• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh Believes Obama Lied about Syria

Hamster Buddha said:
Question: Do you believe that Seymour Hersh is is telling the truth about Obama not being honest with the American people? If so, what level of effect will this have on an already embattled president who has lost the trust of the majority of Americans? Or, will this blow over/not gain traction due in large part that we didn't attack Syria?

Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack
Click to expand...
First answer of mine is yes. Second answer is probably none, Obama has already proven to have weathered the Syria storm with only minor damage to his credibility and poll numbers. The real damage to him there has been recent and self inflicted.

Kobie said:
For starters, Newsweek hasn't been worth a bootful of warm piss in several years. It's been godawful since about 2005.

Secondly ... huh?

Woodward is a legend ... he's one of the guys who broke Watergate, for crying out loud. However, over the last 15 years or so, he's been little more than a toady who will kiss whoever's ass he has to in order to stay relevant. Then, of course, is the fact that he claimed that he received an email "threat" from the White House earlier this year, which turned out to be an absolute crock.
Click to expand...
That is a nice opinion and all but Woodward has written several well received and very journalistic studies on the last two presidencies and their administrations. He was not kissing their ass with his work which was critical of both and landed him in many public outlets (Face the Nation et al) where he was able to expand and go even deeper into his critisisms. Likewise, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the warning Woodward spoke of from the White House, which is similar to claims by many other reputable journalist and organizations, turned out to be an absolute crock? Jay Carney or someone with the same presidential press corp that never lets the POTUS know about anything in the news until right before press conferences where the POTUS gets questions about stories the rest of the press and public know about and have for weeks and sometimes months?

Lastly, Newsweek not only has been godawful since forever, but since earlier this year as a publication, it has been dead. Though it apparently plans a return to print.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/business/media/newsweek-plans-return-to-print.html?_r=0
 
Arthur Seward said:
First answer of mine is yes. Second answer is probably none, Obama has already proven to have weathered the Syria storm with only minor damage to his credibility and poll numbers. The real damage to him there has been recent and self inflicted.
Click to expand...

The issue with Syria and why he has "weathered it", was largely due to the fact that he didn't go in, not that he lied, which I think is two completely different subjects. One was a difference of opinion, and because he listened to Americans. it was live and let live. But the fact that he (may of) lied to coerce the nation towards military action, especially after what (many believe) Bush did in the lead up to the Iraq War, can be devastating. Think about it, this is one area Obama can claim the high ground in when it comes to foreign policy, I think if this got out, it can add to the growing narrative that Obama is a liar.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Question: Do you believe that Seymour Hersh is is telling the truth about Obama not being honest with the American people? If so, what level of effect will this have on an already embattled president who has lost the trust of the majority of Americans? Or, will this blow over/not gain traction due in large part that we didn't attack Syria?

Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack
Click to expand...

It probably is no big thing. I have seen no coverage of it on the news and the reason may very well be is we didn't bomb Syria. This is what the majority of Americans wanted, no bombing. With no bombing whether or not Obama manlipulated the intel, no one really cares except some political junkies on the right.
 
Perotista said:
It probably is no big thing. I have seen no coverage of it on the news and the reason may very well be is we didn't bomb Syria. This is what the majority of Americans wanted, no bombing. With no bombing whether or not Obama manlipulated the intel, no one really cares except some political junkies on the right.
Click to expand...

Why should it only be that the right would be concerned with a president (potentially) falsifying evidence in an attempt to get the country to do what he wanted? Shouldn't be a problem for everyone?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Why should it only be that the right would be concerned with a president (potentially) falsifying evidence in an attempt to get the country to do what he wanted? Shouldn't be a problem for everyone?
Click to expand...

I added political junkie in front of that. Most independents do not pay attention to what I would call inside politics. All they care about is that the bombs were never dropped. Now it is time to go back to the football game, some reality TV or whatever they are watching. How decisions are reached or is the president messed with the actual intel to achieve what he wanted becomes irrelevant.

Now if we had attacked Syria and later this came out, then this may grab some of their attention. Then only if something went wrong. You'll find very few independents on political sites like this or paying attention to the intricacies of the functioning of government. That is just the way it is. The right jump on this and the left will defend and all of this will fall on deaf ears of those in the middle or independents as they tune in to see who will become the next American Idol or if Kansas City beats Washington or something like that.
 
Perotista said:
I added political junkie in front of that. Most independents do not pay attention to what I would call inside politics. All they care about is that the bombs were never dropped. Now it is time to go back to the football game, some reality TV or whatever they are watching. How decisions are reached or is the president messed with the actual intel to achieve what he wanted becomes irrelevant.

