I can’t watch the clip at the moment, so no comment about whether it is an example of lying or bad editing. But this part of your argument seems problematic. I know he strongly credits Reagan for his support, and there’s no reason to doubt that the US under Reagan played a key role in his success. But whatever he might personally and humbly say about where credit is due, he gets some of the credit, no?
I think I see the misunderstanding. You seem to be under the impression that the interviewer simply wanted to characterize the end of the cold war in a particular way, and expecting Obama to just nod. In fact, that’s not how interviews work. The interviewer asks a question, and the interviewee responds. Does that make sense?
Okay, so if you watch the video again (please, everything you need to know is contained in the video, it’s not long, please watch it) you’ll see the interviewer asked a question of Obama, which has been interpreted as a demand that Obama give more acknowledgement to the contributions of American presidents.
Now, we can do multiple choice and you just select a letter.
Do you think
A) The interviewer didn’t ask why Obama didn’t give greater weight to America’s leadership?
B) The interviewer didn’t expect a response to his statement (which was actually a question, if you watch the clip)?
C) The news clip didn’t remove any response by Obama that did give credit to American leadership?
Well, I didn’t realize you were an idiot of biblical proportions, either. So, I guess we were both in error.
You seem clueless, but let me try once more…it’s not a matter of disagreement here. Had you said that the US/Reagan had played a less pivotal role, or that the role we played was counter balanced between internal pressures happening in the Soviet Union coupled with pressures by other countries both inside and outside the Iron Curtain, then it would be a debatable point. Saying we played little or no role makes you sound like a fucking idiot.
And by posting this little gem I’m willing to go beyond ‘sounds like’ at this point and just go for broke…you are a fucking idiot who doesn’t know what s/he is talking about on this subject and should seriously consider doing some research for future reference. Just some un-friendly advice that I’m sure you won’t take. C’est la vie…you can lead a horse to water, but you really shouldn’t shoot it mid-stream while looking at it’s teeth…
Couple of things, sparky. First off, I quoted what you ACTUALLY said, and what I was responding too…it’s right in the thread, ehe? You said ‘Reagan and the US had little to no role’. Secondly, you are again missing all of the other stuff the US/Reagan did prior to the ‘tear down this wall’ speech. Yes, the Soviet Union fell for a variety of reasons…and one of the big one’s was it’s competition with the US for the previous 40 odd years to try and be the worlds number one super power. Reagan’s main effect, besides the psychological, was an increase in defense spending that, simply put, pushed the Soviet’s over the edge…they couldn’t keep up and they fell apart trying too.
I really could give a shit if you believe any of this or not. Some of it’s debatable, some of it’s pretty solid. What’s really not in question is whether or not the US played a role in bringing down the Soviet’s. The sum total of the US and Reagan’s effect on the situation was not, as you seem to be saying, a silly speech. That was only ONE thing, and a very minor one at that.
Anyway, whatever. Have fun storming the castle.
-XT
Definitely. A very large amount, by my opinion.
Obama knows who Havel is and the history of the Prague Spring and Velvet Revolution. Obama met and spoke with Vaclav Havel in the Czech Republic just three months before that interview.
The speech Havel was referring to was the one Obama had made earlier in Hradčany in Prague, where he had this to say:
Here you go (transcribed by hand, but should be accurate):
Interview clip shown on Hannity:
The interview clip not shown on Hannity:
(I’ve underlined the parts of Obama’s statement that were edited out of Hannity’s clip.)
Hannity’s clip continues, with:
Now, Hannity adds his commentary:
I can only hope that Starving Artist is defending a different video, because this is really blatant deception.
Fascinating. In an attempt to prove Obama is unpatriotic [I guess?], they accidentally proved that he’s ignorant.
It’s as though Major ‘n Sean were out shootin’ at some food, and up through the ground came a bubblin’… hmm. That’s not oil.
xtisme desperately needs a visit from the apostrophe redistribution fairy. 
My dad will sometimes accidentally call me by my brother’s name, and correct himself afterwards.
Obviously, he has no idea who I am. :dubious:
You’ll get no argument from me on that score. 
-XT
Oh, that just means you were adopted and nobody likes you. Think nothing of it.
Ahh ok, that would explain Obama’s hesitance with Walesa, too. Obama adopted him a few years back.
FTR, Walesa was eulogizing Reagan following his death that week. Of course, he would emphasize Reagan’s role in Poland’s freedom!
I"m sorry, I don’t see where the actual quote from Obama:
Makes him look ignorant…???
I especially think that the part where Obama references “in this part of the world” is relevant. In other words, when in Europe, it is diplomatically correct to acknowledge Europe’s contributions to struggling for their own freedoms.
How can this be construed in any fashion as ignorant?
I know what you mean. Just look at the way that people are eulogizing Michael Jackson. Why, if a person didn’t know better they’d think he’d written, sang and produced some excellent music.
Nope… it’s blatantly obvious now that you don’t.
So they cut it for time, no big deal there.
But Hannity then goes and does what he has a PhD in, and that is insulting the intelligence of anyone with half a brain. He tries so hard to be oh-so-wise-and-funny, and fails almost every time. If I was his agent I’d make him stick to interviews so he couldn’t go off on these asinine, childish excursions. He was much more tolerable when Holmes was around to keep him away from himself.
Sorry to nitpick, but that’s impossible.
Starving Artist is the standard for dishonesty. He sets the bar beyond which others cannot or will not go. He is the ne plus ultra of dishonesty.
Damn, you’re right. When people talk about the recently dead, they never are over-complimentary. I mean, I know that I always insult the hell out of dead people, so obviously if somebody compliments a dead person, they must have been truly super-wonderiferously awesome!
Unless of course they’re democrats - democrats are all spawns of satan and only do bad things, so when people say nice things about them, it’s because other evil democrats are mind controlling them. But republicans? They are truly always more awesome than anyone ever says about them, even their allies and best friends.