Obama Stories. Updated 10/20/12

I waited for more than a day from the second 2012 presidential debate to write on it. That’s one way to resist the temptation to tell you who “won,” or whether it will make a difference in the race. I would be hard put to do the latter anyway because I believe that most people vote on the basis of small perceptions or of small facts that they would be hard put to identify. Some time ago, a young woman I know a little and like said she was for Obama because the President was “pro-woman.” She couldn’t say why she thought so. (“My Obamist Friends….” posted 9/7/12) There is no bragging in this observation. I think I may be only a little more analytical myself despite years of trying.

I wonder why so many people forbid themselves the full use of their intuition. Are they unaware of its existence? Or is it “unscientific” to do so? (The French have a good word for the narrow rationalism associated with a superficial interpretation of the concept of science; they call it: “scientisme.” It rhymes with “socialisme.” ) Let me help your intuition:

Does anyone really believe that a moderator, a fully grown woman, who goes by the name of “Candy” and who is not a hooker, will be impartial between a liberal and a conservative?

The President delivered himself of a fair number of untruths during the second debate. Nevertheless, I persist in not calling him a liar. His attitude toward reality is the same as that of nearly (nearly) all liberals I know: They create a narrative, a coherent narrative, and then they derive, extract imaginary pseudo-facts from it. On of the enduring traits of liberals is that they are uncomfortable with ambiguity, along with children, and elementary school teachers; with them, story coherence counts for more than adherence to empirical reality. This is not the same as consciously lying.

The reason I don’t believe Pres. Obama lies is that so many of his untruths are about simple, easily verifiable assertions. He tells fibs for which he will unavoidably get caught. Two stand in my mind from the debate, one small, the other big.

The President briefly described the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law as permitting any law enforcement officer to stop anyone based on his looks to check his immigration status.

In fact, the statute explicitly forbids them from doing so. It requires that officers check the immigration status of those they stop for other reasons.

Why would the President make that particular mistake? Because the Arizona governor is a Republican. Republicans are racist; they engage in racial profiling.Liberals’ minds create werewolves and then, they accuse conservatives of being them, the werewolves. There would be werewolves no matter what conservatives did or say.

The President asserted against Gov. Romney that the day after the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya, he had declared that the cause was terrorism. He did no such thing although he did use the word “terrorism” in the Rose Garden speech of reference. Of course, if he had meant to imply that terrorism rather than a spontaneous demonstration gone wrong was the cause, we would expect that his employees – of all people – would have understood his message. His rep. to the UN, – like me – understood that he was serious when he blamed a stupid anti-Muslim video. She said so over and over in the talk shows. And, by the way, he did not fire her for it (until now).

It’s obvious that he was going to get caught for this untruth (In spite of Candy’s “fact checking,” “fact shaking”?) He is not a stupid man. He committed this untruth because Barack’s image reigns sovereign in Barack’s mind. It’s not just personal grandiosity; it’s a common liberal conceit; “We are humane, we are generous, we are compassionate but we are tough when we need to be.” Barack is tough on terrorism in Barack’s mind. He did kill Bin Laden, after all, didn’t he?

I wouldn’t swear that Romney did not state anything contrary to fact. If you find one instance though, it will be about something fairly complicated in which anyone could get confused, especially in the heat of a debate. Complexity either is a cause of confusion or it gives moral cover to misstatements. Republicans tend to be nice but stern types. They don’t have much of a narrative from which to extract facts. They are kind of limited that way.

The debate showed that face to face with someone who has some ideas about what to do next, President Obama is voiceless. It’s not that he dos not have a “plan.” He just does not know what to do at all. The liberal narrative does not supply any project names or many Plans B for the general state of the economy. The president’s earlier intent to create a green economy failed to materialize. It put eggs on his face instead. Like a stubborn little boy, he has little to say beyond asserting that next time, he will really, really do it.

Curiously, I don’t dislike the man. I think it’s because of the little boy quality about him, precisely.