Now if we had attacked Syria and later this came out, then this may grab some of their attention. Then only if something went wrong. You'll find very few independents on political sites like this or paying attention to the intricacies of the functioning of government. That is just the way it is. The right jump on this and the left will defend and all of this will fall on deaf ears of those in the middle or independents as they tune in to see who will become the next American Idol or if Kansas City beats Washington or something like that.
Click to expand...

I think it's sort of sad when a president could lie, and it just be considered background noise. Sad, but true.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I think it's sort of sad when a president could lie, and it just be considered background noise. Sad, but true.
Click to expand...

What is sad is the lack of awareness of the actually goings on in Washington or the real reasons behind something that happens. Most independents do not pay any attention to politics as a whole until a couple of weeks before an election. Then decisions are made more based on slogans or some thing that catches their fancy than any research into the candidates or for what they actually stand for. Now pocket book issues may come to the fore front so they then tend to vote for the party out of power in that case or some hot social issue may be on the new and that may drive their vote. The one thing they know is Washington is broken and it isn't working right, but who do they cast the blame on? that remains to be seen.
 
Perotista said:
The one thing they know is Washington is broken and it isn't working right, but who do they cast the blame on? that remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

I actually think at this point, they blame everyone. Heck, there are some polls out that that show in a race, the generic third party candidate out polls both the democrats and republicans. Problem being that there isn't someone out there that has the charisma, or the message to create a sort of coalition party that could capitalize on it. It's not impossible for a new party to rise to political prominence, problem is that our current system encourages people to just join one party or the other and reconcile their difference within.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I actually think at this point, they blame everyone. Heck, there are some polls out that that show in a race, the generic third party candidate out polls both the democrats and republicans. Problem being that there isn't someone out there that has the charisma, or the message to create a sort of coalition party that could capitalize on it. It's not impossible for a new party to rise to political prominence, problem is that our current system encourages people to just join one party or the other and reconcile their difference within.
Click to expand...

Third parties face huge obstacles. 1. Ballot access - our election laws are written by Republicans and Democrats as a mutual protection act. They have automatic ballot access whereas any third party has to earn its access. There are 50 different rules of what and how that can be accomplished along with 50 different dates that all of it must be completed. This takes time, energy, money, tons of lawyers and law suits just to get on the ballot. 2. Money - with the amount of money that flows into the coffers of the two major parties from corporations, wall street firms, special interests, lobbyist, etc are in the tens of millions if not hundreds of millions. These people do not give to third parties, no return for their bucks. You can be sure come 2016 the republican candidate will spend more than a billion dollars as will the democratic candidate. Most of that money comes from the people I just mentioned. Those folks do not want to add another party and will join the Republicans and Democrats in helping to avert another viable third party. 3. Presidential Debates - The league of women's voters use to sponsor them, but they made the mistake of allow Ross Perot in them. This got the two major party peeved, so they took the debates away from them and formed what they call the Bipartisan debate commission. In other words, no more third party candidates allowed in the presidential debates.

Now there is also organization that any third party has to start from scratch that is already in place for the two major parties. Yes, you are probably right about that poll. During Perot's time only 39% of the electorate said they would consider voting for a third party candidate. Today that number is up to 81%. So even if people are sick and tired of Republicans and Democrats, finding someone and getting him on the ballot and the money to run a credible campaign is an almost impossible job. To be successful, the people will have to be peeved a whole lot more than they are today.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
The issue with Syria and why he has "weathered it", was largely due to the fact that he didn't go in, not that he lied, which I think is two completely different subjects. One was a difference of opinion, and because he listened to Americans. it was live and let live. But the fact that he (may of) lied to coerce the nation towards military action, especially after what (many believe) Bush did in the lead up to the Iraq War, can be devastating. Think about it, this is one area Obama can claim the high ground in when it comes to foreign policy, I think if this got out, it can add to the growing narrative that Obama is a liar.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you if such got out as you say. Another thing that adds to the rightly growing narrative that Obama is comfortable lying is his rather foolish and cavalier attitude towards the press. Woodward is just one example on a lengthy list of journalist that Obama and his administration have gone after, the excuses have been specious and frequently contradictory, often abandoned by the administration once the heat has passed. Overall this administration has chosen to inadvertently "go to" an excuse pattern that renders them as either just abjectly dishonest and regular liars. Or just routinely incompetent boobs who are not lying but just don't genuinely have a bead on, well pretty much any issue under scrutiny. Whomever came up with that plan, if someone came up with that plan, should now advise to move on from it. At this point I think it is too late for the administration to ever recover on the honesty and credibility issue. In a recent Obama interview he mentioned that there is (poll wise) no place left to go (from the current numbers) but up. This is actually not true, there is still lots of down that can be achieved in that arena. As you say, anything else new scandals issues or revelations of truth massaging can certainly contribute to a further drop in the public's trust with this president. If you think Obama has grey hair now, wait until this second term finally gets to its end. :shock:
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Question: Do you believe that Seymour Hersh is is telling the truth about Obama not being honest with the American people? If so, what level of effect will this have on an already embattled president who has lost the trust of the majority of Americans? Or, will this blow over/not gain traction due in large part that we didn't attack Syria?

Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack
Click to expand...

At this point, I don't think his supporters really care if he's lying to them or not.
 
Arthur Seward said:
First answer of mine is yes. Second answer is probably none, Obama has already proven to have weathered the Syria storm with only minor damage to his credibility and poll numbers. The real damage to him there has been recent and self inflicted.


That is a nice opinion and all but Woodward has written several well received and very journalistic studies on the last two presidencies and their administrations. He was not kissing their ass with his work which was critical of both and landed him in many public outlets (Face the Nation et al) where he was able to expand and go even deeper into his critisisms. Likewise, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the warning Woodward spoke of from the White House, which is similar to claims by many other reputable journalist and organizations, turned out to be an absolute crock? Jay Carney or someone with the same presidential press corp that never lets the POTUS know about anything in the news until right before press conferences where the POTUS gets questions about stories the rest of the press and public know about and have for weeks and sometimes months?

Lastly, Newsweek not only has been godawful since forever, but since earlier this year as a publication, it has been dead. Though it apparently plans a return to print.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/business/media/newsweek-plans-return-to-print.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Woodward never clamied he was threatened, it was the unmasking of the sequestor was Obama's negotiating idea
though that definately got the WH upset:
The official wrote, “I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today.”
*He went on to say, “I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall,” meaning, presumably, President Obama’s now widely disproven statement that the sequester was the idea of Congress.
*He wrote that “you [Woodward] focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.” When asked what “trees” referred to, Woodward quipped, “The facts, I guess.”
*He wrote that Woodward would “regret” staking his claim about the goal posts.
Click to expand...

Woodward on White House media policy: ‘Not sound and mature’

lots of details
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Question: Do you believe that Seymour Hersh is is telling the truth about Obama not being honest with the American people? If so, what level of effect will this have on an already embattled president who has lost the trust of the majority of Americans? Or, will this blow over/not gain traction due in large part that we didn't attack Syria?

Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack
Click to expand...

Of course he lied, there was plenty of evidence that the terrorists fighting president Assad committed the act and there was no logic whatsoever for president Assad to have done it. But lie to the American people is what American presidents do!
 
annata said:
Woodward never clamied he was threatened, it was the unmasking of the sequestor was Obama's negotiating idea
though that definately got the WH upset:


Woodward on White House media policy: ‘Not sound and mature’

lots of details
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'm actually very familiar with the story and was watching the Wolf Blitzer interview with Woodward when it aired. Which is why I was amused at Kobie's claim it was all supposed to be an absolute crock, which is why I asked according to who? Jay Carney? :lamo

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: You're used to this kind of stuff, but share with our viewers what's going on between you and the White House.

BOB WOODWARD: Well, they're not happy at all and some people kind of, you know, said, look, 'we don't see eye to eye on this.' They never really said, though, afterwards, they've said that this is factually wrong, and they -- and it was said to me in an e-mail by a top --

BLITZER: What was said?

WOODWARD: It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this.

BLITZER: Who sent that e-mail to you?

WOODWARD: Well, I'm not going to say.

BLITZER: Was it a senior person at the White House?

WOODWARD: A very senior person. And just as a matter -- I mean, it makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, 'you're going to regret doing something that you believe in, and even though we don't look at it that way, you do look at it that way.' I think if Barack Obama knew that was part of the communication's strategy, let's hope it's not a strategy, that it's a tactic that somebody's employed, and said, 'Look, we don't go around trying to say to reporters, if you, in an honest way, present something we don't like, that, you know, you're going to regret this.' It's Mickey Mouse. (The Situation Room, February 27, 2013)
Woodward: White House Warned Me "You Will Regret Doing This" | RealClearPolitics

But then according to Kobie Woodward's book on the Bush administration was supposed to be a "blow job" or fellatio. cpwill did a pretty good job of addressing that claim before, but I'll add that if that book was supposed to be fellatio it would be the kind that comes with unwanted teeth in play. :crazy3:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom