Patterico's Pontifications

6/3/2008

Juan Williams on Obama’s Viability

Filed under: 2008 Election,General — Patterico @ 12:14 am



An utterly reliable correspondent sends me a transcript, personally prepared by the correspondent, of Juan Williams on the past Fox News Sunday, speaking about Obama and the damage that the Trinity Church scandal has caused his campaign:

CHRIS WALLACE: Juan, what do you make of the fact that he [Barack Obama] has, for the last three months – all of March, all of April, all of May – he’s lost to Hillary Clinton and is there any fatal, or permanent, damage done to him?

JUAN WILLIAMS: Well, this comes back to the same numbers Byron [York] was talking about in Fox News Sunday today. These are Pew numbers that came out this week that indicate that since February – since the very timeframe we’re talking about, since March 4 – his favorability numbers have been going down … disapproval has been climbing … and this is especially true among white working class voters and, as a subset of that, very true among white women.

So now we are coming to the swing votes. Unlike Bill Kristol, I think that the fact that John McCain is head-to-head with Senator Barack Obama is an indication of Senator Barack Obama’s weakness. I think the Democrat, according to the generic, should be far ahead and this shouldn’t even be a contest. Instead, what we’ve seen is that Barack Obama has been struggling and much of this is attributable to his personal attributes. Personal attributes brings me back to Rev. Wright and brings me back to Father Pfleger, and … I thought what Father Pfleger did was almost minstrel-like. You know, it’s unbelievable. He looked like a white guy trying to perform like a black minister and doing a poor job of it. And trying to act as if he’s playing to a crowd in …[crosstalk].

CHRIS WALLACE: According to the choir in the background, they were buying it.

JUAN WILLIAMS: They were buying it. That’s exactly right. I think it’s the difference between catering to someone and saying, “You know what, I’m going to give you what you want.” You can do that and pander to someone. This was pandering of the worst sort. I think it was insulting.

CHRIS WALLACE: Any worse pandering than Rev. Wright?

JUAN WILLIAMS: No, no. I think these guys are the worst of this, kind of, TV evangelists who go after people in terms of their weaknesses, and for a black audience on the south side of Chicago – people who are struggling to make a living, people who don’t understand sometime the larger social forces that are evident in their lives – these guys come in and take their money by playing to their worst fears and attitudes and racial biases.

That’s a different conversation, Chris, but it does not play with a candidate who says, “I’m about racial unity” which is what Barack Obama, who started out as the candidate of white, young Americans – it doesn’t play for that candidate. And it’s one of the reasons that I think we’ve seen an increasing number of people in the polls saying, “We’re not sure about this guy. We feel we know him less today than we did back in March.”

CHRIS WALLACE: We only have about thirty seconds left and [speaking to Byron York:] Byron, we’ll get to you next time but this is very interesting. [Speaking to Juan Williams:] Is this something that he can turn around? He’s quit the church. Is it something he can turn around? We’re got a long time … we’ve got five months until the election.

JUAN WILLIAMS: The problem with turning it around is that he had twenty years in the church. So he’s got to argue, “You know what, I really am not of the Father Pfleger’s and the Rev. Wright’s, despite the fact that I was there for so long and found it convenient – or politically expedient, for a not very generous perspective – to say I was in that church. Now, how does he turn it around? He’s got to make a display but can he sell it this time? Because rational people are going to say, “This is the guy that I saw for twenty years and this is where he was. Why should I buy this new image when this is the reality that existed for so long?”

CHRIS WALLACE: [Breaks for commercial – end of segment.]

82 Responses to “Juan Williams on Obama’s Viability”

  1. He’s certainly right that it’s a surprise the GOP is head to head with the dems right now. Think how so many actually believe we’re in recession, and think how terrible gas prices are getting, and how Bush is so unpopular.

    But part of the ingredients for the surprise is that Mccain really was the very best bet the GOP had. Far more of a uniter and aisle crosser than Clinton, Reagan, Carter or the Bushes. And the opposite of polarizing Obama.

    Somehow the GOP has found itself with such an unlikely great choice, and the DNC has found itself with such a terrible choice and reached in the most terrible way for them. Very interesting stuff, that.

    Obama has such a hard time communicating sincerity. I think Obama probably will win anyway, after the media and the somewhat sluggish economy have their say, but the democrats have given the GOP a healthy shot.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  2. I can’t quit you ….

    Baracky could not more disown Rev. Wright than he could disown the black community. Now, the entire Church, he feels free to disown, just not Rev. Wright, until it becomes politically expedient to do so. And he really did not disown the Church, he just talked about how his campaign was drawing unwanted attention to TUCC.

    JD (75f5c3)

  3. It has been interesting to watch as Juan Williams has wandered further and further off the plantation in the last year. Is he even allowed on NPR anymore?

    sherlock (b4bbcc)

  4. “Obama has such a hard time communicating sincerity.”
    Thus, I say, wait for the debates. Have you ever asked a dyed-in-the-wool true believin’ Obama-luvva what exactly it is about his policies, what details of his plan and agenda that really sold them completely? I like Juan’s growing frustration with what his party keeps scooping and shoveling.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  5. I have to day I have a lot of respect for Juan Williams. He strikes me as one of the few honest reporters out there.

