Cynacism Has Its Own Rewards

[Winstonm]

I had hoped early on in the Presidential race that Obama would truly be different. As the race went on, though, he backed away from earlier positions and moved to the center-right. I allowed myself to believe that this was simply rhetoric for election purposes and once elected he would move more center-left.

 

Turns out he is moving even more right that his rhetoric would lead one to believe.

 

As I said before, I believe that Obama had the support for a radical departure from the norm - and business as usual politics will make him a huge disappointment to his supporters.

 

Just so I can understand your position better, is it that you would rather have:

 

1) a President who doesn't think that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons

2) a President who doesn't care whether Iran gets nuclear weapons

 

3) a President who can admit it is not known and cannot be proven. And then if he acts, he admits he is acting of his presumptions and not facts.

 

4) A president who bases all his decisions on findings of the Bush intelligence team

 

So far that's all we are seeing is Cheney-Bush revisited with different actors in the leading roles - Obama-Biden. Some of us had dared hope that change meant actual policy change, not simply name changes.

[jdonn]

As the race went on, though, he backed away from earlier positions and moved to the center-right.  I allowed myself to believe that this was simply rhetoric for election purposes and once elected he would move more center-left.

 

Turns out he is moving even more right that his rhetoric would lead one to believe.

Aha, now I see what you want in a president. You are upset that he moved to center-right while he was campaigning and then didn't move back left once in office. You want a president who lies about his positions just to get elected, then changes course as soon as he wins! Oh wait, we have had that already...

[Winstonm]

In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability

 

No, I don't believe these are the same words - but they imply a similar intention.

Do you claim that "pursuit of nuclear weapons capability" doesn't imply a future development of weapons would occur?

 

How is it that the President (either Bush or Obama) - who have never set foot inside Iran - know the intentions of Iran?

 

I am saying they don't know and can't know. I would like to see them quit spouting opinion as fact.

[Winstonm]

As the race went on, though, he backed away from earlier positions and moved to the center-right.  I allowed myself to believe that this was simply rhetoric for election purposes and once elected he would move more center-left.

 

Turns out he is moving even more right that his rhetoric would lead one to believe.

Aha, now I see what you want in a president. You are upset that he moved to center-right while he was campaigning and then didn't move back left once in office. You want a president who lies about his positions just to get elected, then changes course as soon as he wins! Oh wait, we have had that already...

he moved to center-right while he was campaigning and then didn't move back left once in office

.

 

Oh, wow. A politician who has no core convictions but alters his position to gain votes based on which way the wind blows.

 

I know it is early - but so far the promise of change has turned out to be totally empty rhetoric IMO. I had hoped for better, but have only had my cynacism reinforced.

[jdonn]

In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability

No, I don't believe these are the same words - but they imply a similar intention.

Now who is stating opinion as fact?

 

Do you claim that "pursuit of nuclear weapons capability" doesn't imply a future development of weapons would occur?

Funny how you use quotation marks even though you stuck the word "nuclear" into that quote all by yourself. Anyway it implies such development could occur. Don't you agree that is worrisome?

 

How is it that the President (either Bush or Obama) - who have never set foot inside Iran - know the intentions of Iran?

Please show me where you have shown Obama claiming to know anyone's intentions.

 

I am saying they don't know and can't know.  I would like to see them quit spouting opinion as fact.

So in the last few posts you have:

- Said you believe Obama is a hypocrite

- Assumed what he is saying about Iran's intentions and stated it as fact

- Said you would like to see Obama stop spouting opinion as fact

Just clarifying what has happened here.

 

Oh, wow.  A politician who has no core convictions but alters his position to gain votes based on which way the wind blows.

I assume that is merely a sarcastic way to say "a politician who fights for what people actually want, instead of what his ideology convinces him is right." I view that as a positive rather than a negative. I'm a bit sad you don't feel the same way, although it certainly explains your cynacism.

[Winstonm]

Now who is stating opinion as fact?

 

This is getting un nowhere. I feel as though I am talking to Jimmy about morality and every word is scutinized and savaged. When the man said "development of nuclear weapons" and then corrected himself to "pursuit of weapons" to argue that the missing word "nuclear" was not the topic is as disingenuous as any literal wool-pulling ever done in the WC.

 

This is what I mean. You ask this:

 

Please show me where you have shown Obama claiming to know anyone's intentions

 

After providing your own answer with this:

 

In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability

 

President Obama saying Iran's pursuit of (nuclear) weapons clearly shows he believes he knows Iran's intentions.

 

 

I view that as a positive rather than a negative. I'm a bit sad you don't feel the same way, although it certainly explains your cynacism.

 

Truth is, Josh, I am considerably sadder than you I would think. I allowed myself to hope Obama might really bring change. Now I am simply chiding myself for falling for more political BS, repackaged.

 

You probably don't remember, but in another thread some time back I wrote that I hoped Obama would turn out to be who he proclaimed himself to be early on in the election process, but I was worried because I had seen him move progressively away from those early positions. I was especially concerned when he kept Gates and appointed Clinton. I held out a lot of hope for Eric Holder.

