Hinderaker on Obama’s Iran deal speech
John Hinderaker has what I think is just about the best analysis and reaction to Obama’s speech yesterday to sell his Iran deal. It’s well worth reading the entire thing (and sending it out to others), but the summary line at the end tells the tale:
Barack Obama is a terrible president, but he is a worse man.
True enough, but Obama as a man would only be a problem for those around him. As a president, he has been able to do far far more damage.
And this is a good comment to the article, as well.
There have been many reactions from the right to Obama’s speech. including my rather short one here. At this point my reaction to the situation is a fairly intense combination of weariness, sorrow, and anger. If some of those things seem contradictory, so be it.
[NOTE: Another good article about the speech is this one by Rich Lowry.]
Oh btw, if you have military members as family or friends, you might want to get them some in depth security. They aren’t merely targeting military bases or recruitment centers any more.
http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-reliable-source-in-real-world.html
Don’t depend on the gov to save you or their family. In fact, being in the gov data base and spy network is probably what got them exposed to begin with.
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.
“…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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Readers!
Put on your thinking caps.
Has a President ever given such a dishonest speech in U.S. history?
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.
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.
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!
Paul in Boston:
Take a look at this on the Gulf of Tonkin:
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.
In other words, bowing to the Left one time, means you will become their slave and everything afterwards, will go as the Masters wish.