    DrT (340565)

  6. Juan is definitely a clear thinking, respectable man. His book Eyes on the Prize is an excellent document of the civil rights movement.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  7. What have we learned from this? We learned that Juan Williams reads Patterico’s Pontifications, since he has picked up on my comment that Fr. Pfleger is a modern-day minstrel show and repeated it on Fox. (OK, maybe he came up with it on his own.)

    Not surprising that Williams has started to moderate his tone and is no longer the hard core liberal he was back in the 1990s. Didn’t his son run for political office as a Republican?

    JVW (78155f)

  8. Williams is still a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. But he’s done with the race baiting crowd, and he’s a Hillary guy.

    He’s kind of like Joe Lieberman but with a different plank on which he goes against the grain.

    Pablo (99243e)

  9. “since he has picked up on my comment that Fr. Pfleger is a modern-day minstrel show and repeated it on Fox.”
    YES! I heard Juan make that remark and I thought of your comment. He owes you royalty payments. Frankly I’d like to see Pfleger if full hip-hop attire – throwback jersey, tilted cap, Timberlands, the whole nine yards. I’m sure he probably already ends all of his statements with “Know Ahm Say’n?”

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  10. This is fun, Jeff channels Stanley…(two of my favorites) here

    The “whitey” comments from Michelle are scheduled to hit today and what we will find when the rubble meets the road…is that Sen. Obama has surrounded himself with a consistent, repeatable, worldview throughout his entire life.

    “Whitey” is the devil, Jews are to blame for most everything, Amerikkka is run on a racist system, we need to tear it down, do not believe in its promises, it is all angry, hostile, bitter, slothful and consumerist white people attacking everyone else.

    Frank Marshall Davis said so. His radical college professors said so. Jeremiah Wright says so. Saul Alinsky said so. Ayers and Dorhn said so. Michelle says so. Father Pfleger says so. Louis Farrakhan says so. Sam Graham-Felsen says so. His Nation of Islam staffers say so. The Kos Kidz say so. Soros says so. Chomsky says so.

    They ALL say the same thing. White people are mean and racist and homophobic and rich. Tear down the system. (change). Attack white people as racist and overturn their “advantages”. (hope)

    Take away their 401k’s cuz “yo grandaddy” had an advantage. Divide, hate, spew venom.

    Attack white traditional Christians. But obliterate the Jews. So says Rashid Khalidi. So said Edward Said. So says Ali Abunimah. So says Louis Farrakhan. So says Jeremiah Wright. So says Hamas and Ahmadinejad. And so acts Brzezinski, Malley, McPeak, Lake, Power.

    Kill any deity that doesn’t hate the white man. Attack the system from the inside. These are his friends, this is his family, this is his inner circle. And always has been.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  11. I got caught up in the filter again…man, I hate that.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  12. Actually, wasn’t Juan Williams banned from some NPR show because he’s on Fox?

    These pastor eruptions hurt Obama. The independents and the Reps are thinking “no way can this hater be president.” He’s either a hater or he’s so weak he can’t stand up to them. Even a mild campaign thrust from McCain, and O is exposed as an empty suit. He’s just a weak metrosexual, and Americans want a strong leader for president.

    Patricia (f56a97)

  13. This is wishful thinking dressed up as serious political analysis. Williams has the same problem the rest of the media is having, in that they’re trying to shoehorn this election year into the mold of previous elections years. It doesn’t fit. Yes Juan, the Democratic nominee should probably be ahead of the Republican nominee at this point, but the Democratic nominee isn’t even officially settled yet. Last time we did this, everyone knew John Kerry was going to be the nominee in January, after the Iowa caucus.

    Conversely, Obama has been running more than a year in one of the closest races in our history, he hasn’t had any sort of chance to consolidate his opponent’s supporters, he hasn’t been able to give a victory speech, he hasn’t enjoyed a concession speech from his bitter rival, he hasn’t been able to march her around campaigning for him, but all of those things will come. Let’s take stock of it then, shall we? John McCain had his own little primary battle, but he’s had months to repair and consolidate and campaign as the nominee, shouldn’t we give Obama a chance to do those things before we write him off?

    Levi (76ef55)

  14. I have allways liked Juan Williams. I find myself agreeing with more and more of his points over the last few years. I credit all that time sitting next to Krauthammer on the panel. Osmosis at work!

    Hammer (d671ab)

  15. It’s not June 6 yet, Levi. Like Hillary said, *it’s worth a shot* to wait until then to see who the Democratic nominee will be.

    nk (6c75e0)

  16. “You don’t have to read something to know its contents. I’ve gotten A’s on papers I’ve written and tests I’ve taken about books I’ve never read.”

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  17. That line will never cease to make me laugh…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  18. Oh I’m petitioning to have that one put in Bartlett’s familiar quotations.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  19. Knock it off, you guys. Picking on Levi is like kicking a baby.

    nk (be56c0)

  20. I got caught up in spam filter hell…but Jeff at Protein Wisdom (one of my favorites) has something up on the whole mess and cites Stanley Kurtz (becoming one of my favorites)

    I would link to it again, but I’m apparently not very good at it. It’s a wonderful read.

    By the way, I have downloaded the 300 page report, and I’m making my way through it. Over six huge bytes to download…but, it does say some interesting things.

    First, the reports of abuse are overwhelmingly overblown. Second, the vast majority of interrogations at GTMO were completely compliant. “Harsh” treatment …well, everyone can have a crack at what constitutes torture…but, rock music and barking dogs and strobe lights may be uncomfortable…when that becomes “torture” I suspect happens earlier for people who want to trash our country and it fits their narrative and agenda.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  21. Picking on Levi is like kicking a baby.

