Obama hosts a ‘Muslim summit’? Oh my!

I don’t know if Obama will be able to put this together; at this point the plans seem a little vague. But it’s a good idea, and it would really drive certain folks over the brink:

From the Washington Times:

“Obama, who will travel to Egypt next month to give a major speech to the Muslim world, told Wolffe he wants to convene a “Muslim summit.”

“If I had a Muslim summit, I think that I can speak credibly to them about the fact that I respect their culture,” Obama said, “that I understand their religion, that I have lived in a Muslim country, and as a consequence I know it is possible to reconcile Islam with modernity and respect for human rights and a rejection of violence. And I think I can speak with added credibility.”

208 comments Add your comment

Mrs. Godzilla

May 22nd, 2009
12:25 pm

Great Idea.

However, it will make some heads explode.

(following shortly……)

Copyleft

May 22nd, 2009
12:30 pm

You can bet the tinfoil-hat crowd will be screeching about this one.

But then, common sense always makes them nervous.

Kamchak

May 22nd, 2009
12:33 pm

“However, it will make some heads explode.”

You mean it isn’t happening already on an hourly basis?

pat

May 22nd, 2009
12:36 pm

What an idiot.
God bless him on his futile mission.

Taxpayer

May 22nd, 2009
12:36 pm

This sounds like a great idea. I would love to see Cheney’s (and others like him) veins bulging right now. hehehe

Mrs. Godzilla

May 22nd, 2009
12:40 pm

Kamchak

You are correct, oh wise one!

Funny that people who say the most “idiotic” things, seem so afraid
of constructive dialogue.

Northern Songs Ltd

May 22nd, 2009
12:48 pm

BLAM!!!! That was my head exploding. Now back to our regularly scheduled idiot-fest.

Obozo

May 22nd, 2009
12:48 pm

Hey, which one of you ragheads do I surrender to?

Allah Akbar!

Yes we can!

Kamchak

May 22nd, 2009
12:51 pm

Mrs. Godzilla

Reactionaries, by definition, are afraid of anything that challenges/changes their ideology.

Mr. Snarky

May 22nd, 2009
12:53 pm

Should be some good middle eastern food at this thing. How do I get a ticket?
Let the right wing extremists harp away…everyone ignores them anyway, so let them revel in their irrelevance.

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
12:53 pm

A Muslim summit? WTF? I know his intentions are good and the idea is good, but do we have to call it that?

What if the President of Egypt decided to hold a “Christian summit.” We’d all be like “Who the hell are you?”

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
12:57 pm

Why not just call it “The US Doesn’t Understand Your Customs/Culture and We are Really Really Trying to Do So, So You’ll Quit Blowing Things Up and Then We Can Start Thinking Of You People As Relevant to Humanity and Then We Can all Start Getting Along Summit?”

Mr. Snarky

May 22nd, 2009
12:59 pm

I know that moderate, responsible muslim leaders have trouble getting their voices heard with all the focus being on the jihadi fringe. Hopefully this would give them a chance to be heard.

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
1:01 pm

BTW, Just so you know, that’s not what I think of our Muslim brothers and sisters, but if I were a Muslim in Egypt and had read that article, that’s what I’d think it meant.

Redneck Convert

May 22nd, 2009
1:01 pm

Well, seems to me he ought to preach a good sermon to the ragheads and give a call to the altar for them so they can be good Christians that get along with everybody–on Sunday at least. My buddy Jim Earl says they’re already halfway there. They don’t drink on Sunday or any other day but we could teach them about having a PBR or two or three on the other days of the week. If he can’t do it then I know the Rev. Jim Bob Buice is looking for something to do and could go along on the trip.

But no, I reckon our Muslim President got to get together with other Muslims and see how much it would cost to surrender to them. I know what I would give them all if I was the President–a good grenade up the tailpipe of every one of them.

Have a good p.m. everybody.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 22nd, 2009
1:02 pm

Bosch @ 12.53, fair point, but–and at the risk of being just pedantic as all get-out–I am pretty sure that “if I had a Muslim summit” is not equal to “I want to convene a Muslim summit.”

(But then this is FoxNews’ review of an as-yet-unpublished book, and I’m also sure they wouldn’t deliberately hype something that the rest of us aren’t able to verify for ourselves because they’re known for being scrupulously fair to the current Administration.)

