?
I’ll remind you that this article misrepresents Obama by claiming that he criticized the choice to drop the atomic bomb, when he never did any such thing.
Here’s another excellent article, “If You Don’t Want To Get Nuked Don’t Bomb Pearl Harbor,” which includes a link to war historian Paul fussel’s essay, “Thank God for the Atom Bomb.” An excerpt to tease:
Yeah, Chris, it’s Breitbart again, this time Breitbart London. Don’t bother.
Piling on…Breitbart hits another home run, “War Crimes of Imperial Japan: A Lesson In Moral Equivalence for Mr. Obama”:
It could be that the activist trained Obama is unconsciously, as well as consciously, the creator of division. This marred speech dredges up old wounds, culls the injustices that for all intents and purposes have been forgiven in order to move on. The Japanese people, indeed the entire world, don’t need this late to the party make peace rhetoric.
We have a new enemy to defeat and Mr. Obama, with his hit and miss reluctance to fight, has not been very effective. Indeed he has thwarted and rolled back efforts, exacerbating the problem even while employing “new capabilities without constraints.”:
Phonies, I tell ya!
Fact it was a wrong decision to drop the Bomb.
It was arguably a war crime while specifics in the laws did not address the new weapon nor was the US a member of the League of Nations.
The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It:
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/
If the nukes are so called for then why is it nuclear weapons were never again deployed?
America presents itself to the world as a model for human rights?
Tina you live in a world that does not exist. real History is documented now and it’s not on Breibart, you follow documented Propaganda.
All that matters is Hate Obama…….. Truth? Not important
You are the sheeple who will destroy America with your crazy beliefs that only propaganda sites tell the truth.
The truth is in real documents, The revolution will not be televised. We the people have had it with the Propaganda and lies from both GOP and DNC.
“Following Breitbart’s death “BREITBART.com,” was overtaken by money, especially Ruppert Murdoch’s. Fox News (part of Murdoch’s News Corp. group) is now openly cited on said website as the news provider’s exclusive “Partner.”
“BREITBART fronts for pharmaceutical special interests, contractors, and conspirators that: a) poison and neglect the world’s poor; b) deprive people of clean free water; c) withholding and degrading green food that grows amply nearly everywhere (or can be grown even in deserts with water); and d) smears traditional herbs (from which most drugs source) that compete directly with costly drugs and vaccines that underdeveloped nations and their citizens cannot access or afford. All the above evidences grossly unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act and international laws against genocide.”
Ignorant, lunatic idiot of the extreme left consuming and then parroting garbage. A Bernie Sanders kind of guy. Nothing more need be said.
True, but I always do have more to say.
“real History is documented now”
History has always been recorded, even if only with hieroglyphics on rocks. Historians do not always agree. Just because someone at the Nation expresses an opinion that doesn’t make it THE opinion. The idea that it does is in direct conflict with freedom of thought, Dewey.
“You are the sheeple who will destroy America with your crazy beliefs ”
Like what?
” The revolution will not be televised. We the people have had it with the Propaganda and lies from both GOP and DNC. ”
How old are you, two?
Revolution? A bunch of brainless nuts destroying property and throwing rocks? What is your plan? Get Bernie elected, slap a 90% tax on job creators, completely take over healthcare, destroy energy companies, collapse the economy? Sounds like Venezuela.
” All the above evidences…”
“All of that” represents left talking points…propaganda…which you parrot like a good little tool. Bernie’s game is that of typical commie revolutionary. Pit both ends against each other and pretend you will be the savior. But Bernie isn’t without his own corruptions, the worst of which is that he doesn’t believe in America. He wants to create Amerika…he loves those commie ideals. They will kill America and the least among us will suffer the most.
From time to time I wonder about Piss Chris. What sort of personality defect/mental disease does it take to make one spend one’s life pissing on conservatives in a political blog? To me it seems to stem from the left-wing liberal mental disease.
Evidently this is his true goal in life. I have to wonder, though, if this odious clown is really a teacher, how much time does he spend pissing on his students who have conservative views?
