Liberals Saying Obama Sounds Like A Fool Because He’s Just So Darned Brilliant

Do you remember how liberals went off on Bush as stupid for eight years (not including the primary season leading up to the 2000 election) because of the way he talked?

Bush and the word “nuclear” was a favorite, of course.  And there were always a few awkward sentence constructions from a president who – unlike Obama – wasn’t slavishly attached to a teleprompter:

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he’s been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.

.

The same left that ridiculed George Bush over his every verbal slip are now rushing in with “intellectual” defenses as to why Obama sounds like a babbling fool every single time he can’t read his lines off a screen.

Case in point from today’s Los Angeles Times:

Meghan Daum: Obama’s fast brain vs. slow mouth
It’s not that the president can’t speak clearly; he employs the intellectual stammer.

Apparently, a lot of people consider President Obama to be bumblingly inarticulate. “The guy can’t talk his way out of a paper bag!” a reader wrote to me recently. “Sarah Palin is a brilliant speaker. It’s the president whose sentences are undiagrammable,” said another in response to a column I wrote about Palin. It’s not just my readers, nor is it exclusively conservatives, who hold this view. A Google search of “does Obama have a speech impediment” turns up several pages of discussion among the president’s supporters and critics alike.Admittedly, the president is given to a lot of pauses, “uhs” and sputtering starts to his sentences. As polished as he often is before large crowds (where the adjective “soaring” is often applied to his speeches), his impromptu speaking frequently calls to mind a doctoral candidate delivering a wobbly dissertation defense.

But consider this: It’s not that Obama can’t speak clearly. It’s that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can’t keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN. If you’re a member or a fan of that subset, chances are the president’s stammer doesn’t bother you; in fact, you might even love him for it (he sounds just like your grad school roommate, especially when he drank too much Scotch and attempted to expound on the Hegelian dialectic!).

If you’re not, chances are you find yourself yelling “get to the point already!” at the television screen every time Obama’s search for the right word seems to last longer than the search for Osama bin Laden. And thanks to its echoes of the college lecture hall, you may think it comes across as ever so slightly (or more than slightly) left wing.

That’s kind of ironic, given that the godfather of the intellectual stammer is arguably none other than the paterfamilias of the conservative movement, William F. Buckley Jr. With his slouch, his glazed-eyed stare and a speaking style that suggested the entire Oxford English Dictionary was flipping through his mind while he searched for a word like “dithyramb,” he makes Obama’s extemporaneous speech seem canned — not to mention pedestrian — by comparison. In fact, if the people critiquing Obama’s meandering speech patterns were to see an old “Firing Line” segment, I daresay they would think Buckley was drunk or otherwise impaired.

Granted, Buckley didn’t hold political office (he made an unsuccessful run for mayor of New York in 1965). He was more an observer than a decider, which is pretty much the opposite of what you need to be to lead a nation. Obama, as much as his critics might hate to admit it, is more than a phlegmatic egghead. He’s proved he can act decisively; whatever his faults, he’s leading the nation far more effectively — albeit less colorfully — than Buckley would have led New York. (When asked what he’d do if he won the mayoral election, he famously responded, “Demand a recount.”)

Obama’s problem is not that he’s an intellectual (for the sake of argument let’s define it as someone who is scholarly, broadly informed and distinguished as a thinker). It’s that he sounds like an intellectual. Unlike other presumed political brainiacs — Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, for example — he isn’t able to bury his ideas behind a folksy regional accent or good-old-boy affectations when he wants to. Nor is he effective at “keeping it real” when he falls into traditionally African American cadences that he clearly never used when he was growing up.

By speaking as though he hails from everywhere, he ends up being from nowhere. The result is that people look at him and see not a Hawaiian or a Chicagoan or even a black man, but a university man.

Of course, the president enables that stigma by stammering his way through town hall meetings and other public dialogues as though they were philosophy lectures. Irritating? Sure. But inarticulate? Sorry, folks, but you’ll have to find another adjective. And take your time. The right word is usually worth waiting for.

Okay.  I understand.  Obama sounds so stupid because he’s so damned BRILLIANT.  And here, look.  There’s a conservative out there who did the same thing.

Or not.  I don’t recall William F. Buckley Jr. having moments like this one:

But that is a fact.  And such things are hindrances to most of the mainstream media’s “narratives.”