    Only funnier…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  22. Picking on Levi is like kicking a baby.

    No, it is like kick the can, only Levi never knows he’s been kicked.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  23. By the way, I have downloaded the 300 page report, and I’m making my way through it. Over six huge bytes to download…but, it does say some interesting things.

    First, the reports of abuse are overwhelmingly overblown. Second, the vast majority of interrogations at GTMO were completely compliant. “Harsh” treatment …well, everyone can have a crack at what constitutes torture…but, rock music and barking dogs and strobe lights may be uncomfortable…when that becomes “torture” I suspect happens earlier for people who want to trash our country and it fits their narrative and agenda.

    None of us are supposed to believe a word of what you say about it though, right?

    Levi (76ef55)

  24. “None of us are supposed to believe a word of what you say about it though, right?”
    Well the interesting thing he’s doing with this report is called reading it thus lending something called credibility to his point of view.

    “You don’t have to read something to know its contents. I’ve gotten A’s on papers I’ve written and tests I’ve taken about books I’ve never read.”

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  25. Well the interesting thing he’s doing with this report is called reading it thus lending something called credibility to his point of view.

    Slow down buddy, the ACLU read the report, too, have they no credibility?

    How come you get to take cfbleacher’s summary as gospel, and I don’t get to take the ACLU’s?

    Levi (76ef55)

  26. Slow down buddy, the ACLU read the report, too, have they no credibility?
    But you didn’t.

    How come you get to take cfbleacher’s summary as gospel, and I don’t get to take the ACLU’s?
    Why don’t you try reading the report and coming up with your own?

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  27. Oops almost forgot the signature:
    “You don’t have to read something to know its contents. I’ve gotten A’s on papers I’ve written and tests I’ve taken about books I’ve never read.”

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  28. But you didn’t.

    And neither have you.

    Why don’t you try reading the report and coming up with your own?

    Why don’t you?

    You’re willing to confer ‘credibility to his point of view’ because he’s read it, even though you haven’t.

    Aren’t you doing the exact same thing you and your girlfriends got all giddy about me doing last night?

    Levi (76ef55)

  29. And neither have you.
    And I didn’t put up a link to it claiming that it vindicated an opinion of mine, you did.

    You’re willing to confer ‘credibility to his point of view’ because he’s read it, even though you haven’t.
    Um, yes. Compared to YOUR point of you, I think that I actually would consider giving more credibility to the point of view of someone who has actually read something.

    you and your girlfriends
    I can only imagine the reaction you get when you make feeble attempts at talking to girls in study hall.

    and of course can’t ice a cake without:
    “You don’t have to read something to know its contents. I’ve gotten A’s on papers I’ve written and tests I’ve taken about books I’ve never read.”

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  30. Why don’t you?

    Because he wasn’t the one trying to use it to support his argument.

    You were.

    So you read it first, then come talk to us…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  31. Um, yes. Compared to YOUR point of you, I think that I actually would consider giving more credibility to the point of view of someone who has actually read something.

    The ACLU read it. Why am I not allowed to do exactly as you describe, and ‘consider giving more credibility to the point of view of someone who has actually read something?’

    Levi (76ef55)

  32. 30, Because the ACLU doesn’t have as much credibility you have, which is too damn little to measure.

    The ACLU hasn’t read the Constitution they are too busy trying to shread.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  33. “I didn’t put up a link to it claiming that it vindicated an opinion of mine, you did.”
    There’s a repeat of my words so that even a retard like you can try another time to get it. This was nobody’s fight but yours. The adults in the room are indeed getting tired of repeating the simple facts of this entire situation.

    a) you posted a link that you claimed was proof of your point of view.
    b) you admitted that you did not read the document despite claiming that it vindicated you.
    c) you said, “You don’t have to read something to know its contents. I’ve gotten A’s on papers I’ve written and tests I’ve taken about books I’ve never read.” thus revealing what a complete, utter laughingstock you are to everyone here.
    d) you continue to be the punchline of every joke on this site.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  34. 31 PCD – “The ACLU hasn’t read the Constitution they are too busy trying to shread.”

    And don’t forget that the President according to Levi is “wiping his ass” with it as well.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  35. “I didn’t put up a link to it claiming that it vindicated an opinion of mine, you did.”

    I didn’t put up the link to ‘validate an opinion of mine,’ I put up a link to provide a ‘shred of evidence,’ which was specifically requested, that this administration tortures.

    And if we’re at the point now where we are just going to repeat ourselves, I’d like you to address this:

    YOU: Um, yes. Compared to YOUR point of you, I think that I actually would consider giving more credibility to the point of view of someone who has actually read something.

    ME: The ACLU read it. Why am I not allowed to do exactly as you describe, and ‘consider giving more credibility to the point of view of someone who has actually read something?’

    Levi (76ef55)

  36. “You don’t have to read something to know its contents. I’ve gotten A’s on papers I’ve written and tests I’ve taken about books I’ve never read.”

    Lest anyone forget …

    cf – I did not know you were a PW’er.

    How come you get to take cfbleacher’s summary as gospel, and I don’t get to take the ACLU’s?

    Because cf does not have a dog in the fight, has not been shown to have exaggerated claims, and in general, is exponentially more honest than you.

    I like Levi’s new burden of proof idea. Levi lies, gets called on it, and rather than attempting to support his original lie, he thinks it is someone else’s duty to prove the negative. Convenient, that.