Compassion, Pie. Is an evolution thing, it’ll come to you in the next life (or the one after).
We’re out to save your political souls.
Funny Libby.
Compassion is not an “evolution” thing…which is why Nirvana cannot be reached through meddling by mere mortals.
We all have the same capacity for compassion. we don;t always see compassion in the same light. I for instance think taking money from a productive person to keep another stuck in poverty is cruel. You would disagree and call it compassion.
No, Tina there is a great range within the species. Sociopaths have no compassion for others. That’s one of the definitions of the disorder. And if you are actually defending Pie’s invective as within the normal range, we’re gonna worry about you too.
A disorder is a disorder. When we approached mental illness sensibly we dealt with those suffering such sensibly.
Compassion, or lack thereof is not the disorder and certainly not a matter of evolution.
Humans do have the same capacity for good and evil. The problem in your thinking from my perspective is that you believe people are at the effect of their lives; I see them as being responsible, whether or not they are aware.
As per your thinking, it is heightened awareness (in the next life) that allows one to “move on.” If greater awareness isn’t achieved then you get to do it again.
Pie doesn’t need defending and I don’t care that you worry…I’m fine.
Hmmm, an idiot left-wing lunatic is out to “save my soul?” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Pie,
Pointing out that an article is in error is not “pissing on” anyone.
I made an honest attempt to get Tina to see her error and correct it. I posted documented proof that Obama never said what she claimed he did. I gave her the benefit of the doubt that she had simply been misinformed by another souurce.
Tina, and you, completely ignored this. You have not even *attempted* to prove that Obama said what this article claims, because you know you cannot–nowhere in the transcript does he criticize America or the choice to drop the bomb. Not. Once. But like a child with his hand in the cookie jar, you both refuse to admit this. You, Pie, resort to childish name-calling because you can’t back anything you say up with facts. And you criticize me, not the people who lied to you, because you ENJOY being lied to when it suits your narrative. This is also why Tina is made at me, rather than Breitbart, and why she is piling on more lies by claiming she came to her twisted interpretation of Obama’s words through reading the transcript; you all have a cult-like sense of morality that says you can’t ever criticize each other.
It’s wrong. And I will continue pointing out that it’s wrong until this changes.
Go ahead, keep wasting your time with your never ending bull**** Piss Chris.
Pie, it’s only a waste of time because you make it so. Any objective observer can see my comments are substantive, and contain actual evidence-based arguments, while yours are empty, devoid of substance, and contain nothing but insults. It’s as if you’re angry because you can’t think of any counter-arguments to what I’ve said, and you decide to take that anger out on me. How sad. How embarrassing. How impotent.
You really used to be better than this–I remember more talk of fallacies mixed up with the insults, and sometimes you even made me think about things in a different way. Heck, even your comment about the “context” of Obama’s speech in response to Libby comes close to being substantive, though you got lazy halfway through and didn’t do the work of proving your point. You could be so much more than this poo-flinging rage monster–don’t you want to be? If not, why not?
“Pointing out that an article is in error is not “pissing on” anyone. ”
If that had been what you did we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
You read the same speech I read and got something different than I, and several others including Breitbart, got. You were not content to tell us what you got saw in the speech, what you thought was positive or even to just say you thought we were wrong in our interpretation. You made an assumption about my source and accused Breitbart (and me) of dishonesty and lying. I attempted to illustrate how I came to my conclusion, you doubled down, attempted to bully me into changing my title and accused me of “criticizing Obama for an “inaccuracy>” I did nothing of the sort. My title is clear…a good speech was “marred” by innaccuracies and attitude. Obama has an attitude that America has been an aggressive imperialist nation. He begins from that attitude and frames his good message in the context that America and Japan were equally wrong and morally equivalent. (The end to this flawed way of thinking always seems to be, “And if everyone would just listen to me the world would live in harmony)
You disagree that his speech was fraught with this underlying message. That’s perfectly fine. When you insist upon calling me a liar, making derogatory claims about sources, and making demands you’ve “pissed” on the discussion. (If I’m off base, Pie, please correct me)
David French at National Review:
Even before the speech some were asserting that focusing on Hiroshima would be a mistake:
My opinion, and the title of this post is sound.