Class of '98

May 22nd, 2009
1:02 pm

I don’t know about heads, but I fully expect to see a few airplanes, subways and buildings explode during Hussein’s tenure.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 22nd, 2009
1:04 pm

From the Wiki:

Bill Sammon is Fox News Washington Managing Editor and a Vice President for the network. He’s the author of four New York Times bestsellers: At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election; Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House; Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias and the Bush Haters; and Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media.

So I’m sure he doesn’t have any ax to grind or anything.

Hillbilly Deluxe

May 22nd, 2009
1:04 pm

I’ve known a lot of people in Forsyth County named Buice but not one named Rev. Jim Bob.

Joey

May 22nd, 2009
1:06 pm

I hope Obama is successful in convening summit of Muslim leaders.

It will certainly be a real eye-opener for many of us. And a confirmation for many others of us. Those of us who trust that Muslim leaders mean exactly what they say when they say when they speak of Jihad. When Islam leaders speak of the destiny they will bring to non-believers. Including different Sects of their own Islam.

Failure to pull it together could be a similar but lesser education.

Scooter

May 22nd, 2009
1:07 pm

Obozo@12:48 You need to be more respectful of muslims. They are not ragheads. Their hats are made of sheets. The politicly correct term is sheethead. Let us hope that Obama gets the results he is looking for!

mike

May 22nd, 2009
1:08 pm

Jay –

“But it’s a good idea, and it would really drive certain folks over the brink.”

It is comments like this that makes one think that your mission in life is to comment on “certain folks” and that you come from the other camp of “certain folks”. Can you put the partisanship on hold for a day or two and just comment on things without criticizing “them”?

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
1:09 pm

DB,

I had to look up the word “pendantic.”

Yes, considering the source, it does look like cherry pickens galore, which is pretty normal wingnut behavior, and it would be nice to see the entire quote/speech.

I’ll do a googly search and see what I can find.

mike

May 22nd, 2009
1:10 pm

Kamchak –

“Reactionaries, by definition, are afraid of anything that challenges/changes their ideology.”

Serious question: do you really think that you are any more accepting of anything that challenges/changes your ideology?

demwit

May 22nd, 2009
1:11 pm

Hey I once lived in China, when I was 5, therefore as a consequence I know it is possible to reconcile Buddism with modernity and respect for human rights and a rejection of violence. And I think I can speak with added credibility.

Kamchak

May 22nd, 2009
1:11 pm

The UDCUYC/CWRRTDSSYQBTUTWCSTOYPARHTWCSGAS Summit? I’ll try Bosch, but it’s kinda ungainly.

Joey

May 22nd, 2009
1:12 pm

And Radicals embrace change for the sake of change.

Kamchak

May 22nd, 2009
1:12 pm

demwit

May 22nd, 2009
1:13 pm

Oh wait.., didn’t those 19 highjackers from 9/11 live in a Christian country for awhile? And didn’t they also think that they could speak with added credibility??

mike

May 22nd, 2009
1:13 pm

Bosch:

Serious question: do you really think that conservative partisans are more prone to cherry picking of facts than are liberal partisans? Do you really believe that the difference between liberals and conservatives goes beyond policy positions and extends to intellectual rigor?

pat

May 22nd, 2009
1:17 pm

I wonder how many times he’ll apologize on America’s behalf?

After all, it was American poicies that drove these people to want to kill us in cold blood. In case you didn’t know it these radicals have no control over their own behavior, they simply just react with out any kind of postulation at all. Really, they cannot choose! We are in control of their behaviour, not them. That’s how Bush took down the towers…he made them do it. They had no choice!

demwit

May 22nd, 2009
1:21 pm

Come to think of it, I’ve lived on 5 different continents. Therefore, as a consequence, surely I can speak with added credibility on anything!!

Mrs. Godzilla

May 22nd, 2009
1:22 pm

pat

I would hope President Obama apologizes for America whenever it’s necessary.

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
1:27 pm

Mike,

I said “wingnut” not “conservative partisan” – there’s a difference, and yes, I do consider Fox News to be one of the wingnuttiest around.

Kamchak,

Yeah, I guess that’s no good – the bumper stickers would be a pain to understand.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 22nd, 2009
1:27 pm

pat, setting your hyperbole @ 1.17 aside, I have to ask: do you really have a problem with what Obama said in this speech?