I don’t recall Buckley telling us about the 57 states (with one left to go) he’s visited in those sophisticated tones of his:

Nor do I remember Buckley making a visit to Westminster Abbey and getting the date wrong by three years as Obama just got through doing:

I don’t remember Bush – who of course was a moron (just ask any liberal) doing anything this braindead either.

Nope.  It’s brilliant, intellectual “university men” who ascend to such marvellous heights of intellect.

One fellow pointed out that “Bush could not pronounce Nuclear but he knew what it was (Iran, Obama).”  And, of course, that stupid Bush was right, and those “brilliant” Democrats were all wrong.

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy – Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

But why should it matter that Bush was right, and we are now facing a disastrous crisis that it’s just a damn shame that liberals basically ENTIRELY created with their abject REFUSAL to deal with a crisis, and their DEMONIZATION of anyone who tried?  Bush said “nuclear” funny, and that’s really all that matters if you’re properly sophisticated and, you know, professorial.  Bush was stupid even though he was entirely correct and the liberals who attacked him (including the three top liberals of the Obama administration with VP Biden and Secretary of State Clinton) were entirely wrong.

It doesn’t matter how many times we’re right and how many times they’re wrong.  Because they won’t acknowledge the truth and because the facts don’t really matter worth a damn to them.

There’s a concept in psychology called “accommodation and assimilation” that fits liberals in their steadfast refusal to follow the rules of normal learning.  In normal psychology, one assimilates new information into one’s worldview and accommodates one’s worldview as new facts come in that run contrary to the picture one has of the world.  Liberals don’t bother with that nonsense.  Rather, they rigidly adhere to their doctrines and simply paste-over whatever reality happens to get in the way.

I think of Harold Camping and his followers.  It didn’t matter than he falsely predicted the end of the world before in 1994.  It didn’t matter that the Bible that he’s doing all his “calculations” from specifically says no man can know the day or the hour of such things.  It doesn’t even matter that his prediction for the end of the world on May 21 turned out to be wrong.  Such facts don’t work, so so much the worse for the facts.  Now we’re assured that the world will end on October 21.  Really.  Better get ready.

Like Harold Camping and his followers, liberals are immune from any genuine learning.  They simply lack the character to deal with reality in an honest way.

Obama is brilliant because he graduated from Harvard, but Bush is stupid even though he graduated from Yale.  Previous Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry was brilliant because he graduated from Yale, even though Bush had also graduated from Yale and even though Bush actually had a better accumulated grade average (77 versus 76) than Kerry.  Oh, and by the way, even though Bush also actually had a higher IQ than Kerry.  But so what?  Kerry had that arrogant Massachusett’s tone that just sounded so… so smart.  And of course, Bush was stupid because he had a few gaffes; ergo sum Obama is brilliant whenever he’s off his teleprompter because his gaffes are supposedly somehow kind of similar to brilliant people’s.

Or Bush was evil because of Gitmo, and rendition, and the Patriot Act, and domestic eavesdropping, and indefinite detentions, and military tribunals, etc. etc.; ergo sum, when Obama goes back on his demagogic rhetoric and pursues all the same policies that he demonized when Bush did them, it is Obama magnificently adapting his foreign policy.  Bush was evil for using enhanced interrogation and Obama was righteous to dismantle the CIA program that relied on such intelligence – even though Obama should get all the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and even though enhanced interrogation and the CIA program that Obama dismantled were absolutenly essential to getting Osama bin laden.

Or Bush was a poor leader because he wanted to raise the debt ceiling versus Obama showing his magnificent leadership in demanding that we raise the debt ceiling.  Or Obama standing for the Constitution when he attacked George Bush for wars that he got congressional approval for, versus being the bold defender of human rights when he launches a third war in Libya without bothering to get congressional approval.  Or Bush was a partisan hack and a failure as a leader because he divided the country, but the fact that Obama divided the country far more than Bush EVER DID after promising to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics” and “end the partisan and ideological wars ” is entirely due to conservatives.  Because Democrats have a moral obligation to attack a Republican president, but Republicans have a moral obligation to bow down before a Democrat messiah.  That sort of thing.

One has to wonder how their heads don’t just explode from containing all the contradictions.  But it turns out that when you live in your own little world – and particularly when you get to control the media and shape the “narrative” for society to consume – irritating things like facts and contradictions just don’t really matter.