Tina,
Nothing I have said has anything to do with your “opinion,” “interpretation,” or “dosagreement.” I am talking about objective facts.
You claimed Obama said something which he never said. That is a fact. It is a fact that Obama did not say this:
“According to Obama, the decision to drop the bomb followed the old pattern of war made from, “…humanity’s worst instincts, including,”nationalist fervor or religious zeal,” and was “amplified by new capabilities without new constraints.”
That is not what Obama said. What Obama said was this:
““It is not the fact of war that sets Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very first man. Our early ancestors having learned to make blades from flint and spears from wood used these tools not just for hunting but against their own kind. On every continent, the history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have been subjugated and liberated. And at each juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless toll, their names forgotten by time.
The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.”
You are not an idiot. You KNOW what the difference is between these two statements, and it’s insulting to both of us that I have to explain it to you anyway: the war is not the bomb. You know this.
Now, if you believed this was somehow an implied dig against the decision to drop the bomb, you could have said that. That would be an “interpretation.” I would think your interpretation was wrong, but I couldn’t accuse you of lying. But that’s not what you did. Instead, you claimed Obama said something which he never said. And when shown incontrovertible proof that that’s not what he said, you doubled down and refused to admit your mistake. That makes what you said a lie, by definition.
Just because you think Obama is the worst president we’ve ever had does not give you moral license to lie about him. Dishonesty is always wrong, even against the dishonest.
I did not lie.
I took the President at his word!
Within the context of the entire speech it was clear to me that to the President the “decision to drop the bomb” fit into a context of war that: “followed the old pattern” made from, “…humanity’s worst instincts, including, nationalist fervor or religious zeal,” and “amplified by new capabilities without new constraints.”
That last highlighted phrase is a direct reference to the bomb…”without new constraints” are weenie words that imply a reckless decision was made. The President couldn’t have been talking about anything else and he couldn’t have been more WRONG!!
His further implications of “religious zeal” are sickening given we now face another aggressive enemy (ISIS), in large part thanks to him, that is driven entirely by “religious zeal. The man can barely talk about this threat much less the “religious zeal” that drives them.
I won’t spend any more time responding to your boorish accusations. I am being entirely honest and I am not the only one, blogger or journalist, who saw the Presidents speech for what it was.
Your assumptions regarding my motivations are ridiculous. Obama came into this office on a message of hope with incredible opportunity to become a great president. He certainly had the oratory skills. Instead he has been inept, divisive, and upside down in relating to our allies and our enemies.
You’d do better to stop playing hall monitor here and start looking at this man with eyes wide open. I can excuse the rose colored glasses of eight years ago, I cannot excuse willful blindness at this point. I wrote that his speech was marred…it was.
Tina, Chris is correct in his observation. You take a piece from here and a piece from there, make something new … and then complain about it. This is dishonest, also irrational.
If Obama said “red”; you’d say “blue”.
Not surprised you see it this way.
Oh, and if you’re going to appropriate my splendid vocabulary, please look the words up first, so you can abuse people correctly.
You missed a great joke there, Libby:
“If Obama said ‘red,’ you’d say ‘Obama called for the violent overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat.'”
And then she’d probably say “In context, that was the meaning of his remark, in my interpretation, so stop disagreeing with my opinion mumble mumble I love relativism!”
“I took the president at his word!”
No, you literally inserted words he did not say into a quote from him, to make it look like he said something else. I have already demonstrated that twice; there’s no need to do it again. Either people will see it, or they won’t.
Boy howdy, is Piss Chris on the rampage!
Re : Any objective observer can see my comments are substantive …”
No, any objective observer can see that Tina made an error placing by a quote before humanity’s worst instincts, which, while inaccurate, did not substantively change the context and meaning of Obama’s speech. Nor does it make her interpretation and opinion of his address unreasonable or invalid.