Specifically–since I guess this is what you mean by “apologize” — this?

It’s always harder to forge true partnerships and sturdy alliances than to act alone, or to wait for the action of somebody else. It’s more difficult to break down walls of division than to simply allow our differences to build and our resentments to fester. So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we’ve allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there’s something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.

On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.

You find this irresponsible, do you? Seriously?

Mr. Snarky

May 22nd, 2009
1:32 pm

“but I fully expect to see a few airplanes, subways and buildings explode during Hussein’s tenure.”

Good thing that didn’t happen during Bush’s tenure…oh wait, it did.
Never mind.

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
1:34 pm

Class of ‘98,

“I don’t know about heads, but I fully expect to see a few airplanes, subways and buildings explode during Hussein’s tenure.”

Kinda like the last administration? Why does the right wing always tend to forget who was President on 9.10.01?

I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(

May 22nd, 2009
1:35 pm

But it’s a good idea, and it would really drive certain folks over the brink:

Nice choice of words bookman, I wonder how many people were “driven over the brink” when the Muslims held their little summit at the World Trade Centers?

And as far as my “head exploding,” what else did you libs think we should have expected from Obozo, after all, he is a Muslim and a dimwit too, just like those psychotics planting fake bombs that the police gave them, remember the good snicker you had this morning AJC? These Muslim people are just morons and harmless too, right?

And like they say, birds of a feather flock together, so off flies our little tard to be with his.

mike

May 22nd, 2009
1:37 pm

Bosch-

“I said “wingnut” not “conservative partisan” – there’s a difference, and yes, I do consider Fox News to be one of the wingnuttiest around.”

Hmmm. Well, since your definition of wingnut seems to only include conservatives, do you think that wingnuts are any more likely to cherry pick facts than are the liberal version of wingnuts? Do you consider MSNBC to be any more reliable than Fox?

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
1:38 pm

Mr. Snarky,

I guess we are on the same wavelegnth ;)

mike

May 22nd, 2009
1:39 pm

jewcowboy –

“Kinda like the last administration? Why does the right wing always tend to forget who was President on 9.10.01?”

Fair enough, but as Bush’s critics demonstrated after 9/11, they also would have criticized him if he had taken action on vague threats. There was certainly far more intelligence that Iraq had WMD then there was intelligence about 9/11.

Kamchak

May 22nd, 2009
1:40 pm

mike

Serious question: Do you think you could ever post here without using “ad-hominem attack” or it’s definition?

Doggone/GA

May 22nd, 2009
1:41 pm

“since your definition of wingnut seems to only include conservatives”

All wingnuts are conservatives. Not all conservatives are wingnuts. Thank God!

Gandalf, the White! (!)

May 22nd, 2009
1:43 pm

Get ‘em all together and call in an airstrike! Best idea Barry has had since taking office.

Copyleft: You’re a dumbass!

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
1:46 pm

mike,
mike,

“Do you consider MSNBC to be any more reliable than Fox?”

Fox News does have a record of sloppy reporting, such as misidentifying party affiliations. Identifying McCain as a Democrat, Sheldon Whitehouse as a Republican, and Mark Foley as a Democrat. Whether intentional or by mistake, it’s odd that this continues to happen, and makes one question the accuracy of their reporting.

Gandalf, the White! (!)

May 22nd, 2009
1:47 pm

A great Islamic leader like Barry Hussien Nobama should hold this summit! I have been telling you all along he’s a towelhead! Now we have proof from none other than the soon to be un-employed Jay “the assclown” Bookman! See he is good for something! Towelheads in AMERICA!

mike

May 22nd, 2009
1:47 pm

Kamchak –

“Serious question: Do you think you could ever post here without using “ad-hominem attack” or it’s definition?”

It’s got nothing to do with ad-hominem attacks, attacks. It has to do with your hypocrisy. When folks like yourself make the claim that those whose don’t share your views exhibit behavior that yoou yourself engage in, it makes you look like a hypocrite.

I answered your question. Care to answer mine?

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
1:49 pm

mike,

“There was certainly far more intelligence that Iraq had WMD then there was intelligence about 9/11.”