    JD (75f5c3)

  37. No, Levi, your assertion was that President Bush’s administration routinely tortures. You have yet to substantiate that assertion. You also accused President Bush of wiping his ass with the Constitution, and have failed to provide documentation for same. In short, you lie. And when we call you on it, you run away with the goalposts.

    I hope the ACLU read their own report. By your standard, because you read your own comments (an assertion not supported by the overwhelming evidence) they must be true.

    JD (75f5c3)

  38. YOU: Um, yes. Compared to YOUR point of you, I think that I actually would consider giving more credibility to the point of view of someone who has actually read something.

    ME: The ACLU read it. Why am I not allowed to do exactly as you describe, and ‘consider giving more credibility to the point of view of someone who has actually read something?’

    Does this pass for rational thought in Levi-world?

    JD (75f5c3)

  39. Well remember that’s brought to you by the same colossal intellect that came up with:
    “You don’t have to read something to know its contents. I’ve gotten A’s on papers I’ve written and tests I’ve taken about books I’ve never read.”

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  40. Well remember that’s brought to you by the same colossal intellect that came up with:

    And you’re having someone else fight your battles.

    And as long as we’re playing stupid little games….

    “First of all, dickhead, I’m not a “Bush person” whatever the fuck that is. What’s to debate with adolescent tantrums like “Bush has demonstrated that he has no respect for anyone or anything, not the military, not the tax-payer, not the foreigner, or the Constitution, or basic human rights, or the rule of law, nothing.” Use much hyperbole, asshole? Oh that’s right, that’s your style. Cram as much overbearing loudmouthed over-the-top rhetoric that it would take forever and a day to waste dissected your juvenile rants like “His entire focus has been on repeatedly slamming the military against a wall.” What’s the point?
    Try looking in the mirror at what? Fuck you, you fucking adolescent piece of shit. And working? I guarantee I’ve worked harder and at more jobs to earn what I have than you ever will in your fucking life you spoiled little worthless bitch. Scared to debate you? You think anything you say or do scares anyone? Again, fuck you, you pathetic little sack of shit. Your “challenges” and provocations are meaningless because you yourself are worthless. You are a cancer. I cannot fathom that your repulsive personality has not earned you thousands upon thousands of merciless beatings worthless shit-for-life loser fuckheads like you deserve, you meaningless pile of shit.’

    Levi (76ef55)

  41. Doesn’t say much for his instructors, who couldn’t tell the difference, does it?

    The blind, again, have led the blind.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  42. Fight my battles. HAHAHAHA. That’s almost as good as your pride in your illiteracy and ignorance. You just move goalposts and go in circles. Eventually people give up wasting their time.

    And again, I thank you as always for repeating words of mine that I stand by in their entirety with regard to my opinion of you. Now notice and try reading what you post (you have a habit of that don’t you, halfwit?) Half of it is a repetition of your retarded rant that you were later, in the more calm voice of daleyrocks asked to back up point by point which you naturally pussied out on doing.

    With regard to the words that are mine, nothing has changed with regard to my opinion of you, it’s all captured right there. I apologized later for engaging in such profane histrionics because they were bothering and annoying the adults including Patterico himself, you know the host of this site that you called a coward.

    It wasn’t any kind of apology to you, remind you. I still wholeheartedly stand by every opinion of you expressed there. You didn’t seem to care that you made a statement for the ages with regard to your complete and total ignorance and stupidity and then claimed you wanted it on your tombstone. Great! I just as equally embrace everything I expressed with regard to what I and no doubt others think of you but had more restraint in the past and resisted putting into words.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  43. Fight my battles. HAHAHAHA. That’s almost as good as your pride in your illiteracy and ignorance. You just move goalposts and go in circles. Eventually people give up wasting their time.

    You still have this to address:

    YOU: Um, yes. Compared to YOUR point of you, I think that I actually would consider giving more credibility to the point of view of someone who has actually read something.

    ME: The ACLU read it. Why am I not allowed to do exactly as you describe, and ‘consider giving more credibility to the point of view of someone who has actually read something?’

    Wanna take a stab at answering my question? Why is what’s not okay for me to do perfectly okay for you to do?

    And ah yes, the icing…

    “First of all, dickhead, I’m not a “Bush person” whatever the fuck that is. What’s to debate with adolescent tantrums like “Bush has demonstrated that he has no respect for anyone or anything, not the military, not the tax-payer, not the foreigner, or the Constitution, or basic human rights, or the rule of law, nothing.” Use much hyperbole, asshole? Oh that’s right, that’s your style. Cram as much overbearing loudmouthed over-the-top rhetoric that it would take forever and a day to waste dissected your juvenile rants like “His entire focus has been on repeatedly slamming the military against a wall.” What’s the point?
    Try looking in the mirror at what? Fuck you, you fucking adolescent piece of shit. And working? I guarantee I’ve worked harder and at more jobs to earn what I have than you ever will in your fucking life you spoiled little worthless bitch. Scared to debate you? You think anything you say or do scares anyone? Again, fuck you, you pathetic little sack of shit. Your “challenges” and provocations are meaningless because you yourself are worthless. You are a cancer. I cannot fathom that your repulsive personality has not earned you thousands upon thousands of merciless beatings worthless shit-for-life loser fuckheads like you deserve, you meaningless pile of shit.’