I noticed with sadness that neither candidate during his whole campaign did anything to undermine the nested myths of the golden age of American manufacturing and of the evil, cheating China. More on this later if I have the courage.

Update on Benghazi 10/20/12 : From James Rosen: “The Three Benghazi Timelines We Need Answers About,” Wall Street Journal 20-21 /10/12:

“Today, the issue is not so much the withholding of information as the denial of the obvious: The stubborn insistence by top Obama administration officials on an interpretation of events starkly at odds with the plainly correct conclusion of terrorism.”

And: “Not until his afternoon appearance on ‘The View’ on September 25 – the ‘two weeks’ of delay that Mr Romney alluded to in the debate – did the president offer Americans an explanation of Benghazi that made no reference to a protest over a video.”

I had stated myself on October 14th, three days after the assassinations:

“More silly waste of time among our hapless pundits: Was the attack in Benghazi planned? You bet! Even in Libya, people don’t go to a peaceful demonstration of protest carrying automatic rifles and grenade launchers. The day was 9/11, the right time to strike the imagination of the undecided, perhaps the right time in their reading of us to strike fear in Americans again. The indignation about the blasphemous movie trailer provided excellent cover. The terrorists got lucky this time. (They have not had much luck in the past nine years, let’s face it.)”

How could my,the guess of a little retired professor living in California be better than the guess of the president, the State Department, the whole White House all rolled in one? Beggars the imagination, don’t it?


About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Obama Stories. Updated 10/20/12

  1. Terry Amburgey says:

    Please consider changing the name of your blog to Facts Don’t Matter.

    “THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

    Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

    The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

    Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

    Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

    It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

    Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

    Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

    As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

    No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

    But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

    We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

    Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.”

    • Terry: You mean this part of the speech, right?
      “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.”

      It says nothing about the relationship between terror in general or in particular and the assassination of the ambassador. It would have been easier to create the impression that the link was implied or implicit though left unsaid if his rep to the UN had not been all over the news shows for a week repeating that the cause was a demonstration gone wrong. (She went to all five of the Sunday morning talk shows.)

      Perhaps we shouldn’t believe what the US Ambassador to the UN says repeatedly in the media. Or maybe you missed the part of the story where she keeps saying it was a protest with no mention of terror at all. The WSJ did not miss it. Neither did the New York Times, I believe. Did the protests from intelligence organizations get to your ears at all? Or is it all Zionist propaganda?

      I will take under advisement your suggestion of calling this blog “Facts Don’t Matter.” I wonder what it would do to circulation. Probably it would raise it because there are more liberals than conservatives.

  2. Terry Amburgey says:

    Sorry, you can tap dance around the truth like a flamenco dancer but he said what he said. I saw it at the time and replays since then. With my own eyes. I heard it. With my own ears. The transcript is above. The digital age is inconvenient for those in the teapublican echo chamber. Try to adapt.
    I know that it can be difficult for people our age to stay on topic but we’re talking about what HE said, not what SHE said. Please try to keep your mind from wandering

    • I listened to the Rose Garden speech. I heard the word “terrorism ‘ mentioned once. It did not refer to the assassination. It could have meant to refer to it. This sort of indirection is suspicious, at best.

      The fact that the White House spokesman, the UN rep, and the President himself for eleven days kept referring to a riot on the night of assassination that never took place at all makes no difference? Obviously, the riot is the alternative explanation to the real event, a planned terrorist attack. It took the president more than ten days to state simply that it was a terrorist attack, period.

      The digital age means that this is all over the news. Fox News had a reconstitution last night about the chain of events with cuts of the people I mentioned above, I mean their mouths, in their faces saying what I just said they said . Did Fox make it all up? Special effects?

      Hatred usually disturbs people’s perceptions. What is it about the Tea Party (not a party, by the way) that induces this blinding hatred in you? As far as I know, it’s a grassroots movement largely within he Republican Party that promotes smaller government. It’s directly in the lineage of the Founding Fathers. Do you hate them too? Am I missing something?