I’ll grant that up to a point. There was quite a bit of information that could have prevented 9/11 that intelligence agency’s had, but they did not share it with each other.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 22nd, 2009
1:49 pm

I had to look up the word “pendantic.”

One who appreciates necklaces?

sane jane

May 22nd, 2009
1:49 pm

Pat, if some Muslim army gained a foothold in, say, Savannah… and insisted on keeping an ongoing presence there (here)… don’t you think Americans might be compelled to pick up arms and fight?

I’m not suggesting people aren’t responsible for their own actions, but I am willing to acknowledge the reasons they fight. It’s not the only reason, but that right there is a big one. We’re not actually entitled to the entire world. (we just behave like it)

caz1158

May 22nd, 2009
1:50 pm

Bosch-I agree,why does it have to be called a “muslim summit”. And are there going to other leaders? Or just Obama and ones from the middle east? This will certainly cause screams & yells here.Whatever happen to bridging the gaps here in the U.S.? Seems like alot of the same to me,just different party.

mike

May 22nd, 2009
1:52 pm

jewcowboy –

I’m not making any defense of FoxNews. I think they are a joke. I just want to know if any of Fox’s critics really think that MSNBC is any better. Do you?

Personally, I think they are two sides of the same coin.MSNBC is just as sloppy and I can use a liberal blog to demonstrate an example:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200811040014

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
1:52 pm

mike,

I don’t believe I’ve ever given “Bosch’s definition of Wingnuts” here on the blog, so how would you gather to KNOW what my definition of a wingnut is? Just curious. Nor, have I given “Bosch’s definition of a Moonbat” here on the blog either.

I consider conservative partisans people like Bill Bennet, David Brooks, Mary Maitlin, and Ed Rollins.

I consider wingnuts people like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh.

I consider liberal partisans people like Jay Bookman, Paul Begala, and James Carville.

I consider moonbats people like Keith Olbermann, Al Franken (prior to winning the election-I’m sure he’ll have his world rocked when he actually becomes a seated Senator), and several others I’ve seen but don’t know their name.

I have never once in my life watched MSNBC (because I don’t get it where I live) nor have I clicked onto their website, but I’m sure they cherry pick as well. I’m not disputing that. I’ve seen Fox do it several times as I have watched that station and read some of their news stories.

Your putting alot into trying to “get me” with my “typical wingnut behavior” blip – seriously, it’s not worth it.

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
1:53 pm

“I have been telling you all along he’s a towelhead!”

People who use the word “towelhead,” demonstrate their complete lack of understanding of the world at large. Jesus cries when he sees hatred and intolerance.

mike

May 22nd, 2009
1:53 pm

jwecowboy –

“I’ll grant that up to a point. There was quite a bit of information that could have prevented 9/11 that intelligence agency’s had, but they did not share it with each other.”

Agreed and it appears that there was too much group think involved in the Iraq intel.

ty webb

May 22nd, 2009
1:57 pm

These “certain folks” pushed over the brink just may be the ones Obama is trying to “modernize”. I think the “Peaceful” religion of Islam might take offense to any American trying to modernize them, getting them to respect human rights, and persuading them to reject violence.

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
1:57 pm

DB,

I appreciate necklaces too – but on other people, not me!

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
1:58 pm

mike,

“Do you?”

Quite frankly I do not watch any television news, because the average story is constructed for someone with a 20 second attention span who has no desire to find out the entire story. The rest of the time it is talking heads portraying opinion as fact.

I tend to lump all television news into the same category as the Real Housewives; reality programming. Fox News just tends to have the most glaring errors and omissions.

sane jane

May 22nd, 2009
1:58 pm

Mike, I watch MSNBC fairly regularly and would even take it a step farther. Not only are they and Fox “two sides of the same coin”, I would go so far as to say that MSNBC was specifically created to offset the wingnut spin of Fox News.

As if your spinning left and my spinning right would somehow cause both of us to even out. More likely is that we’d both wind up dizzy. (which, I’m pretty sure, is exactly how the corporate funders of elected Ds and Rs everywhere want it…)

mike

May 22nd, 2009
2:00 pm

Bosch –

Well, considering that all of the people you deemed “wingnuts” are conservatives, so I don’t think my statement that “your definition of wingnut seems to only include conservatives” is incorrect, particularly considering that I said “seems”.