    Levi (76ef55)

  44. The ACLU read the report, I am 2/3 of the way through it.

    the conclusion that the President is ignoring the Constitution, that we are routinely torturing captured enemy combatants or that President Bush condoned or worse, commanded that we torture people…is simply not evident anywhere in the document.

    The FBI has a different set of rules for extracting information than does the military (and the CIA)

    The FBI commanded its personnel to strictly abide by their own internal guidelines. For almost anyone who isn’t looking for a reason to trash this country, the FBI guidelines are squeaky clean. For MOST Americans, in fact, they are probably more restrictive than the average American would approve.

    For instance, if a captured enemy combatant had knowledge of intent to bomb a school and we learned he was afraid of dogs…would you rage against our country and slander it at every turn if we brought a barking dog into the interview room? (or make him a mail carrier for a week, I suppose)

    Slander the country if we played loud rock music or had a blinking light outside his sleeping cell? (you definitely wouldn’t want to live in my first apartment near the Lincoln Avenue bars and the L tracks…although I didn’t consider it quite “torture”)

    Isolated incidents of individual soldiers getting carried away apparently existed. Fraternity prank style hazing.

    A brief period of time saw a loosening, then tightening of the restrictions on sleep deprivation, stress positions (short shackles)…and there were incidents of waterboarding.

    From what I can tell…no broken bones, no torn limbs, no bloody lips, no missing teeth, no long term physical marks, bruises or abrasions. No stretched limbs, no rack, no screaming in agony, no sadistic machinery.

    They were fed, clothed and sheltered.

    Aggressive techniques were avoided by the FBI, they were not always avoided by the military and CIA. Yelling, threatening, putting a blindfold on or hooding…not done by the FBI.

    Stress positions (standing for four hours, short shackles) not done by the FBI.

    The FBI utilizes a technique that is mostly interview and gains results over time. The military and CIA utilize techniques that breakdown an enemy combatant’s willingness to lie. They create stress and worry sometimes.

    But from all I have read…these enemy combatants were safer in our hands after capture…than they were in battle. Physical injuries were essentially non-existent. Interviewing, interrogation, hazing, torture…all have lines across which one descripton ends and the other begins. I would be hard pressed to say that I saw much, if any, concrete evidence of torture.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  45. I don’t HAVE to address anything to you, you silly little child. And yes yes, mmmmm that icing is tasty!
    Tell you what, you sweet little boy, we’ll make a deal. Since you were asked hmmm…how many threads ago? to address –
    “Bush has demonstrated that he has no respect for anyone or anything, not the military, not the tax-payer, not the foreigner, or the Constitution, or basic human rights, or the rule of law, nothing.” and “His entire focus has been on repeatedly slamming the military against a wall.” We’ll play show you mine if you show me yours. See other people can do it do. We can mine your treasure trove of retarded cluelessness for endless unanswered questions and reckless assertions that you never backed up when you were called on it.

    Since you keep posting my wonderful, well-crafted, and oh so accurate opinion of you, somehow these unaddressed questions seem to keep coming back. I know daley has been waiting with bated breath for you to back up a single one of thes assertions which you slinked away from and dodged in your typical fashion. So now like a mosquito you just keep coming with “WHY WON’T YOU ANSWER THIS WHY WON’T YOU ANSWER THIS WHY WON’T YOU ANSWER THIS!?” The reason is obvious to everyone here who likes poking you with a stick. You argue like a child, you repeatedly have shown what an immature, intellectually vapid moron you are and you are and thus entertaining albeit incredibly annoying. I realized that I was wasting my profanity on you because in retrospect it wasn’t worth going there.

    Since you think, again repeating your words, that you can read us people like a book then here’s a reading of you (minus the cursing).

    Overall you just seem like a sad little attention whore with a computer up there in Whitebread Montana. I can’t imagine you having many friends because you are obviously socially inept and intolerable to be around. A girlfriend is obviously out of the question because I can’t imagine your physical presence being much more attractive than your personality. Now granted I have about as much to go on as you do from that gospel ACLU report, but like you don’t have to actually read something to know its content, then frankly I don’t have to meet someone in person to “read them”. Just speculation of course but I’ll assume accurate like you assume about an ACLU document that you didn’t read but still use as evidence of the truth of your opinion.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  46. 44 cf- thanks. Yeah I just got started on it and from the beginning it seems that a lot of the focus is on the differences of interrogation methods authorized by the FBI vs the CIA and the military. I will refrain from offering any opinion of anything specific to the document until I’ve completed it. What a novel concept.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  47. The ACLU read the report, I am 2/3 of the way through it.

    the conclusion that the President is ignoring the Constitution, that we are routinely torturing captured enemy combatants or that President Bush condoned or worse, commanded that we torture people…is simply not evident anywhere in the document.

    The FBI has a different set of rules for extracting information than does the military (and the CIA)

    The FBI commanded its personnel to strictly abide by their own internal guidelines. For almost anyone who isn’t looking for a reason to trash this country, the FBI guidelines are squeaky clean. For MOST Americans, in fact, they are probably more restrictive than the average American would approve.

    For instance, if a captured enemy combatant had knowledge of intent to bomb a school and we learned he was afraid of dogs…would you rage against our country and slander it at every turn if we brought a barking dog into the interview room? (or make him a mail carrier for a week, I suppose)

    Slander the country if we played loud rock music or had a blinking light outside his sleeping cell? (you definitely wouldn’t want to live in my first apartment near the Lincoln Avenue bars and the L tracks…although I didn’t consider it quite “torture”)

    Isolated incidents of individual soldiers getting carried away apparently existed. Fraternity prank style hazing.