Documented Liar Pelosi Was Briefed On Enhanced Interrogations That ‘HAD BEEN EMPLOYED’

Nancy Pelosi is a demagogue, a liar, and a hypocrite.  While that has always been true, it is now a documented fact. Pelosi demonized Bush officials, literally leading the rabid dog pack out for Bush blood.  Then it was pointed out that she had been briefed on the waterboardings, as had been documented in a Washington Post article from 2002.  And why didn’t she raise a complaint then when it would have actually mattered beyond political demagoguery? Finally she was forced to admit that she had in fact received a briefing, but quibbled in a “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” manner by claiming she was told the enhanced interrogation techniques “could” be performed, not that they “would” be performed:

In a Thursday press briefing, Pelosi flatly denied that she was ever told waterboarding would be used. “My colleague [Porter Goss], the chairman of the committee, has said ‘if they say that it’s legal you have to know they are going to use them,'” she said. “Well, his experience is that he was a member of the CIA, later went on to head the CIA and maybe his experience is that if they tell you one thing they may mean something else. My experience is that they did not tell us they were using that. Flat out. And any — any contention to the contrary is simply not true.” “Pelosi said her recollection was, ‘They told us they had opinions from the [Justice Department’s] Office of Legal Counsel that they could, but not that they were’ using so-called enhanced techniques, ‘and that if and when they were used, they would brief Congress at that time,'” reported Congressional Quarterly. “She said she was never told that such techniques were actually being used.” “‘As a member of Intelligence, I thought I was being briefed. I realized that was not true when I became ranking member’ and got more information, she said,” according to CQ Politics.

Now the Demagogue of the House is even being revealed to be lying about her qualification regarding her earlier lies. A newly released official report dated September 4, 2002 by the Director of National Intelligence reveals that one Nancy Pelosi was in fact briefed by the CIA, with said briefing including (and see here for the actual memo):

“Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed.”

No “could” or “would” Nancy.  Try “had been employed.”  She was briefed on what had in fact already occurred.  And so were other Democrats, such as Jay Rockefeller.  Right from the start.  And there is no record whatsoever that they offered any objections or even had any qualms about what was going on.

Even if Pelosi’s position were accepted at face value, Pelosi is still being blatantly dishonest.  In her own acknowledgment, she was told waterboarding “could” happen.  Here’s the question: where was her outrage at what she and her party now say was such a barbaric and immoral practice?  Where are the letters expressing her moral qualms, such as Jane Harmon sent in the similar matter of destroying CIA tapes of the interrogation sessions?  She expressed none.  Legally, the failure to object is implied consent.  And here she is just a few years later helping to demonize Republicans?  And the fact is, we don’t have to accept Pelosi’s position, because we have the official record that confirms she has been lying about what she knew and when she knew it.

This represents two moralities: the post-9/11 morality, which held that the United States would go to certain lengths to protect itself from terrorist attacks; and the 2008-2009 morality, which holds that Democrats who agreed with the post-9/11 morality can now hypocritically and for sheer partisan political purposes attack Republicans for harboring a view that key Democrats themselves harbored when it served their interests to do so.

And we can add Barack Hussein and Hillary Clinton to the list of liars whose lies keep changing. Obama released the so-called “torture memos” as nothing less than a blatant partisan attempt to criminalize political differences and demonize the opposition party.  They got their pound of flesh, I presume.  But now that Obama is backing away from the show trial liberals want, it is time for conservatives to counter-attack.

Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi are the worst kind of liars, demagogues, and hypocrites.  That is now a documented reality.  As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is charged with representing her country more than her party, but from the start she has chosen to demagogue rather than perform her duty.  She should resign.  After launching their vile and despicable attack on Bush officials and Republicans, Democrats need to be held accountable for their deplorable and dishonorable political tactics.

Updated May 8, 11:30 a.m.

Waterboarded 183 Times? Mainstream Media’s ‘Big Lies’

The American Media have read their copies of Mein Kampf, underlined key passages, and put them to use in their propaganda.

Recently the media, the pundits, the late show comics, and prominent Democrats – including the Teleprompter of the United States – have repeatedly advanced the completely false charge that “90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors … come from the United States.”  It’s a complete lie.  A lie that Democrats have tried to use for political effect.

In reality, the overwhelming majority of guns confiscated from drug cartels come from foreign countries, or from Mexico itself.  Of the small percentage that had serial numbers submitted to the United States, 90% OF THOSE GUNS came from the U.S.  And those guns were legal handguns, rifles, and shotguns – NOT assault rifles [WHY would drug cartels want semi-automatic “assault weapons” from the U.S. when they could buy the full-auto real deal somewhere else?]