So, as you have demonstrated your definition of wingnut includes only conservatives. What is the harm in me asking if you think the liberal version of wingnuts (moonbats) are as likely to cherry pick facts as are the said wingnuts?

Now that we have terminology straight: are wingnuts any more likely to cherry-pick facts than are moonbats?

Taxpayer

May 22nd, 2009
2:01 pm

And, the world would be just perfect now if only whom had won the election. Let me guess…Huckabee. hehehe. Nope. That’s not who the 20 percenters picked, is it? They voted for McCain. Riiiiight. Now, what exactly would be different if he had been elected. Hmmmmm. Now would be a good time for a tune. What tune did McCain sing that to…Beach Boys, I think. Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran. Such a display of intellect from that one. A result of one too many water boardings, perhaps. How else would one explain his selection of Phil Gramm as his economic advisor. And, to think that some believe that things could not be any worse.

TUESDAY VANDY GIRL

May 22nd, 2009
2:01 pm

MOHAMMED , the muslims #1 poobah, was a pedophile. The height of their culture is the throwing of shoes, and they hate dogs…

It was said best in Syriana..”75 years ago you(arab muslims) were squatting in the desert, burning camel dung, and cutting each others heads off..and when the oils gone thats right back where you will be”

Kamchak

May 22nd, 2009
2:02 pm

mike @1:08

“It is comments like this that make one think that your mission is to comment on ‘certain folks’ and that you come from the other camp of ‘certain folks.’ Can you put the partisanship on hold for a day or two and just comment on things without criticizing ‘them’.”

From your very first post on this thread you played the ad-hominem attack card. BTW, I answered your question at 1:12.

sane jane

May 22nd, 2009
2:02 pm

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Ty may have a point. I’m pretty quick to bash Christian hypocrites, but murdering women who have been raped (for bringing “dishonor” to the family – often at the hands of her own brothers and father) makes “superficial Christians” and “faith braggarts” seem fairly small-time by comparison.

mike

May 22nd, 2009
2:03 pm

sane jane –

Your sobriquet is apt :)

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
2:05 pm

mike

May 22nd, 2009
2:06 pm

Kamchak –

Sorry I missed your answer. I find it amusing that you really think that you are more receptive to ideas contrary to your ideological beliefs than “reactionaries”. Your comments are always hyper-partisan in nature and revolves around demonizing anyone who doesn’t share your narrow views.

You also don’t seem to know what ad-hominem means.

TUESDAY VANDY GIRL

May 22nd, 2009
2:07 pm

the AJC should sponsor a “PHOTOSHOP the prophet MOHAMMED (POS) AND THIS CAMEL” contest..the vast majority of muslims, the peacefull muslim majority Jay BookMAN and Hussein Obama speak of, they love that kind of thing..ask the Dutch

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
2:09 pm

mike,

“it appears that there was too much group think involved in the Iraq intel.”

I would certainly agree with that. That is a trap every administration can fall prey to. Bush’s Achilles heel was that he surrounded himself with “yes” men, who spoon fed him what they thought he wanted to hear, and what seemed to be an incredible lack of curiosity. Maybe that comes with misplaced faith in your staff, or maybe from laziness. Perhaps a mixture of both.

I would hope Obama has learned from that. If a Presidential Blackberry can keep group think from happening, by all means make sure he has one.

mike

May 22nd, 2009
2:10 pm

Bosch –

Thanks for the answer. I’m not surprised that you think that Olbermann is more honest than Hannity, but conservative partisans are equally convinced of the contrary. The more partisan one is, the more likely they are to believe that pundits who don’t share their views are dishonest than the pundits who do. It is partisan behavior 101.

This is why I love liberals like sane jane. She comes from a different ideological perspective than mine, but she is not drawn into the unthinking partisan vortex.

Taxpayer

May 22nd, 2009
2:11 pm

Give us a link to some of your art work, Tuesday Girl. Entertain us, won’t you.

I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(

May 22nd, 2009
2:12 pm

“There’s something tragic about him, too,” (Joe) Klein, Time Ragazine said, referring to Krauthammer’s confinement to a wheelchair, the result of a diving accident during his first year of medical school. “His work would have a lot more nuance if he were able to see the situations he’s writing about.”-Politico

Coming from someone who has to pull his head out of Obozo’s butt so he can take a breath.

sane jane

May 22nd, 2009
2:12 pm

Mike, pardon me for barging into your and Bosch’s convsation, but I think the very definitions of moonbat and wingnut require a certain commitment to the cherrypicking of facts. (They’re already convinced of something so they selectively choose the evidence that supports their beliefs) So I would say they’re both pretty equal in that regard.