    A brief period of time saw a loosening, then tightening of the restrictions on sleep deprivation, stress positions (short shackles)…and there were incidents of waterboarding.

    From what I can tell…no broken bones, no torn limbs, no bloody lips, no missing teeth, no long term physical marks, bruises or abrasions. No stretched limbs, no rack, no screaming in agony, no sadistic machinery.

    They were fed, clothed and sheltered.

    Aggressive techniques were avoided by the FBI, they were not always avoided by the military and CIA. Yelling, threatening, putting a blindfold on or hooding…not done by the FBI.

    Stress positions (standing for four hours, short shackles) not done by the FBI.

    The FBI utilizes a technique that is mostly interview and gains results over time. The military and CIA utilize techniques that breakdown an enemy combatant’s willingness to lie. They create stress and worry sometimes.

    But from all I have read…these enemy combatants were safer in our hands after capture…than they were in battle. Physical injuries were essentially non-existent. Interviewing, interrogation, hazing, torture…all have lines across which one descripton ends and the other begins. I would be hard pressed to say that I saw much, if any, concrete evidence of torture.

    I’m not supposed to believe a word of this though, right?

    Levi (76ef55)

  48. Levi “I’m not supposed to believe a word of this though, right?”

    Right. Trust but verify. So go verify. Go read something for your own sake. You want to know so bad, go read it. It is fucking silly to see you here arguing about how stupid you are. If you directed the same effort into actually reading the report, then your effort to defend your moronic response, you’d probably be finished with the report.

    Trust, but verify. I trust what cfbleachers has said, but you better be damned sure that I won’t go and say “well according to cfbleachers…” Unless I’ve read the report too and can confirm what he said as factual. No instead, you just Trust, give into faith….

    G (722480)

  49. Alright. ‘fess up. Levi has to really be SPQR or stashiu, a parody of a barking moonbat. Because I have never seen anyone bathe in teh stoopid like Levi.

    JD (5f0e11)

  50. Levi – As I recall you didn’t even attempt to accurately summarize the ACLU’s summary of the report. Did you even read their summary? I don’t think you read either document, so attempting to fall back on the ridiculous “the ACLU read it” defense is worthless. As far as I can tell, the ACLU isn’t commenting here, you are, and you aren’t citing what they said.

    How many grades have you been held back now?

    It’s nice to know that your family has at least one patriotic member, your sister, who is an only child. I appreciate her service.

    When are you going to answer my questions from the other thread Levi, or have you given up on your absurd claim that you come here to debate.

    Coward.

    daleyrocks (ae5951)

  51. cf- thanks. Yeah I just got started on it and from the beginning it seems that a lot of the focus is on the differences of interrogation methods authorized by the FBI vs the CIA and the military. I will refrain from offering any opinion of anything specific to the document until I’ve completed it. What a novel concept.

    JK, it seems in large part a matter of semantics as well.

    A certain segment of our society always seems to want to leap on the bandwagon of the most damaging interpretation to America that can be squeezed from any situation.

    For instance, being yelled at and having panties put on your head…I don’t know if any of you played football in high school…but, that sounds like a Tuesday practice and the locker room afterwards. The definition of “torture” seems a bit emotional to describe this.

    Putting a dog leash on a guy…yeah, it’s humiliating, but isn’t hazing a better descriptive than “torture”?

    Now, don’t get me wrong (or worse, intentionally misinterpret my words), I may be against hazing in some situations. I may be against harsh interview techniques in some situations.

    However, we should call things what they are…not invoke inflammatory words to make a political point against our own country…for the benefit of our enemies.

    Interviewing, interrogation, hazing, torture. There may not be a clear bright line between each, but calling everything torture…is a sham argument.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  52. JD, I’m good. But I’m not good enough to fake being as stupid, incoherent, ignorant of reality, internally contradictory and just flat out clueless as Levi.

    But thanks for the compliment.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  53. Whoever is paying Levi is getting their money’s worth in my opinion. You can’t find raw stupid like that just anywhere. The kid has talent.

    daleyrocks (ae5951)

  54. Yeah, daleyrocks, but sooner or later, the universe hunts down stupid like that. It just takes its time sometimes.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  55. Most people with a molecule of self esteem wouldn’t bother returning to a site everyday where their every word is received with derision, their opinions treated as worthless, and their person heaped with abuse unless they were getting paid or they were incurably stupid.

    I guess I’m not sure whether it’s the former or the latter for Levi.

    daleyrocks (ae5951)

  56. I can’t imagine anyone paying Levi for his vapid drivel.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  57. cf – For some people the discovery that a rumor going around on DKos that the military used bad manners, didn’t offer dessert, and forgot to say “Peace Be Upon Him” after saying “Mohammed” would be proof that the U.S. military is no better than the Khmer Rouge.

    Jack Klompus (b796b4)

  58. “However, we should call things what they are…not invoke inflammatory words to make a political point against our own country…for the benefit of our enemies.”

    Doing this has apparently been interpreted as a sign that someone is “passionate” and that they must be smart and well-read because it’s a sign that they are true dissidents. Again, I blame the schools for a lot of this.
    The substance of the words or the potential consequences on a broader scale when this type of argument and behavior is displayed publically means little to them. When anyone tries to soberly disagree with aforementioned bumpersticker slogan, angry fistwaving, vitriol on the merits of WHAT they are saying, like cornered animals they lash out with “racist”, “warmonger”, “neocon”, etc. etc. It just gets soooooo tiring!