 

So much for that - first thing out of the box the Justice Department delivers the exact same Bush argument that state secrects prevent any litigation from even occuring.

 

So much for change.

[Lobowolf]

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

[hrothgar]

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

The optimal amount

[Lobowolf]

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

The optimal amount

Winston's Feb. '09 Obfuscation calls are well in the money.

[Winstonm]

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

You have to define nuclear capabilities - that can be a power station.

You have to dedine hostile nation - Iran has not directly threatened the U.S.

Israel, however, has nuclear weapons and has acted with aggression toward many neighboring countries. Is Israel a hostile nation?

 

We have signed treaty - The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that was signed by Iran and the U.S. That treaty grants Iran the right to produce nuclear power.

 

The better question to me is why sign a treaty if we don't follow it? When the IAEA and our own intelligence says that Iran is not actively engaged in nuclear arms production as far as they can tell, I would like to know how and from whom any opposing information was obtained that would cause the president to act.

[hrothgar]

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

The optimal amount

Winston's Feb. '09 Obfuscation calls are well in the money.

If you ask a stupid question, you're going to get a flip response...

 

(and it was indeed, a very stupid question)

[Lobowolf]

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

The optimal amount

Winston's Feb. '09 Obfuscation calls are well in the money.

If you ask a stupid question, you're going to get a flip response...

 

(and it was indeed, a very stupid question)

It seems to me to be the crux of the thread.

[Winstonm]

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

The optimal amount

Winston's Feb. '09 Obfuscation calls are well in the money.

If you ask a stupid question, you're going to get a flip response...

 

(and it was indeed, a very stupid question)

It seems to me to be the crux of the thread.

The thread didn't start with a question but a statement. If you thought the statement was stupid, that's fine. WC is about opinions.

[Lobowolf]

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

The optimal amount

Winston's Feb. '09 Obfuscation calls are well in the money.

If you ask a stupid question, you're going to get a flip response...

 

(and it was indeed, a very stupid question)

It seems to me to be the crux of the thread.

The thread didn't start with a question but a statement. If you thought the statement was stupid, that's fine. WC is about opinions.

I'm not sure if this last comment of your was directed to me or to Hrothgar, Winston.

 

Just to clarify, when I said "the crux of the thread," I didn't mean that the thread had anything to do with stupid questions; I meant that the specific question I was asking was aimed at the crux of the thread (at least its most recent posts). My questions have been serious inquiries trying to better understand your position.

[jdonn]

Now who is stating opinion as fact?

 

This is getting un nowhere. I feel as though I am talking to Jimmy about morality and every word is scutinized and savaged. When the man said "development of nuclear weapons" and then corrected himself to "pursuit of weapons" to argue that the missing word "nuclear" was not the topic is as disingenuous as any literal wool-pulling ever done in the WC.

Then you won't like this, but I would go even farther in the direction you believe is disingenuous. I think he made a specific point to remove the word 'nuclear' (it would have been easy to simply change development to capabilities without removing nuclear). So why do you credit him with it whether he says it or not? I note this from the LA Times article I referred to.

Often overlooked in the NIE, officials said, was that Iran had not stopped its work on other crucial fronts, including missile design and uranium enrichment. Many experts contend that these are more difficult than building a bomb.

So the concern is indeed more widespread than you might think.

 

Anyway I know how you feel (I have had discussions with Jimmy too you know). It must be frustrating to be called hypocritical and have every word parsed when you are just trying to express general feelings, and anyone might occasionally state something meant as opinion even though they don't say "I think" first. And of course I did that on purpose, because that's exactly what you criticize Obama for, and then do you do it yourself in your criticism! It would be like saying "don't f***ing swear!".

 

I find it amusing when you say things are "getting nowhere". Um, I was sort of hoping I was out of this thread. And then you not only posted more internet paranoia, you posted it specifically directed toward me! Were you hoping that doing so would get us somewhere (whatever that means)?

 

This is what I mean.   You ask this:

 

Please show me where you have shown Obama claiming to know anyone's intentions

 

After providing your own answer with this:

 

In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability

 

President Obama saying Iran's pursuit of (nuclear) weapons clearly shows he believes he knows Iran's intentions.

You are doing it again. What is clear to you is definitely not clear to me. And I'm not saying that to be picky, I don't know why you just jump to the conclusion.

 

I view that as a positive rather than a negative. I'm a bit sad you don't feel the same way, although it certainly explains your cynacism.

 

Truth is, Josh, I am considerably sadder than you I would think. I allowed myself to hope Obama might really bring change. Now I am simply chiding myself for falling for more political BS, repackaged.

I would hardly say you fell for it, you seemed quite sceptical even back then. I would say you might want to give things a little more of a chance. If your only criterion for "change" is either that every individual policy must change, or that you can't find multiple bloggers who don't like Obama, then I could have told you a long time ago you would be disappointed.

[luke warm]

Often overlooked in the NIE, officials said, was that Iran had not stopped its work on other crucial fronts, including missile design and uranium enrichment. Many experts contend that these are more difficult than building a bomb.

So the concern is indeed more widespread than you might think.

 

Anyway I know how you feel (I have had discussions with Jimmy too you know).

and you're a better man for it too, josh :)