I find the world complex, confusing and contradictory. The CIA *does* lie to Congress. Pelosi DOES shriek and “step in it” on a fairly routine basis. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are both past their “sell by” date. Dick Cheney is almost certainly a war criminal.

There it is, in all its messy, grey glory.

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
2:15 pm

mike,

You have no sense of humor. Of course I think partisans on both sides of the aisle cherry pick. Good lord. Like I mentioned, you are putting too much into this, and I for one, am probably the only blogger on this site to claim I’ve been a hypocrite. We’re all hypocritical too at some point. It doesn’t bother me to make a wingnut crack on the blog, it’s what we do. I’ll do it again, probally real soon!!!

mike

May 22nd, 2009
2:16 pm

jewcowboy –

I disagree with your analysis. Intelligence agencies around the world believed Saddam had WMD, as did the Clinton admin and many prominent Democrats. Let’s not forget that Colin Powell had his own staff sift through the intelligence before his UN speech and came to the same conclusion. Even Saddam’s own generals thought he had WMD, so I don’t think the fact that Bush came to the same conclusion was based on surrounding himself with yes men.

The difference is that Bush acted on the intelligence, which turned out to be wrong. I’m totally willing to accept the fact that Bush was surrounded by yes men who downplayed the risks and challenges of an invasion.

jasper

May 22nd, 2009
2:16 pm

Wait a minute, he thinks that his time in the madrassa in Indonesia gives him street cred, and insight for believing that muslimity can reconcile with modernity. Is 2005 modern enough for you, 202 dead in the Bali bombings. And this right off the heals of stating that Gitmo created more terrorists than it detained. Show me anywhere that any muslim culture has rejected violence, and I will show you that same location celebrating 9/11. Or perhaps modernity only applies to the after-Bush era. Ah, the new and improved muslims.

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
2:16 pm

You can barge in my conversation any time sane jane! :-)

sane jane

May 22nd, 2009
2:17 pm

Admit it mike, you love me for my sweet hookups. (right back atcha, slick)

Bosch likes me ’cause I blow my bong hits in his direction. ;-)

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

May 22nd, 2009
2:19 pm

And whilst Chocolate Blunder muses, “And I think I can speak with added credibility”, many of us chortle safe in the knowledge that President Ob-amatuer does not speak with credibility in his home country.

Flip-flop; flip-flop; flip-flop – the first 120 days of Ob-amateur hour shows that President Bush knew best. How many times can Dick Cheney take Ob-amateur to the woodshed before the administyration understands how stupid it looks whenever Chocolate Blunder or his VP, Neverending Blunder, open their pie holes.

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
2:19 pm

sane jane,

Ssshhhh.

And we’re members of the same cult.

mike

May 22nd, 2009
2:21 pm

Bosch –

“You have no sense of humor.”

So it is my fault that I didn’t see the innate humor in your one-word response to my question? Keep in mind that Kamchak gave me the same answer at 1:12 and was serious.

Help me understand what the point of calling out “wingnuts” when you know that “moonbats” behave in the same way? Why not just call them both mindless partisans and be consistent?

sane jane

May 22nd, 2009
2:21 pm

Did anybody else read NJ’s (admittedly lengthy) piece on the Nuremberg Conventions? I myself have shrieked “Dick Cheney may be a war criminal!” (as recently as five seconds ago!) but I’m not sure I’m OK with some other signatory country bringing him up on charges and possibly executing him.

(Does that mean I’m a wingnut now? Have I just practiced American Exceptionalism?)

Kamchak

May 22nd, 2009
2:22 pm

ad hominem: appealing to one’s prejudices rather than to reason, as by attacking one’s opponent rather than debating the issue.

This is exactly what you accused our host of at 1:08. I also note that you have avoided answering my question: Do you think you could ever post here without using “ad-hominem attack” or it’s definition?

mike

May 22nd, 2009
2:22 pm

sane jane –

Ahh, if only I could be the one downwind :)

sane jane

May 22nd, 2009
2:24 pm

Bosch I can’t believe I left out our Anglican connection – shame on me!