      Is it possible that your fury is triggered by the fact that you understand that it’s a grassroots movement and that you believe the word “grassroots” belongs exclusively to the Left?

      The Tea Party (not a- party) types are largely retired or otherwise senior citizens based on what I saw on television and also locally, in demonstrations in my town. Their weapon of choice is the folding aluminum garden chair, followed by the vote, of course.

      As happens too often with liberals, you are vague on basic facts. Flamenco dancers don’t “tap-dance.” Nevertheless, I will take the flamenco dancing imagery: I dance nimbly around heavy-footed libs.

  3. Terry Amburgey says:

    Perhaps you should watch again. Till then from above:
    “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.”

    I know it must’ve been painful to see Gov. Romney make an ass of himself in front of millions but you need to move on from denial to finish the grieving process.

    “As far as I know, it’s a grassroots movement largely within he Republican Party that promotes smaller government. It’s directly in the lineage of the Founding Fathers.”

    It’s a movement that promotes smaller government for Democratic administrations. It seems to have been conspicuously absent for years while the Bush adminstration created a massive new federal bureaucracy and put trillions of dollars for 2 wars on the federal credit card. How convenient.
    Given the number of signs with President Obama’s face on the body of an ape at teapublican rallies I’d say that the lineage also goes back to the kkk. Oh wait, putting a black man’s face on an ape couldn’t possibly be rascist could it? They’re really animal rights activists eh?

  4. Terry Amburgey says:

    Now that your factual misstatement about what ‘HE said’ has been debunked, I suppose you want to move on the what ‘SHE said’ Gee whiz, looks like she was accurately reporting what she’d been told that day by the CIA:
    Since Jacques is loath to follow links [my theory is that he’s afraid that they are trojan horses linking to progressive viruses] I’ll put in a few excerpts.
    Headline: “CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks.”
    “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
    “The Benghazi flap is the sort of situation that intelligence officers dread: when politicians are demanding hard “yes” or “no” answers but evidence is fragmentary and conflicting. The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there’s evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives. There’s no dispute, however, that it was “an act of terror,” as Obama described it the next day.”

    We know that teapublicans will never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory and a raconteur like Jacques certainly doesn’t let reality stand in the way of a good story. The problem is that instead of focusing on legitimate issues like the intelligence failure and consulate security [that might lead to improvements] these cockamamy theories for political gain lead nowhere.

    • Terry; Sometimes I don’t really know what you are saying. This is one such time.

      Sometimes I know what you are talking about and I just dismiss it because it seems quite mad. In a previous comment on the same post, you linked the Tea Party (not a party) to the KKK.

      The Klan is in my intellectual lineage?

      I don’t think so.

      NB: The KKK flourished for about sixty years in the southern states that were easily overwhelmingly dominated by the Democratic Party. We know for a fact of one member of Congress who had once belonged to the KKK. His party affiliation was _____?

  5. Terry Amburgey says:

    States’ Rights Democratic Party (aka the Dixiecrats). Now of course, rascists vote the Republican ticket. Unless you want to argue that the Democratic party (home to ‘bleeding-heart liberals’) provides a comfortable home to bigots. Do you? I know you are capable of some incredible mental contortions, but that seems challenging.

    I notice that your reply was devoid of any comment about Ambassador Rice being 100% truthful in accurately reporting what that day’s intelligence briefing had indicated. I suppose that’s a shock to someone used to the teapublican practice of just making shit up as they go along.

    • Dixiecrats? You are living in the remote past.

      Your question about who is racist is puerile. The historical facts speak for themselves. I don’t know for what party racists cast vote today. I don’t think much about it. I think racists are not a political force today ( and there are no monsters hiding under your bed). The anecdote that comes to my mind is of the black vendor who got beat up and called a “nigger” by white union gangsters at an Obama rally during the first campaign. Another anecdote is of two armed black fascists in military-style berets intimidating white voters ad a Philadelphia polling station. Only anecdotes, I know.
      I replied to all your requests for additional information on what the president and the president’s employees said in the aftermath of the assassination in Comments or in my update. If I missed something it was because I thought it was piddly. However, since you need more help, here is a simplified summary of the administration’s comments about the assassinations it failed to prevent, with a simplified timeline:

      The days after the assassination:

      X causes Y and we are not afraid of Z.