    Jack Klompus (b796b4)

  59. The fact that the FBI strictly observed their rules regarding interrogation just confirms that their interest is in law enforcement and judicial proceedings, where time is not a critical element.
    The military, and the CIA, do not operate in such luxurious surroundings; but have to make very quick judgements as to on-going threats, and how to deal with them. They also don’t concern themselves as to whether or not their actions will compromise a judicial proceeding. It isn’t their bag. Their interest is preventing or minimizing attacks on American personnel, facilities, and allies.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  60. Obama has been running more than a year in one of the closest races in our history, he hasn’t had any sort of chance to consolidate his opponent’s supporters, he hasn’t been able to give a victory speech, he hasn’t enjoyed a concession speech from his bitter rival, he hasn’t been able to march her around campaigning for him, but all of those things will come.

    Yes, and you see why? He’s not a strong candidate. Clinton’s numbers have dogged him, and he’s not a strong candidate… for all the reasons you list above.

    Vermont Neighbor (2464ca)

  61. As I recall you didn’t even attempt to accurately summarize the ACLU’s summary of the report. Did you even read their summary? I don’t
    think you read either document, so attempting to fall back on the ridiculous “the ACLU read it” defense is worthless. As far as I can tell, the ACLU isn’t commenting here, you are, and you aren’t citing what they said.

    I summarized it, it’s back there somewhere amidst the dozens of your buddies’ really witty, original taunts. Go find it. And I can assure you that I did read the other document, in as much as staring at page after page of blacked out text can be considered reading.

    I’d also like to point out again that I told you all at the outset that I didn’t read the thing, and that if I hadn’t offered that up under absolutely no argumentative pressure, I could have faked my way through any ‘debate’ you guys would have tried to muster about it. I didn’t post the fist link to a 300 page document so we could all sit down and read it studiously so we could debate its intricacies, that’s just not feasible nor should it be on this type of forum, and I made that pretty clear in the original post. I simply wanted to demonstrate there are ‘shreds of evidence’ that this administration has tortured people, which was being denied, and this is only going back two weeks. Before that, we’ve got all of the senior members of the administration admitting to authorizing torture techniques with checklists, the CIA destroying the evidence of videotaped torture sessions, Dana Priest’s reporting on detainees being to sent to secret prisons, Abu-Graihb, the DoJ’s Constitutional reasoning that permits the President to crush children’s testicles, the rendition of Maher Arar to Syria, and that’s just off the top of my head.

    I provided that second link because it absolutely proves my point, that there are ‘shreds of evidence,’ at a glance. It’s page after page of cartoonish redaction and outright omission with the occasional ‘water-boarding’ peering through. That’s the one that is more conducive to this sort of message board, because it literally takes 5 minutes to examine and absorb, and the one I made pretty clear I wanted you guys to focus on.

    But hey, we were talking about torture, now we’re making fun of a liberal! The circle of Republican life.

    It’s nice to know that your family has at least one patriotic member, your sister, who is an only child. I appreciate her service.

    What is the Republican definition of patriotism? Flag pins and bumper stickers and bitching about gas prices? No thanks.

    And I can tell you right now, she doesn’t appreciate you and your enthusiastic support of this retarded political party’s nonchalant evisceration and mistreatment of the military and its people that she loves.

    Does that sort of token gesture, simply and quickly and absentmindedly typing out ‘I honor her service,’ constitute patriotism for Republicans as much as wearing a stupid piece of jewelry does?

    When are you going to answer my questions from the other thread Levi, or have you given up on your absurd claim that you come here to debate.

    Coward.

    What do you want me to do?

    Levi (76ef55)

  62. Yes, and you see why? He’s not a strong candidate. Clinton’s numbers have dogged him, and he’s not a strong candidate… for all the reasons you list above.

    Not a strong candidate? A black man running against and ultimately defeating one of the most entrenched and influential political establishments in our nation’s history, is not a strong candidate?

    Tell me this, has a Republican ever beat either of the Clintons? If Barack, the Clinton-slayer, isn’t strong, then good god, what does that make the Republicans that need I remind you, have always been crushed by them?

    Levi (76ef55)

  63. Back up your assertions.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  64. A black man running against and ultimately defeating one of the most entrenched and influential political establishments in our nation’s history, is not a strong candidate?

    It helps when your base is dumber than my left shoe…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  65. A certain segment of our society always seems to want to leap on the bandwagon of the most damaging interpretation to America that can be squeezed from any situation.

    Or, we just hate the fact that morons have hijacked our government and are burning through our money, credibility, and military like the Apocalypse is just around the corner.

    I could tell you over and over again that I love America and I think it’s the greatest achievement humanity has ever achieved, and you’d still think I hate it, because you lack the ability to make a distinction between a shitty President and the country that he misleads.

    For instance, being yelled at and having panties put on your head…I don’t know if any of you played football in high school…but, that sounds like a Tuesday practice and the locker room afterwards. The definition of “torture” seems a bit emotional to describe this.

    Putting a dog leash on a guy…yeah, it’s humiliating, but isn’t hazing a better descriptive than “torture”?

    Now, don’t get me wrong (or worse, intentionally misinterpret my words), I may be against hazing in some situations. I may be against harsh interview techniques in some situations.

