Home » Hinderaker on Obama’s Iran deal speech

Comments

Hinderaker on Obama’s Iran deal speech — 14 Comments

  1. Like Neo, I urge readers here to pass on Hinderaker’s essay; especially to Libs and independents.

    John Hinderaker is a very smart, a skilled lawyer and great writer. He uses his knowledge of logic and rhetoric to destroy Obama’s speech.

    The thing is Obama has operated the same way the entire time. His coal destruction speech can be deconstructed the same way.

    John also knows the character of people and that last comment about Barack being a bad person is so, so right. But Barack fooled so many people due to his race, genial manner and nice smile. Obama was able to campaign as Denzel Washington acting as JFK.

  2. “…but he is a worse man.”

    Shouldn’t allowances be made. No-one not a ‘man’ may be condemned for not being one.

    “He appears to be a cutout character rather than a man with a true life history.”
    — Dymphna of Gates of Vienna

    “There is an unknown something about Obama… I don’t know what it is.”
    — Sean Hannity

    Neither do I, but I’m free to speculate. This ‘man’ is a deeply disturbed — not flawed — but disturbed, disordered, alien Borg.

    No man’s politics will condemn him to my hatred… for whatever that’s worth. I don’t care about the Communism learned at the knee of the Communist, nor the socialism, nor redistributionism, nor his Alinsky ways, or the Chicago style brass knuckles politics. That which condemns someone to my hatred, again, for whatever that’s worth, is… evil. Dispassionate evil for it’s own sake. Cold blooded, cold heartedness, cold to the suffering of others, … the human process is, in him, missing — entirely; the organically human is missing, he is without hypostasis*. He has all the attributes of a man but none of the substance, at his best (least offensive/destructive) he is a wind-up doll. The platitudes tumble out – and how — pull the string. At his worst (most offensive/destructive) he is evil. I offer this not as hyperbole but a genuine belief about the man — that his ressentiment is so great that he would demolish everything if it were in his power to do so.

  3. Hinderaker seemed more reasonable about the possibilities of evil, more patient concerning its effects, a few years ago. Perhaps his position has “evolved” now that he has seen first hand the suffering caused by the evil regime.

    There are some things that can only be seen with hate. Logic is not enough.

  4. Since the Left has tyrants much worse than Hussein ever could be, what are the conservative elites and lawyer pundits going to say about the next one? That we give them time and benefit of the doubt, once more?

  5. Neo,

    Not so long ago, I encouraged you to write a book about “changers,” why it’s so hard, and why it’s now so important.

    You might start by interviewing John Hinderaker. He happens to be a cousin, so I know he has a story on that theme.

  6. I second Cornflours’ motion. And we are not related.

    We know it would be well-written and interesting. And the barriers to entry (mostly cost) have been lowered.

    You have a start with your own story.

  7. Readers!

    Put on your thinking caps.

    Has a President ever given such a dishonest speech in U.S. history?

  8. Cornhead, 2:26 pm

    Lyndon Johnson’s Gulf of Tonkin speech. A lot of people died because of that one. We still have no idea what the outcome of Obama’s speech will be.

  9. GP,

    I have for a long time thought bho is a very twisted, perhaps sociopathic, boychild. His memoirs were the first tell, every strawman he constructs bolsters my original impression.

  10. Obama is being the Anti-American, anti-Bush, pro-Terrorist President.

    The GDP adjusted new benefit that our (traitorous) President is gaining ($150 billion) for Iran’s terrorism budget is about $1 trillion – roughly Bush’s Iraq war budget.

    “Fair is fair” that the leading World Terrorist state ought to get the same sums as the evil anti-terrorist state had!

  11. Paul in Boston:

    Take a look at this on the Gulf of Tonkin:

    Journalist Edward Jay Epstein has shown that in crucial respects, the Times coverage was at odds with what the documents actually said. The lead of the Times story was that in 1964 the Johnson administration reached a consensus to bomb North Vietnam at a time when the president was publicly saying that he would not bomb the north. In fact, the Pentagon papers actually said that, in 1964, the White House had rejected the idea of bombing the north. The Times went on to assert that American forces had deliberately provoked the alleged attacks on its ships in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify a congressional resolution supporting our war efforts. In fact, the Pentagon papers said the opposite: there was no evidence that we had provoked whatever attacks may have occurred.

    In short, a key newspaper said that politicians had manipulated us into a war by means of deception. This claim, wrong as it was, was part of a chain of reporting and editorializing that helped convince upper-middle-class Americans that the government could not be trusted.

  12. Cornhead,

    In the same vein as Neo’s comment to Paul in Boston at 6:09 pm, I point to the Dems and Left concerted propaganda campaign that relentlessly misrepresented the grounds for Operation Iraqi Freedom despite that their propaganda contradicted openly available primary sources (US law and policy on Iraq over 3 administrations, UNSCRs on Iraq, determinative fact findings) that show Bush’s decision for OIF was right on the law and justified on the policy.

    Indeed, the primary sources for OIF make for an exceptionally straightforward fact pattern.

    The success of their false narrative about OIF was the cornerstone of their seizure of political advantage and Obama’s election in 2008. That they were rewarded 1st prize for lying openly about the Iraq intervention – despite a public record on the issue that should have precluded it – demonstrated they could spin brazenly about anything in the Narrative contest of the activist game. It only makes sense from a competitive perspective to continue pushing forward with an effective, winning, unresisted strategy.

    Obama’s Iran campaign is built on on their false narrative on OIF.

    As I’ve repeated in comments, the prerequisite for countering Obama on Iran was setting the record straight on OIF in the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game. Simply, if Clinton and Bush were wrong on Iraq, then Obama is right on Iran, and vice versa.

    Instead, the Republicans ceded and thereby effectively stipulated the false narrative on OIF. By that alchemy, false premises were turned into operative truth and Obama’s Iran campaign was secured.

  13. In other words, bowing to the Left one time, means you will become their slave and everything afterwards, will go as the Masters wish.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>