      Later: X and Z caused Y

      Later: Z and X caused Y

      Fourteen days after the assassinations:

      Z caused Y.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        “Dixiecrats? You are living in the remote past.”
        Me? I didn’t bring it up, you did. It’s understandable I guess, You wanted to tie bigots to Democrats which goes way back, unlike the current batch with the Republicans.
        “I think racists are not a political force today ( and there are no monsters hiding under your bed).”
        I wish that were true but combined with other Republican constituencies there is still political potency. The future is looking better though, as Republican Senator Graham pointed out it’s harder and harder coming up with enough angry white men.

      • The Obama administration took more than a week, two weeks, to admit publicly the obvious about the Benghazi assassinations. Note that I did not say that anyone lied. I wish I were sure they ha in fact lied.
        At any rate, the whole world knows and this is now a dead horse. Let the record show and let History remember (for two minutes maybe less) that I decline any opportunity to keep beating it.

  6. Terry Amburgey says:

    Interesting little blurb I just ran across
    “Tea Party Nation President: Only Allowing Property Owners To Vote “Makes A Lot Of Sense”

    Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips recently hosted a radio program where he declared that Americans who do not own property have less of a stake in the community and suggested, in the past, it made sense to deprive such citizens of the right to vote.”

    What’s next from you teapublicans, a proposal to reinstitute poll taxes?

    Oddly enough, in one sense I agree. I think the right to vote should only be given to those with a demonstrated commitment to society; demonstrated by a period of national service.

    • “Americans who do not own property have less of a stake in the community…”

      That’s obviously true. It’s not a sufficient reason to disenfranchise many. There are powerful reasons against the argument to disenfranchise on that basis.

      Stop treating the Tea Party as if it were a real political party. It’s not. I don’t even know who the so-called “president” is. No one else knows. I couldn’t care less.

      The military draft is obviously a form of slavery, state slavery. You are for it. Right!

  7. Terry Amburgey says:

    I know Jacques loves fill-in-the-blank questions so here’s two.

    “__________ is a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan an American activist and writer, and former _________ Louisiana State Representative. He was a candidate in the Democratic presidential primaries in 1988 and the Republican presidential primaries in 1992. ___________ has unsuccessfully run for the Louisiana State Senate, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and Governor of Louisiana.

    A former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan_________ describes himself as a racial realist, asserting that “all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage.”He is in strong opposition to what he asserts to be Jewish control of the Federal Reserve Bank, the federal government and the media. _________ supports stopping both legal and illegal Non-European immigration, preservation of what he labels Western culture and traditionalist Christian “family values”, strict Constitutionalism, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, voluntary racial segregation, ardent anti-communism and white separatism.”

    What is his name? What was his party affiliation as a Louisiana State Representative?

    • I know who you mean. I don’t remember his name. He has never had any influence except locally and that may have been when he was a Democrat.

      The member of Congress who had been a KKK member in this youth was Democratic Sen. Byrd. I don’t make much of it except when you tell me that the KKK is in my Republican intellectual lineage. I want to show to the young an inexperienced that this kind of insult is downright stupid.

      PS I remembered who you mean: David Duke. I should care because of which?

      1 In 1988, Duke ran initially in the Democratic presidential primaries. His campaign failed to make much of an impact, with the one notable exemption of winning the little-known New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary.

      2 IN 1992, he won in the Louisiana state Republican race against Georges Bush’s candidate by 225 votes.

  8. This is silly: The Tea Party is not a party. Its filiation is with the Founding Fathers, not the KKK. The home of the KKK was the Democratic Party for about six decades. I am just setting the record straight. The record does not mean that there is a connection today between virulent racism and the same Democratic Party.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s