    Are you willing to dismiss Abu-Graihb as simple hazing? I’ve put this to others here, and I know you believe it was ‘a few bad apples,’ but humor me here. If what happened in those photographs happened to you, would you not consider it torture?

    However, we should call things what they are…not invoke inflammatory words to make a political point against our own country…for the benefit of our enemies.

    Bush. BUSH. Not ‘our country,’ BUSH!

    Can you even recognize that there is a difference?

    Interviewing, interrogation, hazing, torture. There may not be a clear bright line between each, but calling everything torture…is a sham argument.

    And feverishly devouring everything the administration says on the subject, you know, the people that are making the ultimate decisions hiding behind the veil of national security classifications and that have the most to gain by lying about them to all of our faces not only for political purposes, but because it keeps them out of a jail cell, well that’s just stupid.

    Levi (76ef55)

  66. As a member of the VRWC I await patiently for Bushitler to round up all the dissidents for the new gulags as he proclaims a lifetime Presidency. Hopefully Levi will soon see at first hand some of the torture techniques. Tell us how it feels to have your cojones crushed. Hopefully your life will be spared if you agree to reeducation camp. I will enjoy sharing your seized wealth. When you are set free in perhaps thirty years, you might well have learned your lesson. Oh, I forgot, political prisoners will be eligible for “voluntary” donation of “extra” organs including kidney, lung, eye and so on. Or so rumor has it. Perhaps Cheney can play the same role that Che did for Castro in terminating political vermin in the prisons.

    madmax333 (c5aae7)

  67. It helps when your base is dumber than my left shoe…

    What the hell is that supposed to mean?

    Levi (76ef55)

  68. Back up your assertions.

    Um, okay?

    Levi (76ef55)

  69. It helps when your base is dumber than my left shoe…

    What the hell is that supposed to mean?

    *snickers*

    That you didn’t get it mostly proves my point. Thank you for being a living demonstration…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  70. *snickers*

    That you didn’t get it mostly proves my point. Thank you for being a living demonstration…

    Yeah, whatever. Way to contribute.

    Levi (76ef55)

  71. Levi writes: “I could have faked my way through any ‘debate’ you guys would have tried to muster about it.

    More delusion, Levi. You’ve failed to hold your own on any debate you’ve involved yourself in to date. Your “faking” has convinced only yourself of your forensic aptitude.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  72. “… that morons have hijacked our government …”

    Levi, those “morons” are called elected representatives.
    If you wish to assign blame, please look in the mirror.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  73. Levi, those “morons” are called elected representatives. If you wish to assign blame, please look in the mirror.

    I didn’t vote for them. Morons did. Morons electing morons. I voted against giving the government to morons. I did my part. You go look in the mirror.

    Levi (76ef55)

  74. What is the Republican definition of patriotism? Flag pins and bumper stickers and bitching about gas prices?

    Nope. Quit arguing with the voices in your head.

    Did you read it yet? Does it support your assertion that the US tortures routinely?

    make the Republicans that need I remind you, have always been crushed by them

    Name one Republican that Bill Clinton crushed. Or did you just pull this out of your ass?

    If what happened in those photographs happened to you, would you not consider it torture?

    No

    JD (75f5c3)

  75. Les Levi forget, Billy Jeff never got 50% of the vote. Not once. So, he was never even able to get a majority of the voters to side with him. He never did as well as President Bush.

    JD (75f5c3)

  76. I voted against giving the government to morons. I did my part.

    But I thought you voted Democrat…

    I mean, you are the radical left’s base, after all…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  77. But I thought you voted Democrat…

    I mean, you are the radical left’s base, after all…

    Good one!

    Levi (76ef55)

  78. Scott – Let’s not kid ourselves. Baracky would not hesitate to throw Levi under the back of the bus, along with his Grandmother, his preacher, his mentor, and his Church.

    JD (75f5c3)

  79. JD, #78…
    Can’t wait for that to happen – Oh, Happy Days.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  80. Tell me this, has a Republican ever beat either of the Clintons? If Barack, the Clinton-slayer, isn’t strong, then good god, what does that make the Republicans that need I remind you, have always been crushed by them?

    Comment by Levi — 6/4/2008 @ 9:43 am

    There were two, actually: White and Hammerschmidt (in reverse chronological order). From Clinton’s own mouth, he attributed his embarrassing loss to White to voters who “thought I spent more time doing what I wanted to do and no time listening to them…”

    From the 9/28/1992 NY Times:

    “…
    The young Governor had discovered the dangers of pushing through an agenda ahead of public opinion and the risks of fighting the state’s business establishment. As a result, he became much more sensitive to the vagaries of public opinion and much more adept in the art of accommodation.

    Betsey Wright, the Governor’s former chief of staff and now a top campaign aide, describes the transformation this way: “What he learned from the loss was that government officials, no matter how smart and idealistic they are, cannot decide what’s best for the people and just do it.
    …”

    Indeed.

    EHeavenlyGads (f29174)

  81. Another example of Levi pulling something from his ass.

    He is like those monkeys in the zoo that just sit there flinging feces against the window. You cannot help but watch them.

    JD (75f5c3)

  82. Maybe the President can share that copy of the Constitution that he’s wiping he ass with so Levi can clean his orifice.
    “You don’t have to read something to know its contents. I’ve gotten A’s on papers I’ve written and tests I’ve taken about books I’ve never read.”

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4079 secs.