Another unpleasant Obama association

Your the one with the burden, dude. You’ve provided no substance to respond to, just bald and frankly asinine assertions. I understand you’re upset that you’re going to lose and lose big, but this is truly laughable stuff.

That’s a great reference for examining Corsi’s claims. These are different. There right there in the article. It’s not as easy as Obama…Kenya…Odinga…Corsi’s claims…debunked…all isues regarding Obama and Odinga debunked.

Sorry. Surely you would find that logic sloppy if the accusations were turned to the other side. I hope you would, anyway.

Ooh, me too! Me too!

Edited to add: Ah, he did respond, though not directly. Well, the point of the cite is that they couldn’t find evidence that Obama endorsed Odinga. Simply railing against the Kenyan government doesn’t count as endorsing a particular opposition candidate; I rail against the Bush government, that doesn’t mean I endorse Nadar.

Since I’m sure it’s just an oversight on your part, I’ll repeat the link that Choie so kindly provided. I’ll also repeat the quoted section lest ye think the cite is not applicable.

Let us know what you think.

I didn’t say he did.


That’s your whole OP! If you’re not saying that Obama endorsed Odinga, what the fuck are you saying? Or are you hanging this whole thing on the absolutely disingenuous contention that all we’re doing is assuming, for the sake of argument, that the article is accurate?

No, actually, FIRST one needs to determine whether the article is accurate or not. You cannot simply declare by fiat that we are required to assume the article is accurate. You’re skipping a LOT of steps to getting to the truth here.

Your cite is making the claim:

Looks pretty cleanly debunked to me. He met with Odinga and other figures while in Kenya. Corsi wants to stretch that into an endorsement and hopefully more. He offers no facts, merely drawing conclusions from his own opinion. What exactly is there to debate? Corsi: Partisan hack or Super Duper Partisan Hack?

Good question. I would not seek to classify it as an association if Obama, or McCain, flew to another country and in the course of the trip gave a talk from a stage and some odious character happened to be on the stage as well. But if this character was a noted bad guy and was the one holding the event, I’d say a serious question begins, and needs, to be asked.

Dude! McCain brags about being friends with Henry Kissinger. And people are reaching for momentary associations of Obama?

Anyone scary that we should be worried about these guys having ties to, is not in some other country or the Yippies or something, but in the DC establishment.

There is no OP. This is a witch hunt. Do you spend a lot of time reading to find something, anything at all that will make an anti Obama thread ? It looks desperate from here.

Considering that the McCain camp views being able to see Russia from ones porch and shaking hands with people at the U.N. to be foreign policy experience, meeting with somebody equalling forging a deep and personal bond with a person isn’t exactly a stretch of the logic.

This is fascinating, in the same way that oncology is interesting.

So, why? Why did The Obamanation back this wretched person rather than the other wretched person for nominal control of this basket case with a UN seat? Was it in support of Muslim hegemony? Some previously unknown advantage in American politics gained by association with Zimbabwe, (previously Rhodesia, currently fucked…)

I know! Corsi has proved that Obama fell for the old Zimbabwean “money order/transfer” internet scam, so he’s stupid!

Or what, exactly? There must be something more than this, no? No?

C’mon, Mag, there must something dastardly here!

What magellan01 willfully decided to ignore: Media Matters pointed to the Saint Petersburg times fact checkers:

This is a thread that demonstrates who is the one that is going lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala… if magellan01 does not pulls back only he is responsible of creating a killer of a thread: the one to point at wherever he still insists he should be trusted on being capable of verifying information.

The only thing to thank him is that he just once again demonstrated Media Matters is more on the ball that any of the right wing sources.

Is this one of those things where the OP will forever ignore whatever doesn’t fit his conclusion, and then make up the rules and terms as he goes, so as to further support his conclusion?


Been there; seen that.

Done with this.

Maybe you could get the entire list of members at his church. Then you could go through them one at a time until you find a name that is threadable. Same church ,what a strong association. Just trying to help.

But is that option better? To offer an extreme example, if you got to choose between endorsing Hitler or endorsing Castro, you endorse Castro, don’t you? There’s a reason people still vote when faced with the problem of the lesser of two evils–it is better than not voting at all.

In any case, I tend to doubt that Obama intended to endorse Odinga. I think the more plausible argument would be that he accidentally lent credibility to Odinga’s campaign. I think that would probably count as a lapse in judgment even if ethically it was the right thing to do because Presidential candidates probably shouldn’t get involved in foreign elections.

The crux of that argument seems to depend on this sentence from the Washington Times piece, “The intent of Mr. Obama’s remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans - he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga.” I would like to see something backing up that sentence before I accept the bald assertion.

I presented an article in a well-respected national paper. Now if you simply discount the article because of where it appeared, just say so and move on. Right now, we have the article in the WT and some hand-waving from you. The way I see it, if you want to play, the burden falls to you to disprove or counter what has been presented.

Look at the cite choie supplied. That does a good job of countering Corsi’s claims. These are not identical so additional work needs to be done. Feel free to jump in and do it. Granted you’ll have to stop the hand-waving long enough to type.

No, it is not.

magellan, even given that there is an association (which there really isn’t). We’re in the midst of the worst financial crisis since 1929, we’re at war in two countries (neither of them Kenya) against forces with an ideology unconnected to Odinga (or I assume you would have mentioned if Odinga was an Islamic fundamentalist).

Do you actually think anyone cares about what’s happening in Africa? Even in 1994, when nothing like that was happening, we couldn’t be arsed to care about an actual freaking genocide.

That’s what really gets me about these associations: a 1960’s radical and a bad guy in Africa? These aren’t things that anyone cares about right now.