Now we learn about another massive lie that liberals have used to great political effect:

Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times
The number of times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded was the focus of major media attention — and highly misleading.

By Joseph Abrams
FOX NEWS
Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The New York Times reported last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was waterboarded 183 times in one month by CIA interrogators. The “183 times” was widely circulated by news outlets throughout the world.

It was shocking. And it was highly misleading. The number is a vast inflation, according to information from a U.S. official and the testimony of the terrorists themselves.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed’s face — not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of “five sessions of ill-treatment.”

“The water was poured 183 times — there were 183 pours,” the official explained, adding that “each pour was a matter of seconds.” […]

The confusion stems from language in the Justice Department legal memos that President Obama released on April 16. They contain the numbers, but they fail to explain exactly what they represent. […]

Pours, not waterboards.

A close look at a Red Cross report on the interrogations makes the numbers even clearer.

As the Red Cross noted: “The suffocation procedure was applied [to Abu Zubaydah] during five sessions of ill-treatment … in 2002. During each session, apart from one, the suffocation technique was applied once or twice; on one occasion it was applied three times.”

The total number of applications: between eight and 10 — not the 83 mentioned in the Times.

Mohammed similarly told the Red Cross that “I was also subjected to ‘water-boarding’ on five occasions, all of which occurred during the first month.” Those were his five “sessions”; the precise number of applications is not known but is a fraction of the 183 figure.

All of those individual pours were scrupulously counted by the CIA, according to the memos, to abide by the procedures set up for the waterboardings.

“[I]t is important that every application of the waterboard be thoroughly documented: how long each application (and the entire procedure) lasted, how much water was used in the process,” read a memo from May 10, 2005. […]

The media picked up this distortion and – for their own ideological purposes – ran with it rather than fact check it.  Ordinary bloggers realized that the numbers simply didn’t add up:

Bloggers who read the memos last week noted that the CIA’s math “doesn’t add up” … and they could barely even guess how the detainees could have been waterboarded an astounding 286 times in one month.

Are we seriously supposed to believe that these cynical, hardened professional journalists had absolutely no idea that something was desperately wrong with what they were reporting?

The media – and the Obama administration – deliberately perpetuated falsehoods because they wanted to convey two false “truths”: 1) the waterboarding of two terror suspects (266 times!!!) “clearly” constituted torture.  And 2) the waterboarding technique “obviously” had no effect since it had to be used so many times.

There’s something very troubling.  President Obama deliberately released confusing memos, made absolutely no effort to clarify to the American people what those memos actually meant, and then refused to provide any more information that would have put those carefully selected memos into context.  It was all a giant lie.

We come back to the FACT of the subheading of an article:  “The former head of the CIA told FOX News last year that five years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, 60 percent of the knowledge of the U.S. intelligence community about Al Qaeda came from enhanced interrogation techniques.”

In other words, the CIA under Bush learned 60% of everything they gathered on al Qaeda by basically waterboarding.  And Barack Obama has just left the US intelligence community more than half blind as a result of his naive, politically correct moralizing hypocrisy.

But the propagandists of both the Obama administration and the media didn’t want us to know this; what they wanted us to “know” was the LIE that terror suspects were waterboarded 266 times.

They want the story to be about “Who practiced torture, and who is pledging to restore American virtue?” rather than, “Who kept us safe, and who is going to place this country at terrible risk?”

Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):

“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.  These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”

Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, summarized Hitler’s “big lie” theory, saying that if a lie is repeated enough times it would become widely accepted as truth.

This is exactly what the Obama administration and the ideological leftwing mainstream media (both in the “news” and in the opinion-shaping late night programs) have repeatedly been doing.

Mark Twain famously said,

“A lie can be half-way round the world before the truth has got its boots on.”

And this story that these two suspects were repeatedly, tortuously waterboarded 266 times is now all over the world, thanks to our Liar-in-Chief and his Joseph Goebbels minions.

And Hitler said,

For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

Our professional liars – who call themselves “journalists” – understand that, and know that their lies will continue to wield impact even long after they are demonstrated to have been false all along.

Barack Obama, his Democrat lackeys, and the mainstream media, are FAR more evil in deliberately misrepresenting the truth for political partisan purposes than the Bush officials and the CIA interrogators who tried to keep this country safe after it suffered its worst attack in history.

And thus we descend into the Fascist States of America.ir