No, any any objective observer can see that see that you, Piss Chris, are an obsessed, anal retentive, seething sociopath who has it in for Jack and Tina and will take any possible opportunity to hurl insults at them. Which is EXACTLY why respond to you in kind, in my own way.
Jack and Tina and others have gone above and beyond the call of duty to be civil towards you, yet you urinate on them constantly with your seething invective, insults, and juvenile mocks. Your are what the internet term “troll” was created for — you embody it.
You may think a lot of yourself, Piss Chis, but you are a fool if you think anyone — other than a handful of your fellow sociopathic left-wing trolls — thinks a lot of you.
For me, your name forevermore will be Piss Chris, as that not only describes your personality, your nature, and your behavior, but as a bow to Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ. Piss Christ is a photograph that depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged a glass of the artist’s urine.
Piss Christ is the perfect talisman for you. I suggest your art project for this week be to make your own version of Piss Christ, using a small plastic crucifix submerged in a clear vial of your own urine. You can then attach it to a heavy gold chain and proudly wear it about your neck.
Pie Guevara: “No, any objective observer can see that Tina made an error placing by a quote before humanity’s worst instincts, which, while inaccurate, did not substantively change the context and meaning of Obama’s speech. Nor does it make her interpretation and opinion of his address unreasonable or invalid.”
No, that was not the problem with the out-of-context quote. I have already explained the problem with it twice: Tina placed her own words, “the decision to drop the bomb,” right before the quote from Obama, making it seem like he was talking about the decision to drop the bomb when in fact the quoted portion referred to “the war” and “the history of war,” not the decision to drop the bomb.
How is it possible you still don’t get this?
I get it, you fool. Her analysis is fair. The history of war INCLUDES WWII, you moron. The context of the speech is at a venue about a defining event in WWII. You are the one who does not get it. How is it possible that you don’t get it? I can answer that!
You don’t get it because you are a progressive activist jerk with a stick up his *** who has it in for Jack and Tina. All you do is seek specious, bonehead, intentionally obtuse methods to call them liars and worse.
This is what you are all about. I get you completely. You complaint is crap, your argument nothing more than contentious crap, and your charges are crap. It is as simple as that.
Pie: “The history of war INCLUDES WWII, you moron. The context of the speech is at a venue about a defining event in WWII.”
Yes, but there is no indication he was referring specifically to the atom bomb in that particular line of the speech. Are you really unfamiliar with the tactic of starting with a generality about a broader topic than zeroing in on a specific? And that this is a tactic Obama uses often? Here, let me show you an example right now:
“Obesity is a problem facing many of our nation’s citizens. Some people indulge in overeating and other unhealthy habits, while others suffer from conditions that make losing weight nearly impossible. This essay will focus on the relationship between obesity and diabetes.”
By the logic you and Tina are employing, you could say “Chris wrote that people who suffer from diabetes ‘indulge in overeating and other unhealthy habits.'” Surely you can see that’s not what I said, and that this would be an unfair misrepresentation of my words?
The same is true of Obama’s speech; he started with statements about the history of war and WWII in general, criticizing the impulses that lead to war in general and WWII (while NOT criticizing the US for those impulses), then moved on to discussing the atom bomb. He never used those phrases about the impulses that led to war to describe dropping the bomb.
“You literally inserted words”
Horsehockey!
Let’s pretend that Obama, unaware of the anniversary date, just dropped by for a little chat and his remarks about humanity and war had nothing to do with America’s decision to drop the “new technology” bomb that had no “constraints. Lets pretend his implication of ‘religious zeal” never crossed his mind in terms of the anniversary of the US dropping a bomb on Hiroshima. Lets pretend Obama doesn’t think that it followed “the old pattern of war.”
In my opinion you have to eliminate a lot of Obama’s words to believe “he never said that.”
Bunch of gullible, fawning apologists.