Have you ever been to Honey Creek or Happening? I miss Georgia (sniff sniff).

sane jane

May 22nd, 2009
2:25 pm

Always room for one more in the drum circle, Mike.

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
2:26 pm

mike,

Dude, you can humor or not find it whatever ya’ want! :-)

“Why not just call them both mindless partisans and be consistent?”

I’ll call them what I want! You ain’t the boss of me!

I like moonbats better than wingnuts, they’re more fun.

mike

May 22nd, 2009
2:26 pm

Kamchak –

“ad hominem: appealing to one’s prejudices rather than to reason, as by attacking one’s opponent rather than debating the issue”

Hey you can use Google!:

“Words that make a difference and how to use them in a masterly way – Google Books Result
by Robert Greenman – 2000 – Language Arts & Disciplines – 445 pages
… ad hominem (ad HAH mi nem) appealing to one’s prejudices rather than to reason, as by attacking one’s opponent rather than debating the issue: Latin, …”

I guess the fact that you had to look it up only proves my point that you didn’t know what it meant.

“Do you think you could ever post here without using “ad-hominem attack” or it’s definition?”

I did several times while you were googling definitions of terms that you already used. See above before you launch into your next ad-hominem attack.

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
2:26 pm

mike @ 2.16,

“so I don’t think the fact that Bush came to the same conclusion was based on surrounding himself with yes men.”

Perhaps ignoring the IAEA on the issue of yellow-cake uranium for Cheney’s cherry-picked CIA facts could be misconstrued as not listening to “yes” men since many have argued Cheney was running the build up to the Iraq War.

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
2:26 pm

sane jane,

Camp Mikell is one of my favorite places on Earth.

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
2:27 pm

sane jane,

“There it is, in all its messy, grey glory.”

I thought it was purple.

sane jane

May 22nd, 2009
2:28 pm

Although in my stoner clique, swap out “dirty hippie” for “preppy/yuppie” and you will have found my people.

mike

May 22nd, 2009
2:28 pm

Bosch –

Fair enough. You do understand that most of the mindless partisans here really think that their side actually has an intellectual or moral high ground over the other.

As for the humor, I was simply pointing out that it doesn’t take a lack of a sense of humor to not see the humor in “yes”.

Kamchak

May 22nd, 2009
2:29 pm

mike

Nope–wrong again Websters New World Dictionary second college edition hardcover.

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
2:31 pm

mike,

“As for the humor, I was simply pointing out that it doesn’t take a lack of a sense of humor to not see the humor in “yes”.”

Things are lost sometimes in the translation from mind to fingers.

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
2:31 pm

jewcowboy,

NO! The MONKEYS are purple.

mike,

“the mindless partisans here really think that their side actually has an intellectual or moral high ground over the other”

Uh, yeah, gee, I’ve kind of noticed.

And as I said, you can find humor or not, anywhere you want. It’s your world.

sane jane

May 22nd, 2009
2:31 pm

jewcowboy, I quote the Waco Kid when I say “Boy, is heeeee strict!”

(can anybody Name That Movie without googling?)

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
2:33 pm

“NO! The MONKEYS are purple.”

Not the purple monkeys! Their bright red bottoms are distracting.

mike

May 22nd, 2009
2:33 pm

jewcowboy –

“Perhaps ignoring the IAEA on the issue of yellow-cake uranium for Cheney’s cherry-picked CIA facts could be misconstrued as not listening to “yes” men since many have argued Cheney was running the build up to the Iraq War.”

Oh please. Do you really think that one piece of intelligence was the deciding factor? Is that what made Colin Powell believe that Saddam had WMD? Is that what made his generals believe the same? Is that what made both Clinton’s and a whole bunch of Democrats claim that he did?

Besides, FactCheck.org gves several reasons why Bush believed what he did about the issue, and none of them involved evil old Cheney:

‘The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”

A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.

Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA’s conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.”

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

sane jane

May 22nd, 2009
2:33 pm

Bosch – Kanuga? (right here in my adopted state of NC)

Funny, it’s the SCENT of Kanuga that I remember so crisply. Not the cabins or the mountain setting… that earthy, clean, sweet scent I will never forget.