Tina: “Let’s pretend that Obama, unaware of the anniversary date,”
Don’t be ridiculous. Obama referenced the bomb explicitly later in the speech. But he never said that the decision to drop the bomb “followed the old pattern of war made from, …humanity’s worst instincts, including, ‘nationalist fervor or religious zeal,’ and was ‘amplified by new capabilities without new constraints,'” which is what you falsely claimed. Those quotes referred to his statement about a) the history of war and b) World War II itself, which was not started by the US, nor did Obama suggest that it was started by the US. It makes more sense to read his remarks as a critique of Japan’s actions during the war than the US’ actions.
“humanity and war had nothing to do with America’s decision to drop the “new technology” bomb that had no “constraints.”
That part of the speech absolutely had to do with the atomic bomb, but that was not the out of context quote I criticized. That part of the speech was not a critique of dropping the bomb, and was also indisputably true. The “new constraints” would be the fact that now other countries have nuclear weapons, which has introduced the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction,” and the reason the bomb has never been dropped again. There is no way to dispute his point here, which is why you’ve instead made up a point that Obama never made and disputed that instead.
“Lets pretend his implication of ‘religious zeal” never crossed his mind in terms of the anniversary of the US dropping a bomb on Hiroshima.”
Why would it? Our conflict with Japan had nothing to do with religion, on either side. Your implication never occurred to me, because it doesn’t even make any sense. Again, Obama was using examples of things that caused war throughout history. Not every single one of those things applied directly to WWII, but some of them did. Are you really unfamiliar with the tactic of giving examples in a speech that are only tangentially related to the main issue at hand, before narrowing in on a more specific topic? That’s extraordinarily common, and Obama does it all the time. But you insist that these specific lines have to do specifically with the choice to drop the atomic bomb, even though there is no evidence of that in the speech. It’s ridiculous, and shows that you are pushing your own reading comprehension beyond all reason in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion (again, I don’t believe you came to this conclusion yourself, or that you read the whole transcript before getting this impression from a right-wing source).
“Lets pretend Obama doesn’t think that it followed “the old pattern of war”
He can think whatever he wants to think. I’m not a mind reader; I only know what he said, and he did not say what you claimed he said. Period.
“In my opinion you have to eliminate a lot of Obama’s words to believe “he never said that.””
No, it is a fact that he never said that.
“Bunch of gullible, fawning apologists.”
Your remarks about Trump lately disqualify you from such an assessment.
Tina’s recent statements about Trump does not disqualify her from accurate and poignant description of you, Piss.
Tina’s recent remarks about Trump do not disqualify her from making a perfectly accurate description of you, Chris. Sheesh what a pompous jerk.
“Don’t be ridiculous. Obama referenced the bomb explicitly later in the speech. But he never said that the decision to drop the bomb “followed the old pattern of war made from, …humanity’s worst instincts, including, ‘nationalist fervor or religious zeal,’ and was ‘amplified by new capabilities without new constraints” blah, blah, blah.
This is a perfect example of intellectually dishonest weasel wording from progressives, both in Obama’s idiotic speech and Chris’ equally idiotic and specious complaint. The speech is at a Japanese war memorial commemorating the death and destruction resulting from the US bombing of Japan. Obama’s speech is about war and history and humans in general AT THAT war memorial. He spoke about war and history and humans in the context of “whether [war is] driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal” AT THAT war memorial.
So, why were Hiroshima and Nagasaki and bombed? Was it driven by scarcity of grain, hunger for gold (a euphemism for wealth and power) or was it compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal? Well it certainly was not for grain or gold considering the enormous expense incurred by the US to prosecute the war and then occupy and rebuild Japan into an economic powerhouse afterwards.
To insist all these statements are not connected in order to suggest that the US bombing of Japan was not a result of “nationalism or religious zeal” at a venue memorializing the bombing of Japan is sheer, mindless, progressive lunacy desperately running for cover.
It was quite clear to me that Obama was suggesting by his language and the context of this speech that the bombing of Japan was just another event in another war fought over grain or gold or nationalism or religious zeal. Since grain or gold are trivially false, what have we left?
I would think that any idiot could see that intentional and obvious subtext of that speech. This sort of thing is so typical progressives. They think weasel wording provides them shelter under a supposed and preposterous “plausible” deniability. They are a gang of duplicitous dorks who think that everyone should be forced to swallow their crap sandwiches.
Obama shoved crap sandwiches down every American WWII veteran and their families and progeny with that idiotic speech. He shoved a crap sandwich down every American’s throat whether they know it or not. Now Chris is trying to shove his crap sandwich down Tina’s throat with his idiotic complaint and calls her a liar.
Obama and Chris. Chris and Obama. Birds of a feather crap together.
Pie: “So, why were Hiroshima and Nagasaki and bombed? Was it driven by scarcity of grain, hunger for gold (a euphemism for wealth and power) or was it compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal? Well it certainly was not for grain or gold considering the enormous expense incurred by the US to prosecute the war and then occupy and rebuild Japan into an economic powerhouse afterwards.”
No, of course not. But no one thinks that. Not even people who think dropping the bomb was wrong think that it was done out of “nationalist fervor or religious zeal,” nor do they think it was done for material gain. I know more about what liberals think than you do, and I have never heard any liberal, even those who condemn the bombing, say this was the motivation.
See my analogy above: starting with generalities and moving on to a specific is a pretty common tactic in speeches and essays, and audiences generally understand that not every statement about the generalities applies to the specifics. Here’s the analogy again:
“Obesity is a problem facing many of our nation’s citizens. Some people indulge in overeating and other unhealthy habits, while others suffer from conditions that make losing weight nearly impossible. This essay will focus on the relationship between obesity and diabetes…”
This introduction does not say that people with diabetes “engage in overeating or other unhealthy habits,” but by the logic you and Tina are employing, that’s exactly what you would think it says. And if you were sufficiently biased against the speaker, perhaps you could convince yourself that that is what it says. But it doesn’t, and that’s simply a fact. You are letting your bias get in the way of your reading comprehension.
OK Chris, you don’t get it, you will never get it, you are just another volunteer progressive toad trying desperately to carry water for Obama while taking glee in calling Tina a liar, which she is not.
Your arguments and analogies are failures because they are horrendous, sophomoric, asinine tripe, Mr. Logic. (Especially that half-wit bit about Obama not explicitly mentioning Hiroshima until later in the speech. If he had not mentioned it at all, it would have not made any difference! The speech was given at the memorial! That was the context! Try looking up “context” some day, “English major” fool.)
You turn a completely blind eye to the subtext of the speech either deliberately or because you haven’t the intelligence to see it.
No, I am not going to read more of the outright garbage you have posted in this thread. I suggest you take a remedial course in formal logic and rhetoric because, quite frankly, you suck. I sure as hell am not going to try and instruct you ever again. Been there, done that. You are a pig-headed fool and I can find no reason to try and give further lessons to a pig-headed fool.
Go ahead and declare victory you pompous dolt. After all, the first two rules of debate is call the opposition a liar and declare victory.
You repeatedly calling Tina a liar (and Jack) — and worse — is appalling. Some day you will suffer greatly for it. Some day you will say such horrible things to the wrong person’s face and will suffer the consequences of a rightly deserved, thorough beating.
Your parents obviously failed you for not giving you a good beating when you were a nasty little kid. As a result, now you are a nasty little kid in an adult body.
Now you may now proceed to whine to Post Scripts for me throwing insults your way, you insufferable hypocrite.
Pie: “Your arguments and analogies are failures because they are horrendous, sophomoric, asinine tripe, Mr. Logic. (Especially that half-wit bit about Obama not explicitly mentioning Hiroshima until later in the speech. If he had not mentioned it at all, it would have not made any difference! The speech was given at the memorial! That was the context! Try looking up “context” some day, “English major” fool.)”
OK.
If you’re willing, look at my analogy again. This time, imagine that I am giving the speech to the Diabetes Research Institute, during National Diabetes Awareness Month.
Would it then be fair to report that the speech says that people with diabetes “engage in overeating and other unhealthy habits?”
If that analogy still doesn’t fit, can you explain why not?
I won’t complain about the personal insults. There’d be no point.